Heresies of Physics Steven G. ODell (C) 2009 There is an old saying, accepted as “law” in the physics community, that you cant get more energy out of something than what you put into it. Add me to the list of heretics, then, because I think this approach is a major misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the world around us. This viewpoint has kept us in the dark ages of physics far too long. I am perfectly willing and ready to accept the challenge to defend my views on this matter and I will readily admit from the beginning that I am a layman and not a degreed physicist. Before you label me as out of my league, however, I would also put you on notice that I am going to challenge the experts in the field to prove me wrong, in laymans terms. So, read on, as I am more than willing to be corrected, if indeed the information the experts provide is correct. Opinion matters not at all to me--truth is everything. I believe, in fact, that it is not men such as myself who are the heretics, but it is those who prolong the steeped-in-book-learning-to-the-exclusion-of-everything-else mentality--those whose minds have been closed to alternative ways of thinking long ago--those who have earned their EBI degrees (Educated Beyond Intelligence). Lets take a simple example of getting more energy out of something than what we put into it. The common strike-anywhere match. Do we not, in fact, get more heat energy out of a match than what we put into the effort to strike it? There may be some who would argue that the calories burned by the muscle movement employed would be equal to the amount of heat produced by the match before it burns out. Perhaps that is so. Again, I have not been Pavlov-ized and trained to see that as the only possibility. But lets go a step further to clarify, shall we? Lets take that same match, already struck, and now apply it to some flammable object, such as a sheet of paper or some gasoline. It takes little to no energy to toss the match into the gasoline or to hold the match in contact with the paper, but once ignition takes place, there is far more energy produced than what was in the match that we initiated the reaction with, I would guess. But some may protest that the paper itself would be considered potential energy, as would the gasoline. Granted that is true, which begins to bring me to my real point. But first, lets take this illustration one step further, shall we? Place that struck match into contact with the fuse of a stick of dynamite. It takes no depth of knowledge and training to know what is about to result, does it? The prudent man will be ducking for cover about now. Again, you argue, this is only potential energy that was already there and will be liberated upon completion of the chemical reaction you have set in motion. It isnt extra energy liberated from the match itself. And again, I concur. But now let me point out what should have been obvious to the physics community all along. That point being that this is THE point exactly. When one says you cannot get more energy out of something than what you put into it, they may be mis-stating fact. It would, in fact, be more accurate and clarifying to state that “one cannot get more energy out of a source than what was in it to begin with.” I would agree completely with this latter statement. It makes perfect sense and is logical to presume that one can only liberate what energy is available to be liberated. And that is the entire crux of the question and the adversity between the so-called experts and the so-called heretics in physics. Some sources of energy may, in fact, have far more potential than what we presently can measure or imagine. The fact that we cannot envision it or measure it does not alter the fact that it may indeed be there in rich abundance, awaiting the open-minded man or woman who will discover and utilize that peculiarity or passingly interesting phenomenon, rather than just pass it off and forget it, as the scientific community often tends as a whole to do. The book-trained world, in essence, is vigorously denying that one could use the virtual equivalent of a blasting cap to set off a larger explosion to liberate energy. All the while they accept the very same application in the form of atomic energy. What sense does it make to accept a principle of science only when it is convenient to do so and to ignore it when it contradicts personal or community opinion? Should it be any wonder that ones credibility might be called into question for such a philosophy? The so-called heretic, the untrained layman who isnt afraid to ask questions or perform experiments that havent been drilled into him as being the self-imposed limits of science, is the one who often pushes the envelope and advances the boundaries of the possible. He does this because he hasnt been told it is impossible to do so. He isnt so steeped in the impossible that he loses sight of the possible. Science as a whole has lost its zest and zeal for discovery. It has become a festering morass of compromise and conformity. One can, and often does, lose their research funding for simply questioning the sacred tenets of science as they presently stand. It has become the sacred cow of their religion to be a perfect clone of the last, as well as the next, Ph. D. To be different is to commit heresy. As the saying goes, it is the nail that stands out that gets the hammering. And yet, it was once believed that man would never fly, would never achieve the reaches of outer space, nor explore the ocean bottoms. These have all been accomplished by people who set no artificial limits for themselves. They believed it could be done and they either did it or set the stage for those who would follow. They had faith, pure and simple. The power of faith is unstoppable. It is the rare individual who has not stood upon the shoulders of the giants who came before. There are those today who not only say that we can tap unlimited energy from the aether, the supposed vacuum about us, but there are those who have done it—they have proven the concept and performed measurable work with it. They have met with disbelief, antagonism, threats of death, slander, libel and more--from supposed men of science. In instances where they have had their work completely verified and no chance was found to devalue and expose it as a hoax, the only approach left to the the objectors was to ignore it entirely. And when I say entirely, I mean exactly that. No written acknowledgments, no media attention, nothing at all. The ultimate insult is to deny the existence of that which you have been unable to debunk. It is also the epitome of arrogance and dishonesty in the profession. This individual has no love of truth nor desire to find it and defend it. He has placed himself in a self-imposed exile professionally and intellectually--and he deserves every punishment he heaps upon himself. To question his honesty and integrity is but the first step. There are those who have taken the century-plus old knowledge of catalyzing water into hydrogen and oxygen to be used as clean and nearly limitless fuel and they have met with great success, although still in the formative stages. They also meet with strong resistance at every level but the grassroots level. Why? Because it would upset the status quo -- business as usual. Whole industries would suffer (not to mention the wallets of some very powerful people in the oil industry and in politics). Yet, we must ask, would whole industries have to suffer or would they simply need to re-target themselves? It has been stated over and over by our nations leadership that there would be abundant jobs available in the alternative energy domain. Then why not do it? One reason only. Because it rocks the boat, so to speak. It makes waves for folks who like calm waters. And yet, it is said that the Chinese use the same pictograph symbol to represent both crisis and opportunity. We could learn something from that, I would say. With any advancements in technology, there will always come an upsetting of the status quo. It is the built-in cost of progress. Unless we wish to live in the past all our lives, beholding for every scrap that the powers-that-be wish to cast our way, we need to look toward the impossible as well as the possible, just as those who fashioned the means to fly and to dive to the ocean depths. It is time to say, like Nikola Tesla, Edwin V. Gray, Thomas Henry Moray, Stanley Meyer and others, the possible we can do quickly--the impossible just takes a bit longer.
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 05:50:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015