ZERO INPUT, 10 degrees thermal output...Yes,...genuine free energy

[CycleGuy]

You've compounded conceptual error upon conceptual error in building your hobby theory, Mr. Wheeler. In fact, you've compounded the conceptual errors of Circlon Theory's "neutron as proton and electron 'egg'" sans the electron with your compounded conceptual errors... and as you go, it becomes more and more apparent that you are thoroughly confused.

From your book:
From Circlon Theory:
From your book:
Wow... where to start with this one... objects in motion are denoted to have 'inertia'... but then, so are objects at rest. What an object at rest does not have is momentum, which is a means of measuring that object's motion.

The opposite of "rest" is not "inertia", as an object has inertia whether it is at rest or it is moving (inertia being defined as the tendency to resist changes in an object's state of motion, even if that 'state of motion' is the state of being at rest)... the opposite of "rest" is "motion", quantified via "momentum"... one would think this would be obvious.

Inertia doesn't really have an inverse, it's not a transferable property... when you push on an object, you don't impart any inertia to it nor receive any inertia from it. The only time an object's inertia changes is when the mass of that object changes, for massive objects.

For massless entities, given that energy and momentum are proportional under the General Relativity rule (laid out in equation form below), the only time a massless entity's inertia changes is when the frequency of that entity changes or the direction of that entity changes... the energy-momentum equivalency for massless entities is the reason black holes were predicted to exist before we actually empirically observed any, why gravity can bend light (gravitational lensing), and why light under the influence of gravity changes frequency (blue-shifts as it goes down the slope of a gravity well, red-shifts at it climbs out of that gravity well).

You'll note that the expansion of the universe amounts to the "smoothing out" of the space-time fabric... imagine it as a series of wrinkles in a fabric over which a photon is traveling... as a photon travels down a gravitational well, it gains energy and blue-shifts... during the time it's in that gravity well, the universe has expanded and that gravity well has been "smoothed out" a bit, thus the climb back out of that gravity well isn't as steep as was the entry, so the photon loses less energy climbing back out of the gravity well than it received going in and thus red-shifts less than it blue-shifted. This occurs also for the gravitational "hills" in the wrinkled fabric of space, in the opposite manner... it takes more energy getting up the hill than the photon receives coming back down it... this contributes to the anisotropy of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, causing the CMB to appear uneven. It's known as the Sachs-Wolfe Effect.

Einstein laid out the mass-energy equivalency concept via E=mc², but that's incomplete. It doesn't take into account massless entities. It's only valid for massive objects. In 1905 Einstein derived an equation that works in all situations:
E²=P²c²+m²c⁴.

He also figured out that the energy of a photon isn't governed by its mass or its velocity (like matter), but instead is governed entirely by f, it's frequency: E=hf, where h is Planck's constant.

For light, m=0, so E=Pc (energy and momentum are proportional). Notice that massless entities can never have zero momentum, since something with zero mass and zero energy isn't something, it's nothing. This is just another way of saying that light can never be stationary. It's also a way of saying that everything (massive or massless) has frequency.

In the case of an object with mass m, that isn't moving (P=0), you then get E=mc².

Given that Mr. Wheeler states that there is no mass-energy equivalency in his book by comparing an atomic explosion to the unwinding of clock springs, Mr. Wheeler probably also denies that when TNT explodes, there is a quantifiable loss of mass converted to energy (other than the energy released via the chemical reaction), to the tune of approximately 0.47e^-10 kg per original kg of TNT, which is able to be stated thusly:

"In all interactions, there is a loss of mass, equal to 1/c² times the amount of energy released."

Note that the statement above says all interactions... we were able to figure out the mass-energy equivalency via nuclear reactions first, because they yield the highest change in mass per interaction, but the same holds true for any process which releases energy. It's just that for non-nuclear interactions, the mass-energy equivalency is so low as to be practically immeasurable.

In Mr. Wheeler's universe, radiation (energy sans matter) could not exist... as this is the byproduct of nuclear reaction... but then, I'm guessing neither Mr. Wheeler nor the proponents of Circlon Theory have stopped to ponder just what radiation really is.

Nor did they stop to consider that even a chemical explosion results in an EMP... a "blast" of energy in the form of magnetic flux. It's how flux compression generator bombs (FCGs) work, a technology that's been known since the 1950s. If no mass is converted to energy, where did the EMP come from, given that according to Wheeler and Circlon Theory, all the matter remains intact? Remember, it's a chemical explosion, there are no nuclear changes in binding energy, thereby removing nuclear binding energy as a potential source of the EMP.

According to Mr. Wheeler, since in his universe there is no mass-energy equivalency, there can therefore be no unstable elements that transmute (fission) in attempting to reach their lowest energy state (said unstably high energy states forced upon those elements by the highly energetic conditions of an exploding supernova transmuting those elements from iron by adding energy to them that was converted to mass via nuclear reaction)... therefore there can be no transmutation, no fission, no fusion, the Periodic Table must be a fantasy land of made-up elements, particle accelerators must be a big lie, nuclear reactors must be powered by pixie dust, and Soddy and Rutherford were just hallucinating. 

The above absolutely refutes your "All force (energy) is the loss of inertia. There is no energy without the loss of inertia." contention, Mr. Wheeler. Do keep in mind you'll not be contesting my words, you're contesting reality. Thus, my qualifications and experience matter little. What matters is that you and your hobby theory are diametrically opposed to reality, your hobby theory's tenets can be proven to result in a universe that could not exist, and thus, the onus is upon you to provide proof of your contentions... and proof does not consist of your profanity, referring to your own fallacious reasoning, or ticking off your "accomplishments" in a desperate attempt at appealing to authority, while attempting to set yourself up as that authority... you are not. You are merely a guy with a hobby theory that stands in stark contrast to reality, clownishly proving that you don't have the chops to back your theory up.

Now, Mr. Wheeler, before you begin your usual foot-stomping displays of vitriol, I suggest you address the numerous concerns as regards your testing protocols, and come clean as to the conditions of your demonstration, as well as listening to those who have superior knowledge in areas you so obviously are found wanting... and they are numerous.

I believe I've uncovered the source of Mr. Wheeler's confusion as regards inertia vs. momentum. It comes about from a misreading of:
http://kathodos.com/ether.pdf
The Ether And Its Vortices
By Carl Frederick Krafft

An ether which is capable of moving would necessarily have inertia because inertia, although usually referred to as a property of matter, is primarily a property of motion. Inertia means nothing more than continuity of motion, and all motion necessarily has continuity as long as the motion continues. If the motion is rotation or movement in a closed circuit as in the case of vortex motion, then the inertia will be localized, and localized inertia is is just another name for momentum.

He's talking about the moment of inertia. The amount of torque needed for any given rate of change in angular momentum is proportional to the moment of inertia. Note that I wrote "proportional to", not "synonymous with". Krafft confused angular momentum and moment of inertia way back in 1955, and we finally get to rectify that misconception 60 years later, much to Mr. Wheelers chagrin.