6
   

Energy

 
 
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2014 09:25 am
@dalehileman,
Why do you assume this universe is sole and not one amid billions?
mark noble
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2014 09:52 am
@dalehileman,
Anyway - Want free energy?
Take a strong magnet and fix in an elevated frame (mag 1).
mag north upward.
Place another below (mag 2) (mag north upward) and it will be sucked upward by mag 1.
Allow for a lever (non-magnetic - wood will do) to prevent mag 2 connecting to mag 1 - At approx 90% ascent.
lever (spacer) triggers rotating arm to bring mag 3 into play (mag south up - north down).
This repels mag 1 & 2 - mag 1 is fixed so is unaffected - mag 2 is repelled downward.
upon full descent mag 2 triggers return of mag 3 and ascends once more....
Rinse and repeat.
There is a lever connected to mag 2 (lightweight) that uses approx 20% of this motion to operate mag 3's rotary-arm.
This allows for 80% of energy from this motion to be used or stored.
This will operate for as long as the earth has a magnetic-field or until lockheed send big blokes to kill you.
I would never dream of designing any operational equipment based on this silly idea because big blokes killing me is scary.
Tesla had a Much better insight into zero-point energy, but big blokes called.
Now..... big blokes have it.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2014 02:18 pm
@dalehileman,
Quote:
But there's neither paradox nor contradiction in the notion that the Universe exists because it has to and that it has no beginning nor end
Agreed Mark

Quote:
However given forever and/or an infinite amount of raw material, the notion of simultaneous identical galaxies is so troubling as to be called paradoxical
Agreed in spades
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  0  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2014 02:22 pm
@mark noble,
Quote:
Why do you assume this universe is sole and not one amid billions?
Some theorize other simultaneous Universes in different "dimensions" but there's no evidence

If there are presently or consecutively other collections of matter like ours but just too far away to detect, then they're part of a single Universe
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 29 Aug, 2014 03:18 pm
@dalehileman,
I agree; without our ability to observe other simultaneous universes, we can only arrive at 'no' until such time we are proven otherwise.

Other assumptions are all guesses without much basis other than imagination.
0 Replies
 
mark noble
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2014 06:40 pm
@dalehileman,
'Relativity' prevents physical measurement of 'that' beyond our relative bubble.
I apply the term 'Omniverse' to the 'endless' construct - 'Universe' to our, respective, bubble - Which is not 'endless'.
0 Replies
 
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2014 06:43 pm
Because the Universe does not create energy - it recycles energy. See the stars? They hold the Universe's energy. See the asteroids? They hold the Universe's iron. It's all a recycled system that exists on a scale that can send billions of people with their brain stem between its membranes running back into their existential shell.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Energy
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 08:39:42