Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Does free energy exist?

  1. #1 Does free energy exist? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7
    I know it defies the laws of physics but could it be possible that free energy exists?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by GadgetMan987 View Post
    I know it defies the laws of physics but could it be possible that free energy exists?
    The highlighted portion pretty much answers your question.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by GadgetMan987 View Post
    I know it defies the laws of physics but could it be possible that free energy exists?
    The highlighted portion pretty much answers your question.
    How do you explain Tesla and his inventions? Also, think about all the money energy companies and governments make so it'd be in their best interests to suppress this technology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    I'd explain that as conspiracy theory tinged crackpottery...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by GadgetMan987 View Post
    I know it defies the laws of physics but could it be possible that free energy exists?
    Move to Trash?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by GadgetMan987 View Post
    How do you explain Tesla and his inventions?
    You're going to have to be slightly more specific with regard to "Tesla and his inventions".
    Do you mean the ones that actually worked and that we've got working, the ones he made unsubstantiated claims about or the ones he outright lied about (and scammed numerous people over)?

    Also, think about all the money energy companies and governments make so it'd be in their best interests to suppress this technology.
    You're so right!
    Because no business worth its salt could ever find a way to make money from energy that they get for free could they?
    I always find it utterly fascinating that people manage to ascribe sufficient intelligence to large companies/governments to credit them with managing to track down and suppress certain inventions, while at the same time denying them credit for the intelligence to work out how to make money out of those inventions.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Here is a very interesting read on the subject
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by GadgetMan987 View Post
    I know it defies the laws of physics but could it be possible that free energy exists?

    hmm regardless of the attacks I foresee resulting from this statement. You can alter your statement to say this...

    "I know it defines the laws of physics, free energy."

    When you examine and study quantum physics in great depth, you can begin to see that the state, or position, of observation affects, or even controls the reaction. It is stated that two forces of energy result, creation and annihilation. With the negative force, you can alter the variables of the preset creative alignment, in order to alter, or remove it completely, allowing for a new foundation in which become 'set'. Together these two forces, creation and annihilation, can work to rearrange reactions, dimensional values, setting them accordingly.



    This information is intellectual property of Derek Daniels. You may not reproduce, edit, translate, distribute, publish or host this document in any way with out written permission of Derek Daniels. All information contained in this thread written by Derek Daniels (serloco) applies, with the exceptions of quoting or commenting to/of this content to be kept within this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,809
    Usual crank nonsense.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    I like the "copyright" blurb in his sig... as if anyone would want to take credit for his garbage, the only time it will be quoted outside this forum is as evidence when he is sectioned...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    The Big Bang or an Infinite Cycle?

    Scientists are messing with our poor simple minds again! Young, hip (relatively speaking) physicists are making a case that the universe may not have started with the “big bang” at all. They believe that the universe may undergo endless cycles of evolution in infinite space and time.
    One hotly disputed theory is that there is no beginning, and no end because space and time have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. They point out that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, as astronomers have recently observed and that after trillions of years, expansion eventually stalls, new matter and radiation is created, and then the cycle begins yet again.

    Why does any of this matter? One reason is that if we’re approaching one of the most basic questions of reality and existence from the wrong angle, we’re only going to get so far before we hit a proverbial wall.

