The Laws of Thermodynamics
Can you call it a law when it has never been proven?
When a physicist tries to account for all the energy in an experiment, they are usually at loss. Things don't add up. Things don't balance. Always something missing. And this is in a controlled laboratory setting.
Such as, growing a tree, in a pot. The physicist weighed all of the inputs, but over time the tree was heavier than all the inputs. Where does the added weight come from?
And we have zero point energy. Physicists cooled some atoms down to zero degrees Kelvin. Defined as the temperature when all energy is removed from the system. But they found that some atoms continue to vibrate, even at this temperature. Where is this energy coming from?
It is obvious to anyone looking that these "laws" are fundamentally flawed. Still, almost every physicist defends them. Often to the death.
What do we do with "Science" when one of the cornerstones of our understanding is crumbling?
The laws of thermodynamics:
- Energy cannot be created or destroyed
- Entropy will always increase over time
- You cannot stop entropy from increasing.
There is so much wrong with each of these, but even more wrong is the assumptions which these laws sit in.
For one, modern materialistic physics assumes we live in a closed system.
That nothing more can enter, and nothing can leave.
They also assume that one type of energy can be changed into another form of energy and back again.
However, all of these fancy words that physicists are forced to memorize in school, are just a fancy way of saying, a free energy device doesn't work, and cannot exist. So stop looking for them.
The assumptions fail
First, we do not live in a closed system.
Physics has discarded the Luminiferous Aether, and so, is already on the wrong foot. And even though they postulate more dimensions, they do not take any of them into account when talking about "the system". Such strange people.
Our universe is floating in a sea of energy.
What healers and people who can see auras have noted for thousands of years, is that our bodies are supported by many chakras. These chakras take in energy from the universe. So, it can be said that eating only provides energy for the lowest layer of the body, the physical layer. And yes, there are people who have stopped eating and just exist on the higher energies.
Further, it looks like our world / universe collapses and is recreated ever trillionth of a second. (or faster). (All of you who believe this life is a simulation, here you go. The world is refreshing so that you can see movement. Just like a video screen.) So, in this view, there is no energy that stays. It is all destroyed, and recreated in the next instance. There is no entropy.
If any of these are true, and there is all kinds of evidence that they are closer to correct than what we are currently using, than these "laws" are complete rubbish. Their underlying assumptions are false.
Over Unity Devices.
There are a plethora of devices that are over unity.
They produce more of a type of energy (output) than the energy used to power it (input).
These are two different types of energy.
Which calls into question a correlation of the law, that energy can be transformed, from one type to another type. It actually seems that many transformations are one directional, and others cannot be done.
One device they call a rotary water hammer. It uses a motor to spin large discs with various holes drilled in them, and this causes the water to heat up. And more heated water is produced than if the electricity was used to heat the water with a coil. This was shown to be the case several times. So, why isn't these laws considered debunked?
Even the ancient steam engine can be tuned to provide more movement energy then the energy used to boil the water. Of course this is ignored, and they tell us it is only as efficient as Carnot's Number, however this is really not the case. There was an old paper i read that discussed the possibility of using water-> steam to create a system of machines that would continue themselves running. Improving the boiling efficiency and the condensing system, that such a machine would provide more energy than it used.
There are several motor setups that use the back EMF to charge batteries, that run the motor. We haven't seen a big one of these, but the little ones that have been demonstrated are showing over unity.
If there is any over unity, and we cannot define the source from where more energy is coming from, then the laws of thermodynamics and their assumptions need some serious looking into.
The problem i have with the "laws of thermodynamics" is that they are the knee jerk reaction to someone saying they have found a better, more efficient system. If you talk about free-energy devices, bang, laws of thermodynamics says no. You can't even talk about alternative energy sources without running into someone bring up the laws to shut down conversation.
It is like we are crabs in a bucket, and whenever someone says we can have lots of electricity, everyone else pulls them back down saying they are unhinged.
And that is almost always what the media says about anything in this area. Cars running on water. Things made to float in the air with electricity. Bio-photons. Electro-culture make better, faster growing, healthier plants… the MSmockingbirdM says this is all rubbish thought up by loonies who don't know anything about science. And then when those experimenters disappear, very few notice, and fewer go looking for them. And, all of their works are considered anti-science non-sense.