Free energy exists - a variety of technologies

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by richardblabla, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. Not sure if these have been posted before, but you have got to watch these videos -

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vGGUUthFIs&feature=related]Cavitation - Sonoluminescence - Implosion Technology - Sacred Sciences Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

    So fascinating and the guy breaks the information down really well.

    Begs the question why these technologies are relatively unknown and suppressed.
     
  2. Painfully bad pseudoscience.
     
  3. Tesla wanted free energy but JP Morgan,who had given him money to create his inventions, wanted to make money so he pretty much had him black balled.
     

  4. Painfully useless comment.


    Care to explain how it's pseudoscience rather than just calling it out in three words and leaving it at that?
     
  5. #5 Mister Meaner, Jul 31, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2012
    The only way to get nearly free energy is wind or solar. So called machines that output more energy than you put in are always scams. Sometimes they are honest delusions on the part of the inventor, other times the inventor knows it is a scam and is just looking to cash in.
    The concepts in the video are well understood. Just not by him.
     
  6. [quote name='"dishin reg"']

    Painfully useless comment.

    Care to explain how it's pseudoscience rather than just calling it out in three words and leaving it at that?[/quote]

    No he is right. It is psudoscience. And the fact that you.made this.post shows that after all.your trolling you still don't understand what science is.

    How about you watch the video and explain how it is not psudoscience.

    I found the video.entertaining but its psudoscience straight up.
     
  7. Nope.

    How about this; you play devil's advocate and I'll come back and fill in anything I think you missed? That way, you get to practice critical thinking, and our contributions will be equivalent.

    I'm big on cooperative experiential learning. Let's face it; if you can't complete the above, why in the hell would I want to contribute? Seems to me like most of the other posters are already cognizant about the level of bullshit present.
     
  8. .... Well I found them interesting.

    Theres about 6 videos on this topic. Great baked viewing for me if nothing else.
     
  9. nothing is free and converting and/or setting up wind or solar devices to harness the power from these sources costs money to run and to maintain, the return on investment is not worth the cost with todays technologies. wind/solar simply cannot harness enough energy to fuel the needs of the masses.... maybe in the future this will change but not now.
     
  10. ... Did any of you even watch the video?

    It not once refers to solar or wind power.

    Basically there are numerous technologies that do provide more output in energy than is required to power the device.
     
  11. science...

    learn it

    [​IMG]
     

  12. Yes.... thats why it's so extraordinary, because they violate the most basic rule of science. I can't be bothered to argue without people watching the vids
     
  13. I'm pretty sure this violates one of the laws of thermodynamics.

    I ain't no phycisist though.
     
  14. Anything that says "Sacred Science" immediately raises a red flag in my head. :rolleyes:
     

  15. Haven't watched the videos yet myself (will shortly when I get a few minutes and will comment), but all this talk about getting out more energy than you put in directly violates the first law of thermodynamics.
     

  16. Lol did you even watch the video?

    Quit trying to blame your inability to actually contribute on me.

    You said it was pseudoscience. I asked why it was pseudoscience. You then refuse explain why it is pseudoscience and pin it on me try and hide the fact you're the one to have called it out.
     
  17. #17 Sam_Spade, Aug 1, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 1, 2012
    Nope, you're just confirming that contributing would be pointless. Thanks for saving me the time.

    If you're incapable of playing devil's advocate, why should I be expected to do it on your behalf? I gave you a scenario in which we can work together to produce a cogent argument.... and you respond by demanding it on a silver platter.
     

  18. I was just simply interersted in hearing your explanation as to how it was pseudoscience. I really don't get why you got sand all up in ur vag about it but whatever :laughing::laughing::wave:
     
  19. Lol you're the one who called me out and is calling people names.
     

  20. I called you out because you were the first reply to OP's video and said "painfully bad pseudoscience" or something along those lines and nothing more.

    So I asked for you to note WHY it is pseudoscience rather than just saying it is, which led you becoming extremely defensive over the whole thing.

    I feel like you didn't even watch the video and simply go around on this forum trying to discredit anything that doesn't go along with the mainstream view.



    Instead of just trying to argue back and forth, why is it so hard for you to simply state the reasons you think it's pseudoscience???
     

Share This Page