    "I think the challenge we're raising is that the usual picture of the Big Bang is based on an assumption which is that time, space, matter, energy, everything began at the Big Bang," says Neil Turok, professor of mathematical physics at Cambridge University. "And that assumption was made in the 60s when people got the first strong observational evidence that the Big Bang happened. But it's really just an assumption and our point of view has come out of new development in physics which are enabling us to describe the behavior of matter in very extreme conditions such as were present around the Bang. And what we're seeing is that the Big Bang doesn't have to be the beginning of time. It's perfectly possible that the Big Bang was just a violent event in a pre-existing universe,"
    Many well-respected scientists believe that newly developed theories offer a bigger picture of reality—one that may be difficult for us to wrap our minds around, but not impossible. Perhaps the Big Bang was just a big bang, and not the beginning of existence. Just like most rabble-rousing ideas, these theories may take some time before more scientists “warm” up to them. Take global warming for example. Really it wasn’t that long ago the majority of scientists didn’t think theories about “global warming” would amount to much. Now the very few who still think it’s not happening are ridiculed as foolish. In other words, when it comes to science things are sometimes scoffed at before they are whole-heartedly embraced.
    One problem is that new theories can be difficult to grasp if you are not well versed in the intricate details of exotic and experimental physics, like string theory. Your average person doesn’t “get it”, but neither do many astronomers and scientists. Turok attempts to explain, but even his dumbed-down version might make your head explode.
    "This picture emerged out of a new understanding of the laws of physics which is called M Theory…according to this picture, the world may be comprised of two objects called branes, short for membranes. ... And so the picture is that we live in a three-dimensional world, just the height, width and length of ordinary space but separated from our dimensions by a very tiny distance are another three-dimensions and so the whole world is four-dimensional in this picture and these two sets of dimensions can actually collide with each-other. What we discovered is, if they do collide, then something like a Big Bang happens but the density of matter and the size of the universe is not zero at that point. It's as if two objects clash together and this clash is what releases radiation which fills space.”
    In fact, there are several valid theories of how the universe did or didn’t begin, but for the purposes of modern science it is easier to pick one that seems to work and hang onto it. However, some revolutionaries say that just because something seems to work for measurement purposes, doesn’t make it completely true. Alan Guth, professor of physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) explains how the Big Bang theory may just be one piece of the puzzle that fits into another theory, known as inflationary theory.
    "In the what I would regard as the conventional version of the inflationary theory, the Big Bang was also not in that theory the origin of everything but rather one had a very long period of this exponential expansion of the universe, which is what inflation means, and, at different points, different pieces of this inflating universe had stopped inflating and become what I sometimes call pocket universes,"
    "... What we call the Big Bang was almost certainly not the actual origin of time in either of the theories that we're talking about. ... The main difference I think [between the inflationary theory and Neil and Paul's theory outlined in the book Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang] is the answer to the question of what is it that made the universe large and smooth everything out. ... The inflationary version of cosmology is not cyclic. ... It goes on literally forever with new universes being created in other places. The inflationary prediction is that our region of the universe would become ultimately empty and void but meanwhile other universes would spout out in other places in this multiverse," says Guth.
    Janna Levin, professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College, says, "There's a little more resistance to the cyclic model but maybe that's because of the successes so far of inflation. Yet, we do know that there are fundamental things about the early universe and the Big Bang that we don't understand. ... String theory or M theory or these other models of fundamental physics are going to be important in terms of formulating that early universe picture but they're not complete yet."
    As Levin says, there are still unanswered questions. Newer theories may hold some of the answers. The beautiful thing about science is that it can be tried, tested, proven and disproved. We don’t have to keep on believing the same thing for the sake of tradition. Whether or not these scientists are someday “proven” to be correct or wrong in their theories, they still provide a valuable reminder that questioning IS the basis for new discovery and for Science itself.
    Posted by Rebecca Sato
    The Big Bang or an Infinite Cycle?

    http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/20...531_b_main.asp
    Source: NPR
    Link
    Related Posts:
    Big Bang Fossil -The Most Ancient Star Ever Discovered
    1st Second After the Big Bang -A Video Tour of Europe's LHC

    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    The zero-energy universe hypothesis states that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.[1][2]
    It originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed in the Nature journal that the Universe may have emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuationof vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential energy.[3]

    A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density.[4][5] It is this balancing of the total universal energy budget that enables the open-ended growth possible with inflation; during inflation energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (i.e. becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently, inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales, which is consistent with astronomical observations.[6]

    Stephen Hawking notes in his 2010 book The Grand Design: "If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative: One has to do work to separate a gravitationally bound system, such as the earth and moon. This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter,
    but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. That’s why empty space is stable. Bodies such as stars or black holes cannot just appear out of nothing. But a whole universe can."


    Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Last edited by serloco; August 25th, 2014 at 10:39 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Universe in 'endless cycle'

    The current expansion will go on for trillions of years


    Get your head around this: the Universe had no beginning and it will have no end.Two scientists have put forward a new model to explain how the cosmos is and where it might be going.
    They say it is necessary to take account of startling recent discoveries such as the observation that everything in the Universe is moving apart at an accelerating rate.
    Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok propose that the cosmos goes through an endless cycle - of Big Bang, expansion and stagnation - driven by an as yet unexplained "dark energy".
    They have put forward their views in the journal Science.
    Star surprise
    The current model of the Universe starts with a Big Bang, a mighty explosion of space, matter and time about 14 billion years ago.


    What we're proposing in this new picture is that the Big Bang is not a beginning of time but really just the latest in an infinite series of cycles
    Paul Steinhardt
    This model accounts for several important features we see in the Universe - such as why everything looks the same in all directions and the fact that the cosmos appears "flat" (parallel lines would never meet however long).But the model has several shortcomings, Steinhardt and Turok say.
    It cannot tell us what happened before the Big Bang or explain the eventual fate of the Universe. Will it expand forever or stop and contract?
    Problems with these futures became apparent in 1998, when studies of distant, exploding stars showed the Universe was expanding at an accelerating rate. It was a big surprise for some astronomers who thought everything might eventually come back together in a "Big Crunch".
    Empty and flat
    The apparent acceleration has since been checked and shown to be real.
    It led cosmologists to revive an old idea that some "dark energy" is at work in the cosmos, pushing everything apart.
    Steinhardt and Turok put this energy - a scalar field as they mathematically describe it - right at the centre of their new model.
    They think the dark energy drives a cycle of activity that includes a big bang and a subsequent period of expansion that leaves the Universe smooth, empty and flat.
    "The scalar field changes its character over time," Paul Steinhardt told the BBC. "Finally, the field begins to build up energy to a point where it suddenly becomes unstable and bursts into matter and radiation, filling the Universe, and driving the next period of expansion."
    'Hardest science'
    He added: "In the standard picture, it's presumed that the Big Bang is actually a beginning of space and time; that there was nothingness, and then suddenly out of nothingness there sprang space, time, matter, radiation, etcetera.


    The history of cosmology is the history of us being completely wrong
    Cosmology writer Marcus Chown
    "What we're proposing in this new picture is that the Big Bang is not a beginning of time but really just the latest in an infinite series of cycles, in which the Universe has gone through periods of heating, expanding, cooling, stagnating, emptying, and then re-expanding again."Steinhardt and Turok have discussed their ideas with peers and have received a positive, but "cautious", response. "The ultimate arbiter will be Nature," they write in the journal Science.
    "Measurements of gravitational waves and the properties of dark energy can provide decisive ways to discriminate between the two pictures observationally."
    Cosmology writer Marcus Chown concedes it will be extremely difficult to finally prove any model of the Universe.
    "The history of cosmology is the history of us being completely wrong," he told the BBC. "I mean, cosmology is the hardest of all sciences; we sit on this tiny planet in the middle of this vast Universe, we can't go anywhere and do any experiments - all we can do is pick up the light that happens to fall on us and deduce some things about the Universe."
    Paul Steinhardt is at Princeton University, US, and Neil Turok is at Cambridge University, UK.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1951406.stm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I like the "copyright" blurb in his sig... as if anyone would want to take credit for his garbage, the only time it will be quoted outside this forum is as evidence when he is sectioned...
    Where do all these lunatics come from?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I like the "copyright" blurb in his sig... as if anyone would want to take credit for his garbage, the only time it will be quoted outside this forum is as evidence when he is sectioned...
    Where do all these lunatics come from?
    From the future, sent into the past, which all exists in this present moment. Simultaneously.

    Through collapse of all points of time into a singularity, creating simultaneous time.

    At which point, in the absence of space time, forms nothing, all and nothing in balance, freeing all information while containing all information together in balance. At this point any information may be selectively aligned into form of 'matter'. Creating free energy, freedom.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    nothing in balance
    Yup.
    You're a stunning example of unbalanced.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    The black hole information paradox[1] results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could permanently disappear in a black hole, allowing manyphysical states to devolve into the same state. This is controversial because it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that in principle complete information about a physical system at one point in time should determine its state at any other time.[2][3] A fundamental postulate of quantum mechanics is that complete information about a system is encoded in its wave function up to when the wave function collapses. The evolution of the wave function is determined by a unitary operator, and unitarity implies that information is conserved in the quantum sense.

