My question for detractors of overunity

[PolyMatrix]

So WORK is basically movement, and Ã,‘energyÃ,’ is the amount of detectable movement that occurs when compared with another moving thing, which we use to calculate time.

I am told the universe is expanding so it is doing work as it is moving.

Energies can change names like mechanical into heat, potential into kinetic, light into chemical and so on.

So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um Ã,‘free energyÃ,’?

What the experimenters of this site are trying to do is find a device or method that acts similar to the way a transistor works, where a small amount of current acts like a switch and lets a large amount of current flow. However in this case we want to convert the energy that makes the universe move to humanities benefit.

[Bessler007]

PolyMatrix,

Your points are ones of semantics.

• So why can we not consider using the energy that is making the universe expand and change the name of that energy into um ?free energy??

I wouldn't matter what you'd want to call the energy in the expansion. How do you propose to make use of it?  If you have no idea then you might as well use solar panels.  We at least know how to use that energy.

If you're transistor analogy means to tweak the base while the transistor is biased by the power stretching out the universe I'd have to see the wiring diagram.  What do you have in mind?

Bessler007
mib HQ

[PolyMatrix]

(I am the first to admit I know very little and think the brain just creates theories to understand the environment it is in)

"Semantics" a nice repost but effectively just the same as saying that light energy is turned into chemical energy is 'semantics'. Are we truly in a position to say we have understanding of all the ways one moving thing transfers its movement to another moving thing. We use 'semantics' to describe experiments and how we think things work.

There are clues in many experiments to indicate that 'something' is impacting its movement on the material within these experiments and seemingly make it appear that there is more measurable movement coming out than went in, especially when it comes to experiments that involve vibrations and/or pulse movements.

If we are to be scientific about this, repeatable experiments with repeatable results and observations should be the standard way of accepting that this is the way our environment works no matter what great theories have been proposed previously.

If something comes along to disrupt the accepted viewpoint which path is wiser?Ã,  1) To encourage investigation with help, OR, 2) To call it a hoax, a lie and then persecute the experimenter and theory maker of an alternate view? Although there is always that odd thought that the last words yet to be recorded on a dying planet is 'oops'!

The transistor analogy is my first attempt at using an already acceptable concept to help the awful, for the 'normal' scientific minds, take a curious look at 'free energy' dispite its semantic implications.

Solar panels, excuse my stupidity, but I better cut down the trees blocking the sunlight from my roof. That apple tree of my neighbour is also blocking the light!

>'What do you have in mind?'
Clearly not a lot! Just transferring chemical energy(fingers) to mechanical (Keyboard) and allowing electrical current to flow across the world. See! I am mad, and will insist on helping the earth to die by using a computer!

[Bessler007]

. . .
There are clues in many experiments to indicate that 'something' is impacting its movement on the material within these experiments and seemingly make it appear that there is more measurable movement coming out than went in, especially when it comes to experiments that involve vibrations and/or pulse movements.

If we are to be scientific about this, repeatable experiments with repeatable results and observations should be the standard way of accepting that this is the way our environment works no matter what great theories have been proposed previously.
. . .



Then be scientific and build it.

Bessler007

[Bessler007]

I might add this idea of how you could solve your energy problems:

• Solar panels, excuse my stupidity, but I better cut down the trees blocking the sunlight from my roof. That apple tree of my neighbour is also blocking the light!

has little to do with a skeptics view of overunity.  That point's classified as a personal problem.  In this case your request to have your stupidity excused is denied.  You were asking weren't you?

Bessler007