Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Art, sorry you're not well.  And sorry you're having trouble with your pc.  And I do hope that it's not all because of the unduly sensitive nature of the discussion here.  I'll also try and get back here later on today.  Right now things pragmatic are intruding all over the place.  We're in the process of rebuilding our fish pond so that it can take Koi.  Quite exciting.  But the dirt and rubble and rain and God knows what else - is making even this little task somewhat fraught. 

Regards,
Rosemary

ABJECT APOLOGIES.  I had to delete a huge part of that post.  Forgot what thread I was on.  Sorry.   

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Mark - to get back to your point that 2 atoms do not have more energy than 1.  Picture this.  One has a pile of atoms - let's say iron - that are all disassociated - in a puddle - if that were possible.  Then.  The only way to get those atoms to 'join' up in an indentifiable lump - would be to add energy.  And what we use - everywhere - is heat.  When we add heat we actually promote the bonding of that material.  Yet we do NOTHING to change the actual atom itself.  So.  From a disassociated state to a bound state - unquestionably required energy.  Now.  Let's say we want to return that amalgam to a discontinuous or 'broken' state.  We'd need to file it and sieve it and grind it and sieve it and on and on.  Until we get it into that disassociated powder form.  What we've done here is again added more energy - this time in the form of pressure.  So we applied energy - first to bind it and then again applied energy - this time to unbind it.  And in neither instance did we alter any single atom in that mix.  We simply changed its bound state. 

If we imagine a fire burning down a grass hut - we're also left with the basic atoms that first made up the structure of the grass.  Some of those atoms may have stayed as molecules - others may have become molecular as they combined in that heated atmosphere - others may have simply drifted off with the wind.  But the residue - all that carbon - is the unbound state of those atoms that were first held bound inside that grass.  These and stray gasses that may have been in the grass - and sundry bits of iron or metals - or even oxygen - ALL.  Their atoms are essentially as they were prior to them being bound into that grass then then subsequently bound together into the structure of the hut.  Energy from the fire is NOT enough to alter the atom itself - except perhaps to assemble the odd molecule - here and there.  The atom is essentially fire proof.  And it survives the fire.  What does not survive is the bound state.

Now.  Imagine, as proposed that all those atoms are actually joined by one dimensional fields of orbiting dipoles.  And let's give these particles a property.  They are small and fast and invisible.  But - if their orbits are interrupted - then they unravel and become proportionately big and slow and visible.  Let's say, for the purpose of this argument that they're the 'spark' that we see that grows into a 'flame'.  Then let's change the picture - just marginally.

We've now got wood underneath a ceramic pot which, in turn, has iron filings in its base.  So.  We start the fire by breaking the symmetries in the sticks.  This releases flames as the bound condition of the atoms get compromised and these fields unravel.  The stick gets burned.  Then the flame reaches the pot.  The flame is big but its parts are as small or smaller than atoms.  They interact with those fields that are holding the ceramic material together and systematically move through the material of the pot.  But they can't settle there because the the material in the pot is strong enough to resist the heat that's available from the burning stick.  No place to settle - so to speak.  But eventually the flame - or the heat - reaches into the iron filings.  Here nothing can resist their efforts becuase nothing is 'bound' - or it's so loosely bound as to not count.  So What these little fields are looking for is somewhere to settle.  An atomic abode.  It finds it in the filings.  Then it systematically starts joining all those atoms together in a very exact and profound way.  Until all the fields from the stick have unravelled and no more of these fields are being transferred through space.  Then that hot liquid cools down.  The fields again become small and fast and invisible.  And what's left is the bound condition of atoms that were previously unbound.  And the amount of energy transferred?  It relates precisely to the mass of the material that these fields have now formed into a 'bound' amalgam. 

And what we're left with is the unbound condition of the sticks - now ash - having forfeited or transferred it's bound condition to those filings.  And that way we get a  perfect equivalence in the transfer of energy.  But using this argument one can then give a material property to that energy.  It's here proposed to be one dimensional fields of little dipoles - that enjoy two states.  The one is fast and small and invisible - in direct proportion to the other which is slow and big and visible. 

I know it offends everything that every mainstream scientist knows about 'fire' - but it's certainly a more logical explanation.  And I also think it makes much better sense.  It's just that it's way too SIMPLE to be readily accepted by a school of thinkers who delight in complication.  LOL.