    Black hole information paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    ~OMNI~
    Last edited by serloco; August 25th, 2014 at 11:30 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    nothing and everything in balance
    Yup.
    You're a stunning example of unbalanced.
    Hey man, insult all you want, it's not my fault you have low I.Q.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    I also like the way he thinks cutting and pasting random articles across multiple threads makes him look sane and in no way a nutjob...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    Hey man, insult all you want, it's not my fault you have low I.Q.
    Tsk.
    What did I tell you earlier about making unjustified assumptions.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by xyzt
    Where do all these lunatics come from
    I blame the school holidays... hopefully next week all the bored teenage f***wits will have homework to do and less time to troll...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Nope.

    Well, that was easy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,538
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    the "copyright" blurb in his sig
    Is it legal?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    the "copyright" blurb in his sig
    Is it legal?
    Not if it is proferred in a public forum I would assume. The legal rights would attach to the forum as opposed to the members that sign up under it's mandate (terms and conditions).
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Infinite energy, and endless cycles of the universe, a balance of everything and nothing together, with the retention of all information in a singulairty is random to you in regards to exploring free energy? In the total absence of everything, in balance with everything, can create a void space for anything to be!! take into consideration the creation of new matter and entire universes. duh.

    I connect the dots so fast...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    Infinite energy, and endless cycles of the universe, a balance of everything and nothing together, with the retention of all information in a singulairty is random to you in regards to exploring free energy? In the total absence of everything, in balance with everything, can create a void space for anything to be!! take into consideration the creation of new matter and entire universes. duh.

    I connect the dots so fast...
    What?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I like the "copyright" blurb in his sig... as if anyone would want to take credit for his garbage, the only time it will be quoted outside this forum is as evidence when he is sectioned...
    Can he do that legally? OK all my writing is copyrighted too!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    Is it legal?
    I think there's some prior requirement for mental competence to be established before anything signed is counted as legal.
    So, in this case: no.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    KJW
    KJW is offline
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,538
    I don't think it satisfies the legal requirements of a copyright notice, but even if it did, the question remains: Who owns the material written on this forum?
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by KJW View Post
    I don't think it satisfies the legal requirements of a copyright notice, but even if it did, the question remains: Who owns the material written on this forum?
    I was just looking at the T&C's for this forum which are very brief. Not like the good old days KJW :-))
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    Infinite energy, and endless cycles of the universe, a balance of everything and nothing together, with the retention of all information in a singulairty is random to you in regards to exploring free energy? In the total absence of everything, in balance with everything, can create a void space for anything to be!! take into consideration the creation of new matter and entire universes. duh.

    I connect the dots so fast...
    What?
    From the article- They believe that the universe may undergo endless cycles of evolution in infinite space and time. Space and time have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. An endless cycle of evolution.

    Consider a dying star, creating a vacuum, a back-reaction, a singularity, a black hole, the sucks everything into it. Now consider that no information is lost in death, or negative energy, and information is retained instead. You now have the balance of nothing and everything, positive and negative value together at the singularity point. All information and no information. All mass and no mass. Stable. Like the collapse of the universe, placing all of its contents, all of its information, together at one point, retaining everything together. At this point you also have no mass again, free space for the universe to expand again into a new form, with infinite potential again. Retaining everything, and in the void space, the unformed potential one can form what ever one want, from all information previously gained, as well as new forms of expansion or evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Copyright in a work exists automatically when an original work is created.

    http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00003.html?OpenDocument
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    Infinite energy, and endless cycles of the universe, a balance of everything and nothing together, with the retention of all information in a singulairty is random to you in regards to exploring free energy? In the total absence of everything, in balance with everything, can create a void space for anything to be!! take into consideration the creation of new matter and entire universes. duh.

