I Need Your Opinions

[bodo]

Hi everybody,

I'm currently involved in a little debate on this website.  www.guerrillanews.com
The debate is regarding Sean McCarthy and Richard Walshe's claims to have created a free energy device in Dublin.
I need your help regarding a statement somebody made in regard to the claim:

"If the law of conservation of energy is wrong, it?s incumbent on those making the claim to publish a mathematical proof or experimental evidence for peer review and examination.
There has not been a single claim of free energy that has withstood that requirement"

My actual blog entry can be found here:
http://bodo.gnn.tv/blogs/17997/The_Scientists_Who_Claim_They_Can_Create_Free_Energy

My belief is that it is crucial not to disregard the Dublin claim simply because it is in opposition to conventional scientific establishment dogma.  However, i am no physicist or engineer, and so i need your expertise on this matter. 

His statement that "There has not been a single claim of free energy that has withstood that requirement" is what i have the most contention with, due to my knowledge of how the system of suppression operates.  However, i am not aware of any specific case examples (i have read on it in the past and found examples, but i can't locate that literature), and my searches have run dry.


Any Takers??? 

[Jdo300]

Hi bodo,

I don?t know anything about the specific device you are talking about but I can say this one thing. You will only rub fur the wrong way if you use the term "Free Energy" to mean that you are creating energy from nothing, or that you are extracting energy from a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems. So when I use the term "Free Energy", I don't mean that I am creating or destroying energy, I am simply using my device to tap into an energy source, making my device an open system, not a perpetual motion machine. However, when you go that route, you need to have some explanation of where you are getting your energy from (or at least some sort of theory). Then once you have a theory, you can propose a set of experiments to prove or disprove what you are talking about. But ultimately, the proof is in the pudding.

God Bless,
Jason O

[dingbat]

give them time to show the device.
they say they want 12 people to examine the device.  lets see if they allow this to happen, and what happens when they do.

[PaulLowrance]

Hello Jason and all,

I agree with Jason. The term "Free Energy" is so badly tainted no that personally I don't like to use it. Perhaps a better term is unlimited energy. Of course that's relatively speaking as our own Sun will even burn out one day.

IMHO claiming to create energy from nothing is really a bad idea because you'll pretty much have the science community against you. I know people who will immediately stop reading a post or document upon seeing the words "free energy."

Is sounds like the people bobo is up against are old conventional scientists. Most of the leading edge _intelligent_ scientist_ won't make much fuss over the concept of free energy. Consider what the leading edge M-theorists are working on. A well-known TV science show by BBC called "Parallel Universes" interviewed Alan Guth on M-theory. Quote from Alan Guth:

"I in fact have worked with several other people for some period of time on the question of whether or not it's in principle possible to create a new universe in the laboratory. Whether or not it really works we don't know for sure. It looks like it probably would work. It's actually safe to create a universe in your basement. It would not displace the universe around it even though it would grow tremendously. It would actually create its own space as it grows and in fact in a very short fraction of a second it would splice itself off completely from our Universe and evolve as an isolated closed universe growing to cosmic proportions without displacing any of the territory that we currently lay claim to."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml

Obviously they do not have the energy of an entire universe at their disposal. Therefore, when they claim the possibility of creating an entire universe they are claiming to create energy from nothing. That's the way M-theory works. You could think of it like a computer program. Each universe has a set of programmed laws. In this universe they believe the electric and magnetic forces dominate.

M-theory is leading edge science. So personally I wouldn?t waist my time with closed minded conventional scientists. Quantum Physics has even surpassed just about any spiritual philosophies in the weirdness factor. :-)  Look into MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) of Quantum Physics. Most scientists including Stephen Hawking are followers of MWI ->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many_worlds_interpretation

Kind regards,
Paul Lowrance

[bodo]

Well, thanks for the replies guys.  I understand now that the term 'free energy' is a contentious one.  But all definitional parameters aside, assuming that by free energy we mean it in the broadest sense of the word, minus the technicality and stigmatic association, are you telling me that "There has not been a single claim of free energy that has withstood that requirement" is a completely accurate statement? 

-bodo