Regards,
Rosemary

[BobTEW]

Great thread!  I will put my two bits in. "They" forgot too include repel in their equations.  Bring four iron rods to the table, two of them magnets. Take note of the two iron rods have no attraction or repel force of note. Flat line of power. Bring in one magnet and one rod, attraction- a new force 90 degree differents. Now for two magnets have both attraction and repelling forces 90 degrees out. Here is a picture of a electromagnetic field scan.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Great thread!  I will put my two bits in. "They" forgot too include repel in their equations.  Bring four iron rods to the table, two of them magnets. Take note of the two iron rods have no attraction or repel force of note. Flat line of power. Bring in one magnet and one rod, attraction- a new force 90 degree differents. Now for two magnets have both attraction and repelling forces 90 degrees out. Here is a picture of a electromagnetic field scan.

Hello BobTEW.  That's an amazing picture.  Thanks for that and for your contribution.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[pauldude000]

I believe, subject to better data, that Mass IS energy, in a standing wave pattern.  That is WHY frequency is important.  If the "Standing Wave" is not standing, there is NO MASS, but the existence is the same.  (Getting too deep?)  This def allows full unification of certain field equations and accounts for static fields in the three basic forms we experience as gravitational, magnetic, and electric.  (NOT referencing the electron.  This is where a LOT of confusion has been programmed in.)  Using this as a possible base, ALL mass has the same base energy form as the fields, therefore ...   I'm sure I need not go on, as this is not new info.  I know of a few quantum people that reference this to verify QED.  It's simpler than it sounds, but interactions are not always as predicted as far as "electrical" flows because of those same "Confusions".  (I can't say this correctly.  Sorry.)  So, if you wish to describe "Dark Matter" you could, I suppose, use the original name, aether, in an unmodulated state, relative to the observer's dimension.  At that point, I get very lost with language as I am not quite up to the task of fully grasping how that works, so explaining it would be a gross approximation.  I can think it internally, but have not yet the words to apply.  The brain is useless on this one....   I have always thought it interesting that as the aether concept goes in and out of vogue, as it were, they seem to find a new way to describe it so they can call the information a "Discovery"....

I wouldn't attempt to try to prove any of this, as the consequences would be more drastic than I would want to be responsible for.  Really.  It is nice to talk about it though, at least once in a while.  Makes certain "Unproven" devices easily explainable.  (But not always the way they are described by the designer...)  If only I could think of "New" things, instead of being an assembler of others individual ideas....

An "assembler of others individual ideas"..... ?

Loner, truthfully... I include myself in the following statement when I say, "If even half of the people here had one quarter of your knowledge, life experiences, and ability then potentially speaking they would gain by a factor of at least two."

I can remember a time in my own life when I thought I had a unshakable handle upon reality. I then woke up.

You are again right as rain. Conceptions come and go. Are stated at one point in time as inviolable law, then later given exceptions. 

Using the simplified "at rest" version of the equation: E=mC^2 denotes the mass energy equivalency, yet it is not a mere equivalency. Einstein married electromagnetic phenomena with the use of the constant for the speed of light in a vacuum with mass, itself a measurement aspect designated only towards matter. Yet the true brilliance of the equation was not in the formulation of the equation, but in the stated base meaning, that matter itself IS energy.

Let us tie together some logical notions. String theory... Matter is energy therefore should have similar properties to those packets which are considered "pure" energy, such as the photon. Have a base "frequency" or modulation of energy. Etc., Etc., Etc.,

Correspondingly other supposed "pure energy" packets should demonstrate aspects of matter. Like the photon demonstrating supposed "virtual" or "effective" mass. (It is neither "virtual" nor "effective", it is quite real and should have been expected logically. It merley combined the concept of the four states of matter, and takes it a bit further to "Energy".... and VICE-VERSA.)

I could go down this logical interstate for hours, investigating the sights.

What is interesting is that, as you said Loner, it quite accurately reflects demonstrable reality. The DATA backs up this view, if the popular acceptance of the notion is unpopular.

I also know the Einstein was no dummy. He knew full well the implications of the equation, as well as the blatant statement it placed before all. Makes a person ponder what personal notions he dared not put before the community, lest they turn and rend even him.

Paul Andrulis