quote:

As for those findings, they are seven years old

...and they have never even appeared in any publication, despite your claim of how important and earth-shattering they are.

They haven't even disappeared; they've never even become visible, they're so bad.

quote:

Even after all these years Newtons laws of physics mostly upheld except for a few in contrast with Einstein.

And relativity is under the additional burden of being required to explain all that Newton's theory did. A new interpretation of nature doesn't magically make nature disappear, and no new interpretation of nature is going to make friction irrelevant or make perpetual motion possible, either.

quote:

Wait for a peer review? Why, you still wont know what the h it says. If you want other scientist's opinions on the matter, Christi posted a link to a great article written on this subject. It has many opinions on it. As for those findings, they are seven years old and they are still there so I am guessing they are not fraudulant.

Something can be dead wrong and not be fraudulent.

It is looking less and less likely that there is any credence at all to this stuff you are promoting here.

quote:

...and they have never even appeared in any publication, despite your claim of how important and earth-shattering they are.

They haven't even disappeared; they've never even become visible, they're so bad.

When did I say they where so important? I just posted the information here for people who can actually understand it to know of their experiments, thats all.

quote:

And relativity is under the additional burden of being required to explain all that Newton's theory did. A new interpretation of nature doesn't magically make nature disappear, and no new interpretation of nature is going to make friction irrelevant or make perpetual motion possible, either.

So what? Einstein and Newton's theories are at odds, I am glad someone was smart enough to challenge the old way of thinking instead of just following it blindly. As for friction & perpetual motion, I am assuming you are talking about something different than what I am, if not then you have no idea what that experiment was about.

quote:

Something can be dead wrong and not be fraudulent.

It is looking less and less likely that there is any credence at all to this stuff you are promoting here.

There can be other factors affecting their results that they may not be aware of, but if modern knowledge of quantam physics and classical physics is so complete than they should know about it, right?

I dont see how anything I could possibly say or do would affect the credibility of a College's/NSF's resources, saying I could is just plain ridiculous and you know it. I guess I misjudged you.

quote:

There can be other factors affecting their results that they may not be aware of, but if modern knowledge of quantam physics and classical physics is so complete than they should know about it, right?

I dont see how anything I could possibly say or do would affect the credibility of a College's/NSF's resources, saying I could is just plain ridiculous and you know it. I guess I misjudged you.

Nothing new has come of it in a long time now. I am betting nothing ever will. But the dreams about it will likely continue in perpetuity.

I know, I know, nothing on the internet is trustworthy, but, I thought I would post a link to this update anyways.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005cond.mat..5508N

or

Limits to the 2nd Law & Breach of Symmetry

This message has been edited. Last edited by: heresjonny,

quote:

But the dreams about it will likely continue in perpetuity.

Yep, just like the little specs of dirt I see swirling around in my toilet. What seems like perpetual motion by them always reminds me of it.

Their is a car that runs on air already in existence. It runs on compressed air and the cool thing is that the car lists for about 15,000. All you need to do is buy an air compressor. If you watch the show "future cars" you will see what I am talking about

Yup, and performance-wise, it doesn’t even compare to conventional cars.

Est nullus navitas libero.

well rump ranger that was not my point. I didn't say that the car out performs gas guzzlers I said their is a car that runs on compressed air

quote:

Originally posted by vdubbs:
well rump ranger that was not my point. I didn't say that the car out performs gas guzzlers I said their is a car that runs on compressed air

Yeah, but did you stop to think that something needs to compress that air first?

Compressing air is an interesting means of storing energy, but do you really think it compares to a supercapacitor or a good battery?

I have a option on free renewable nerg on produceing by a never ending power source on car batteries and the alternater and a elct.
motor. the only thing is that the batteries hve to be changed every 5 years

quote:

Originally posted by copper:
I have a option on free renewable nerg on produceing by a never ending power source on car batteries and the alternater and a elct.
motor. the only thing is that the batteries hve to be changed every 5 years

Let me guess… solar?

Heres one, It rains,rain falls into river, river flows though damn (makes electricity) river flows to ocean sun heats ocean evaporates water in the clouds, clouds produce rain,rain falls back into river ....and repeat.
the engery (electricity) was free and it is renewable. so this would be FREE ENERGY.

I would like to applaud subbzero (08-02-07) MRCONCDID (01-25-08 )for their suggestion to use water for free energy. Subbzero reminded me of idea that I had back in the 1970's that Mythbusters could actually investigate. Trees pull water out of the soil and amd carry it up to their branches and leaves. Could this mechanism-I can't recall the scientic term-be used to carry water to up to a resevoir and used to power an electric generator. So as not to kill any trees, I would supstitute a man made object (articial tree trunk) that achieves the same or better effect than the wood, for example,a long cord of fine glass (or other) tubing or cables. The water that turns the generator could be recirculated. I do not know, how lage of a pump would be needed to produce a steady amount of usable energy. This is scientificly feasible.

I cant believe no one has disputed my free energy concept. Nature is our best teacher when it come to everything we need (Im not a tree hugger) but Nature replinishes itself again and again. Even people when we die another is born.

I do have to disagree that energy can be destroyed and created.ie a bomb not set off it has potental energy but no useable energy when it goes off it uses or loses its energy and doesn't go anywhere. the shockwave itself peters out over a distance to be lost for ever.

quote:

Originally posted by MRCONCDID:
Heres one, It rains,rain falls into river, river flows though damn (makes electricity) river flows to ocean sun heats ocean evaporates water in the clouds, clouds produce rain,rain falls back into river ....and repeat.
the engery (electricity) was free and it is renewable. so this would be FREE ENERGY.

"Free to me" energy is not free energy in the classical sense. The source of energy in that example is the sun, which is clearly not perpetual. Renewable, yes, until the sun expires, free, no.

By that logic, a perpetual motiom machine that expires from lack of repair is clearly not perpetual?

Thats sure a pageful...