The Problem With Free Energy Ideas

[Eighthman]

I really, really want free energy to exist but I'm afraid there is a major problem with the idea:

If free energy/zero point energy exists, why do we exist at all?  If nature easily allowed for any net gain in energy here or there,  everything everywhere would glow like the surface of the sun. The law of the conservation of energy allows us to exist.

So, since we're here and often bothered with heating our living spaces - rather than fending off fierce incandescence - then zero point stuff must be a very tiny phenomenon like quantum fluctuations that end up with an extra electron or something.

The only other possible exception must involve something unusual ,that nature has great difficulty doing or sustaining , such that everything doesn't explode into a fireball.  Go figure.

[raptor731]

Eighthman, let me try to answer your question. 

Science (the study of the observable universe) has indeed found that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies everywhere. Things tend towards disorder. Light energy is used up by motion and redshifted. Atoms create molecules only if together they can use less energy than alone. Everything is fine-tuned to run at maximum efficiency.

Everywhere we observe a loss of energy...BUT!

If we can locally disturb the natural order of the universe, we may be able to get it to do useful work for us. This can only be possible by transferring energy from a domain not recognized by mainstream science, into our observable world today.

Ask yourself, why are atoms seemingly eternal? Shouldn't they run out of energy? They constantly vibrate, why? Isn't an atom already a miniature overunity machine? An atom, continuously vibrating, should be an alarming concept to science....

Here's where I'm leading: I'm inclined to believe that spacetime is made up of an aetheric substance. In my theory, particles like electrons and protons are only geometrical wave-structures that exist in it, only sustained by many resonant incoming waves. So an electron would disintegrate and travel away as a 511 KeV gamma ray unless it was resonating to incoming waves of a particular frequency.

If we can somehow create a condition where we can use these incoming waves (most of which freely pass through matter like neutrinos), we have created a "free energy" device. But no we haven't. Traveling waves in aether + observable energy in universe = CONSTANT. So we are merely performing a transfer of energy, and nothing is created or destroyed.

Taking advantage of the fact that an electrostatic field will supply as much energy as you know how to get out of it is one application of this. Hope this stuff made sense. 

[nightlife]

Free energy? There is no such thing, just as there is so such thing as a substance. A substance is thought of as a solid but yet there is nothing solid. Everything is energy and energy is anything. Energy is vibrant and the vibrance is what energy is.
It takes work to create and therefore energy created is never free and that makes it impossible to find and or discover free energy.

Our greed wants, which changes our preception of what we need. We need nothing more then the necessities needed to survive which is nothing more then food, water and shelter from the elements.
Our greed to want for what we do not need has put us in the position we are now in. Big money thrives off our desire to want things we do not need. Today they make laws that require us to have and do certain things just so we can feel like we have some sort of freedom. We have no one to blame for this but ourselves.

If I was to provide you with a design that would create all the energy you want without costing you anymore then what the materials cost to build it, what would you do with it? Would it give you more freedom? Think real hard about that before you answer.

Here is some more food for thought. What do you think big money would do if we were to create something they charge us for and or takes their control away? They have already put themselves in postion that they can use to do away with all they don't like and or want around. The only reason they have not done this yet is because they thrive off our ignorance and that makes them feel more superior. If we take away their superiority, they will have no need for us which will then, most likely, put them in a position to do away with the majority so they can still have the control their greed desires.

[sandor]

Yes, Carl Sagan said that in science, one must abandon one's dearest illusions in the wake of facts. It would be nice if we had a benefactor (god) protecting us from oblivion as well. But there are no facts to support that hypothesis either. But as far as the second law of thermodynamics goes, you may not think so badly of entropy if you learn its other name. Information. Entropy and information are the same thing. Now it doesn't seem so bad that it's never destroyed, does it? My understanding of this is vastly incomplete, however. Supposedly scientists claim that the rules of quantum physics say that information is never destroyed, that the future cannot be predicted, and that the laws do not suggest an arrow of time, e.g. they work just as well in the forward direction as back, and these 3 things together do not make any sense to me. If information can't be destroyed then the past can be reconstructed, and if the laws are the same in the reverse direction of time as in the forward direction and the past can be reconstructed, then the future can be predicted. So don't ask me. Ask someone who claims to know something about quantum mechanics.

The first law of thermodynamics, unfortunately, I understand has actually been proved mathematically, given that the constants of nature can't be made to change. The charge of an electron, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, the mass of a proton, planck's constant, the Boltzmann constant, etcetera, in other words. And if you COULD violate it, the resulting shape of spacetime as described by the general theory of relativity would actually not make any sense. You'd actually be left with equations like 0=1 in your mathematical description of spacetime, as the shape of spacetime would be constrained to something like the art of MC Escher. So it's not just precluded, it's actually a non-sequitur. But then again, the equations of general relativity as they are known could merely be a special case of more general equations, given maybe that a certain parameter is assumed to be 0, and the actual nature of spacetime does not require that parameter to actually be 0, and maybe some places in the universe exist where that parameter is not 0, and at those places, the behavior described by the general theory of relativity do not describe physical reality any more precisely than does Newtonian physics. And if anyone should discover such a region of spacetime where the general theory of relativity does not apply, the theory would need to be modified, and that is what science is all about.

The only way left is the possibility of creating negative mass. That would solve everything. You see, if you could generate positive and negative mass, that would not violate the first or second laws. The net amount of mass in the universe would not change, and it would increase the amount of available work in the universe AND increase the entropy. Increasing entropy/information only goes hand in hand with decreasing available work under the assumption that all mass is positive. Isn't that weird? But the really odd thing is that there would be nothing to hold up the 2nd law of thermodynamics if there were negative matter. Its interactions with positive matter could involve things like a brick of hot negative matter and a brick of hot positive matter colliding, passing though each other, and resulting in two fast-moving cold bricks. Some other interesting things you might look up are non-orientable wormholes, which would destroy the law of conservation of charge as we know it, and make this universe into something called an Alice universe.

[exnihiloest]

I really, really want free energy to exist but I'm afraid there is a major problem with the idea:

If free energy/zero point energy exists, why do we exist at all?  If nature easily allowed for any net gain in energy here or there,  everything everywhere would glow like the surface of the sun.
...

Not false.
The universe is governed according to the principle of least action. Events and actions tend to minimize the energetic configuration of the world. Therefore gurus blabs like Bearden's on ZPE (minimal energetic state of vacuum) will not be enough for discovering the trick, they are even counterproductive. The only possible way is to find a hidden energetic source higher than the environment and to exploit the differential.