    I connect the dots so fast...
    What?
    From the article- They believe that the universe may undergo endless cycles of evolution in infinite space and time. Space and time have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. An endless cycle of evolution.

    Consider a dying star, creating a vacuum, a back-reaction, a singularity, a black hole, the sucks everything into it. Now consider that no information is lost in death, or negative energy, and information is retained instead. You now have the balance of nothing and everything, positive and negative value together at the singularity point. All information and no information. All mass and no mass. Stable. Like the collapse of the universe, placing all of its contents, all of its information, together at one point, retaining everything together. At this point you also have no mass again, free space for the universe to expand again into a new form, with infinite potential again. Retaining everything, and in the void space, the unformed potential one can form what ever one want, from all information previously gained, as well as new forms of expansion or evolution.
    The oscillating model of the universe is not widely accepted, at least not anymore. Basing a hypothesis on the assumption that it is an accurate model seems unwise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    Copyright in a work exists automatically when an original work is created.

    http://www.cipo.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/cipointernet-internetopic.nsf/eng/h_wr00003.html?OpenDocument
    But I think the Science Forum claims copyright of the words on the forum does it not? That was just from memory of reading about it a year ago. I think you lose the copyright when you post it here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Powered by
    vBulletin®
    Version 4.2.2
    Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by serloco View Post
    Infinite energy, and endless cycles of the universe, a balance of everything and nothing together, with the retention of all information in a singulairty is random to you in regards to exploring free energy? In the total absence of everything, in balance with everything, can create a void space for anything to be!! take into consideration the creation of new matter and entire universes. duh.

    I connect the dots so fast...
    What?
    From the article- They believe that the universe may undergo endless cycles of evolution in infinite space and time. Space and time have always existed in an endless cycle of expansion and rebirth. An endless cycle of evolution.

    Consider a dying star, creating a vacuum, a back-reaction, a singularity, a black hole, the sucks everything into it. Now consider that no information is lost in death, or negative energy, and information is retained instead. You now have the balance of nothing and everything, positive and negative value together at the singularity point. All information and no information. All mass and no mass. Stable. Like the collapse of the universe, placing all of its contents, all of its information, together at one point, retaining everything together. At this point you also have no mass again, free space for the universe to expand again into a new form, with infinite potential again. Retaining everything, and in the void space, the unformed potential one can form what ever one want, from all information previously gained, as well as new forms of expansion or evolution.
    The oscillating model of the universe is not widely accepted, at least not anymore. Basing a hypothesis on the assumption that it is an accurate model seems unwise.
    The Infinite Cyclic universe is not the same as the oscillating theory. However the Infinite universe must contain all of them as I see, both as potential and active. Being both full 'mass' and 0 mass together.

    It is evident upon seeing death in various forms of the universe to me, just as sun dies, and what occurs when it does. It is evident to myself simply witnessing that our world has equal day and night, light and dark, life and death in balance. Together they create motion, time, and potential (free space, empty space, where motion exceeds into). Just as light travels into darkness. I see that everything in creation is made of positive and negative forces, which i relate to life and death, just as all things live to reach their destination, and then die reaching their termination point, completing another cycle.

    Since everything is made of both positive and negative energy why would a cyclic universe be incorrect? What happens you apply negative energy, or anti-mass to mass? The energy is freed into form releasing energy, releasing values, removing bonds!

    What do you get when you release bonds, mass, information and form, and while retaining them simultaneously? As a balance of energy?

    Does not a dying star implode, creating a counter force? Back reaction? Does it not create a black hole, and singularity? Can information be both removed and retained as suggested? Free energy while retaining it together?

    Seems to me this happens all the time in our universe. Can you not leave your house behind to go to the store? Is your house still there when you leave? This is how motion is created, matter is formed and sustained in every direction. What happens when the you apply negative value to the earth? You remove the earth. In the absence of the sustained earth is nothingness again, where as Hawking's and myself suggest new matter and new universe can form again. In a new way. because energy is freed, and potential is now unformed. Yet in a singularity that is present in death one may retain all information, as well as leave it behind. Just like leaving your house to go the store. Only now we can leave our earth to go to another world or universe, and return again to the earth since we have it retained. Still keeping in tack the positive mass we left behind when we enter no-mass(0). Creating multiple dimensional reality. The trick is how to learn how to apply, for yourself, anti-mass, or nothingness to your world so to leave it, reform it, and then re-enter it again, because you retain your positive energy (information) in your new 0 (full zero) created by the singularity.(reaction in death).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Powered by
    vBulletin®
    Version 4.2.2
    Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Yup they copyrighted their version of software used to create the forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The oscillating model of the universe is not widely accepted, at least not anymore. Basing a hypothesis on the assumption that it is an accurate model seems unwise.
    Steinhardt and Turok's model is pretty well established and gaining more and more widespread appeal. There are empirical tests regarding the presence of absence of gravitational waves that will either put the theory to bed or make it a valid contendor to The Standard Model of Cosmology. Bicep2 results was a significant challenge to the theory but there is still uncertainty regarding the results.
    Last edited by Implicate Order; August 26th, 2014 at 01:52 AM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    Notice in the video how the man has a gun in the beginning of it with a ray of light on it. A perfect shot.(destination) And then he sees the sun is a giant eye, then focus back in time to the Indian. Using the Sun's ray's to 'travel' to that point. Connect to it at the same time, in his present time, reaaching back to that present moment in the past. As well notive how the horse is hopping in the light rays and into the shadows. As well as the man who is dancing in the fire works, watching it all, and seemingly controlling the motions of the time. I also like the man seeking the sun around the corner, the light. Other things too are present in the video, and this video is about the Sun. Much in it. Good song too.

    If you don't want to hear a cool song, and see some knowledge of the Sun in a video then please just don't watch it.



    not to mention the eye in the video and the sun in the eyes, and the eye in the sun.


    As i said I see the light is awareness and record. Here...

    http://topinfopost.com/2014/08/17/cb...n-record-video
    Last edited by serloco; August 26th, 2014 at 01:02 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    167
    "Positive and negative in balance, life and death"

    “Still there are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments, one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable: life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only being.”- Albert Einstein speaking of pure awareness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    The oscillating model of the universe is not widely accepted, at least not anymore. Basing a hypothesis on the assumption that it is an accurate model seems unwise.
    Steinhardt and Turok's model is pretty well established and gaining more and more widespread appeal. There are empirical tests regarding the presence of absence of gravitational waves that will either put the theory to bed or make it a valid contendor to The Standard Model of Cosmology. Bicep2 results was a significant challenge to the theory but there is still uncertainty regarding the results.
    The OP clearly isn't talking about the cyclic universe within M-brane theory but a more traditional oscillating model, since his point is that the cyclic universe breaks thermodynamics. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the primary advantage of the Steinhardt-Turok model that it doesn't violate conservation of energy like other cyclic models?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree Implicate Order's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    27.4679° S, 153.0278° E
    Posts
    610
    Hi SowZ37

    I should have read the entire context of the thread but I hesitate to read the entire thread as it seems to be inundated with one way discussions emanating from Serloco......... You probably are right in that earlier discussions were relating to older cyclic models. With regards to your query, you are correct. The Cyclic Model of Steinhardt and Turok is particularly attractive as it overcomes prior obstacles of oscilatting models that could not erase a prior cycles remnant entropy. As a result until this model, entropy perpetually increased each cycle resulting in longer and longer cycles which poses obstacles for an eternal model as when you continue forwards you ultimately reach thermodynamic equilibrium and when you extrapolate backwards it bumps into an ultimate singularity which these models were trying to avoid. Turok and Steinhardt's model inject energy into the system following each collision allowing net expansion each cycle and preventing entropy build-up.

    Edit: Note that the cyclic model still conserves energy. The branes kinetic energy is converted into matter-radiation at the bounce yet for sufficient kinetic energy to be retained by the brane to get to their maximal seperation during the period of expansion, some of the gravitational potential energy is proposed to be converted to brane kinetic energy. Steinhardt and Turok view gravity in this model as an unending source of energy. The gravitational potential energy is negative in magnitude and is unbounded in this scenario. This contrasts with inflationary cosmology whereby gravitational potential energy during the brief period of inflation is first converted to vacuum energy where the universe expands exponentially in size as the density of the vacuum energy remains the same, and therein following inflation, reheating is proposed to result in gravitational potential energy converting into matter-radiation.
    Last edited by Implicate Order; August 26th, 2014 at 04:52 AM.
    Quidquid latine dictum, altum videtur
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Implicate Order View Post
    Hi SowZ37

    I should have read the entire context of the thread but I hesitate to read the entire thread as it seems to be inundated with one way discussions emanating from Serloco......... You probably are right in that earlier discussions were relating to older cyclic models. With regards to your query, you are correct. The Cyclic Model of Steinhardt and Turok is particularly attractive as it overcomes prior obstacles of oscilatting models that could not erase a prior cycles remnant entropy. As a result until this model, entropy perpetually increased each cycle resulting in longer and longer cycles which poses obstacles for an eternal model as when you continue forwards you ultimately reach thermodynamic equilibrium and when you extrapolate backwards it bumps into an ultimate singularity which these models were trying to avoid. Turok and Steinhardt's model inject energy into the system following each collision allowing net expansion each cycle and preventing entropy build-up.

    Edit: Note that the cyclic model still conserves energy. The branes kinetic energy is converted into matter-radiation at the bounce yet for sufficient kinetic energy to be retained by the brane to get to their maximal seperation during the period of expansion, some of the gravitational potential energy is proposed to be converted to brane kinetic energy. Steinhardt and Turok view gravity in this model as an unending source of energy. The gravitational potential energy is negative in magnitude and is unbounded in this scenario. This contrasts with inflationary cosmology whereby gravitational potential energy during the brief period of inflation is first converted to vacuum energy where the universe expands exponentially in size as the density of the vacuum energy remains the same, and therein following inflation, reheating is proposed to result in gravitational potential energy converting into matter-radiation.
    Very interesting, I didn't know all that, thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    4
    The concept of "free energy" is wll established in thermodynamics where it is defined for isothermal processes by the equation F = H minus T times S where F is free energy, H is enthalpy (heat content) T is absolute temperature and S is entropy (disorder). In this universe spontaneous processes must occcur with a decline in free energy. Note that for F to decline H must decrease (loss of heat) and/or S must increase (increase in disorder). This concept of "free energy" is different from what you mean. By the way, how much does gravity and sunlight and the oxygen you breath cost you, aren't they free? Enjoy them. And, how much does a hydroelectric plant pay for the force of gravity that drives its generators?

    Best regards,

    Phillip Duke Ph.D.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by phildukephd View Post
    how much does ... the oxygen you breath cost you?
    The act of breathing requires my body to use muscles and alter pressures in my chest in order to draw that oxygen in. What are you suggesting?
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The act of breathing requires my body to use muscles and alter pressures in my chest in order to draw that oxygen in. What are you suggesting?
    You will receive an up to date bill for the air you've used since birth some time in the next two weeks.
    Please pay promptly.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The act of breathing requires my body to use muscles and alter pressures in my chest in order to draw that oxygen in. What are you suggesting?
    You will receive an up to date bill for the air you've used since birth some time in the next two weeks.
    Please pay promptly.
    In our country air is still free!
    Last edited by Robittybob1; August 29th, 2014 at 01:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    The act of breathing requires my body to use muscles and alter pressures in my chest in order to draw that oxygen in. What are you suggesting?
    You will receive an up to date bill for the air you've used since birth some time in the next two weeks.
    Please pay promptly.
    ...or else Chalky White and his associates will come pay you a visit. (applies two quick slaps to the face)

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 121
    Last Post: April 6th, 2013, 08:55 AM
  2. Do natural energy vortexes exist?
    By Donald_Patterson in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 6th, 2011, 02:39 PM
  3. maybe a free energy?
    By blaster in forum Physics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2011, 08:14 PM
  4. Is it impossible for free will to exist?
    By VitalOne in forum Behavior and Psychology
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: May 13th, 2010, 05:34 PM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 18th, 2008, 04:57 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •