Logic and Theory

The links are other examples of using magnetism to exploit the provided stored energy. The energy is used more slowly by the magnets. Once the available energy is deminished, the device must be given more energy to operate. The energy comes from stored energy. In the first video someone commented that the person must manipulate the magnet to maintain the spin. He then said a solid frame could not do this. I can agree with that. If you introduce more stores energy in the form of a spring that would possibly be able to manipulate the orientation of the magnet. The result would be longer. automated spinning using the stores energy in the spring. My question of the energy stored in magnets was not addressed.

obviously this forum does not have room for connotation. Clarification, Not "free energy" Energy may be coverted from one type to another using some of the available energy from the beginning in the process at every change. And energy is lost/used from friction and resistance. I'm not crazy I promise. Everyone insists on my device creating more energy than it uses to operate. I must insist that it uses and loses energy it has to charge a battery to extend range. charging magnets can be done with hand cranking a small generator. My proposal is an alternative, not a infinite solution. Its not a magical proposition that changesbtge world. It does not contradict proven physics IF the device loses the energy it gives to the battery. energy is lost so that the battery may propel the car for a longer time. How much longer is the test. Perhaps a passenger mounted pedal charger would be more effecient. India is working on a system to charge batteries for individual household's via pedal power. They say an hour of peddling will charge a battery enough to provide power to a house for 1 day. Thank you for all of your responses. Sorry to have misled you with the title "free energy" . It was used to grab your attention. interesting video We can convert kinetic energy to electricity with moving water. Chemical energy is used in batteries. We can make energy from matter with nuclear. magnets are used to create armateurs in generators. But physics stands wrong that magnets can not yield energy. It is entirely possible that I'm wrong.could someone provide a source to educate me on how there is no energy stores in magnets?

ok.. free energy is a mind teaser. It gets you interested in the post. My idea clearly manipulates available energy. You are correct. In some models the rotor will stop,balances between the poles. To prevent this, the device can not be symetrical in design. The distance ratios for the overlapping fields would need to be set to an irational number. I will be testing soon. I will use the scientific method. Hopefully get my work peer reviewed and published. The only law of physics challenges her is the ratio of energy produced to the amount used

The pull effect can be dampened by introducing maggnetic tampering materials such as copper to the areas between the poles that push. my design does incorporate electromagents. The magnets will ware down, but the new magnets do not have to be charges with fossil fuels. My model has not been attempted in any of the resigns I have researched. So basically it must remain plausible until its proven wrong.

https://youtu.be/jiAhiu6UqXQ here is a very simple example. If you construct a framework to hold the drive magnet in the optimal position relative to the fan, where does the energy come from?

The magnet motor is mechanically riven by opposing magnetic poles. The electricity introduced is merely a speed limiter. It gives the system the ability to start and stop with a switch. another simple way to charge the batteries of an electric car would be to install a pedal generator in the car. Have (a) passenger(s) pedal to manually provide the power needed to drive with an extended range. But again, the magnet motor is neither an electric motor, not is it a perpetual motion device

I agree that we will never be able to test or confirm these ideas. I believe that we live then die. Our star eventually expands and consumes the earth. Eventually the atoms we are made from become part of something else.A moon or another planet perhaps. Over time other intelligent life make observations about stars in our part of the universe and The planets that orbit them. They are searching for signs that life may exist elsewhere in the univerae, not knowing we did billions of years in their past. But it's all a brain teasing waste of time to consider things of this scale.

My version is specifically not a perpetual motion device. The device starts when a current is introduced to provide the electro magnets with polarity, and the device stops when the current is taken away. Magnetic fields can be manipulated to generate kinetic energy. No other energy has to be introduced for this to happen. 2 similar poles N+N or S+S will push away from one another for years. The force of these fields will outlast the device. My suggested design is just a variation of several magnet motor generators that do work. conservation of energy. My design converts the magnetic field's energy into kinetic energy. The kinetic energy is then used to charge a battery. This has been done with foam cutouts and small hobby store magnets. There is a minor complication of how much energy will be lost/used due to friction and the resistance of the armateur that essentially is the reverse of my magnet motor. While this poses a problem, it's hardly impossible to overcome. for the beta test, I may have to use more magnets than desires for practical applications. I could independently develop the motor to put out a specific torque at 12vdc or less. The specific torque goal would be set by providing power to the field of the alternator, and measuring the inch lbs required to rotate the shaft. Without power to the field of the alternator there is little to no resistance. The magnet motor does not have to generate said torque at low RPM. The motor could be move at a desires RPM before introducing current to the field. source for information on alternators https://www.alternatorparts.com/understanding-alternators.html source for magnet motors http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/energy-news/?page_id=976 I would like to add that I am not posing a fafetched idea of an unlimited energy source. This idea is just a practical adaptation of a machine to essentially allow an electric car to travel a greater distance, before needing a charge, without using fossil fuels. The current electric cars can travel in the 80 mile range on a full charge. The hybrid models that use has powered generators to charge the batteries can double the range. For many people, who have frequent commutes greater than 200 miles, this is not a practical mode of transportation. Even if a device such as the one I have proposed Only generates enough charge to extend the current range by a factor of 25%. It may be enough to make the difference for enough drivers to make the switch to cleaner transportation. I would like to add that I am not posing a fafetched idea of an unlimited energy source. This idea is just a practical adaptation of a machine to essentially allow an electric car to travel a greater distance, before needing a charge, without using fossil fuels. The current electric cars can travel in the 80 mile range on a full charge. The hybrid models that use has powered generators to charge the batteries can double the range. For many people, who have frequent commutes greater than 200 miles, this is not a practical mode of transportation. Even if a device such as the one I have proposed Only generates enough charge to extend the current range by a factor of 25%. It may be enough to make the difference for enough drivers to make the switch to cleaner transportation.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.livescience.com/53178-hydra-may-live-forever.html?client=ms-android-att-aio-us There are some examples of life that have beat the odds and can live for very extended lifespans. This can only happen if they don't due of other natural causes, but still some species have the ability to regenerate cells without shortening their telomeres. Other species like specific types of sponges live longer by reducing their metabolism. Some animals retain a high number of stem cells effectively replacing old cells with short telomeres with new cells. Understanding some of the very things that determine life span in living things is an exciting topic. However, I think developing a. human application for successfully providing immortality is very far off if not impossible. Our evolution by natural selection is greatly diminished by our ability to survive with technology. Instead of natural selection choosing who is most fit to survive, we rely on reducing and doctors to prolong our life. There are a vast amount of subjects related to this topic. I feel I've began to ramble a bit.So, to sum things up, I believe we are very far away from a biological immortality.

I would like to talk about the free energy magnetic motor. Many people have been able to consruct devices that use the energy magnets generate to soon different kinds of electric generators. There are several examples if you search "free energy motor" on YouTube. In all of the videos I have watched, every free energy motor is turned on via manual mechanical interference. I would like to propose a hybrid stationary electromagnet with conventional magnets afixed a rotor. the system will be first applied to charging 12vdc car batteries via alternator. The plan is to move up to the higher voltage hybrid and electric batteries on the second stage. Altenators put out a constant 14.4vdc thanks to a device called a stator. That means the goal is that the free energy motor provide enough torque to soon the alternator at the desires rpm to produce electricity to charge the system without using more than 12vdc. The only "free" energy in this test will come from the high powered man made magnets. The hybrid electro magnets hooked to a mechanical voltage regulator provide the ability to control the available force on the fixed magnets.This allows for is to stop the system and regulate its speed. The goal is to ultimately be able to charge batteries on the go independently of fossil fuels. Eventually, with high effeciency inverters, we could cut down on some of the energy consumption in our homes. please let me know your thoughts.

I dont believe there is a fair way to put a value on your time. If my time is worth $(m) per year and I expect to have (x) years of income. $100,000.00×40=$4,000,000.00 My Short and long term plans are directly linked to my estimated income. If I have in reality 3 years of income, then my time is,in the given equation, worth $1,333,333.33 per year. I have no way of knowing how much time I have. So basically there is no fair way to acurately determine how much my time is worth. Fortunately, there are many other days to be compensated for work. I have a x% profit stake in my company on top of a piece rate of pay and salary. The piece rate of pay works by paying specific amounts for each piece of work you complete. The amount of time it takes to complete the work and comparitive compensation in relation to the time for money method may not provide a significant monetary difference. However, the exchange of work for money instead of time for money does provide the opportunity to eliminate the time to money ratio problem.

Hello. I have recently opened a post that touches on this topic."The existence of tangible space". I was pro aether, however, after a period of research and reflection I have come to agree with GR. Space does not need to be made of a tangible measurable substance or anti substance. We live in a 3 dimensional reality. we. have the length, highth, and depth of things to measure. space provides the convienient ability to distinguish between a 2d and 3d existance. A 4'th dimension of time may be observed that is relative to the speed of light. Our perception of time, and perhapse, Our manipulation of time, when the ability to generate such speeds progresses, is all thanks to our ability to understand and observe the properties of space time. So space time IS more than a mathematical model but less than a tangible substance you can physically measure. Space Time may also be warped by gravity, causing effectus such as gravitational lensing. This phenomena has been observed, and tested. The ability of gravity to warp space time, and our ability to observe and mathematically theorize about it's behavior basically captures the essence of what physics is right?

Thank you strange for the links to the other threads. I do have a fascination with the idea that space is more than nothing. "GR" is a very thought provoking subject. The speed of light being constant. If the speed of light were to change, our relativistic perception of time would also change? Amazing. Perhaps I am unknowingly and incorrectly comparing the way sound travels to the way light travels. however, sound travels faster through more dense objects. while light SPEED is constant, it can take longer to reach a location through absorption and/or refraction. These things occur with dense marerials. we observe that in the vacuum of space light may travel at speed with such consistency that it may used to measure great distances. Distances to exponentially large that a variation to 50 decimal points could throw a calculation off by millions of miles. Also amazing. But... the uniformity of the vacuum of space having a few pH per (x)volume of space provides a perfect hypothetical medium. I must agree with your analogy of distance. Distance is not a substance. It is a unit of measure. Zero is also not a substance. It is a unit of measure. Space may very well just be something we use to measure, but I like to believe it's not. your definition of logic is spot on. My interpretation was nearly a short hand gist to limit the material in one response. Call it short hand. Thank you for your response. The photoelectric effect. If I had studied this, my post would not exist. What a fundamentally easy to understand idea. light does not need a medium because it is made of photons, and photons can travel through the vacuum of space. Sound is a kinetic sort of energy in that its waves vibrate the material it passes through. With no materil to vibrate, sound can not travel through space. It appears I have much to learn if I want to be a respectable physics conversationalist. Thank you for helping me to understand. My space medium thought just falls apart if light doesn't require a medium. I feel a but silly for having missed such an easy concept. Putting things that sound good together may not be the best avenue to scientific progress. Thanks again guys.

I agree that gravity curves space. If light follows a path of curved space, and the SPACE is curved by said gravity. Then, light is only indirectly affected at best. My opinion was that lights medium of known terminal velocity is space. Light following the path of a curved medium would not suggest that gavity affects the light at all. A previous argument stated that, "we have learned that not all forms of energy need a medium to travel. Light is an example through space". I know this is the accepted model, but if there were evidence that doesn't directly contradict my statement, I would love to know. My opinions are that of perspective. Space being a medium does not conflict with our current understanding of the universe. It just does not have the ability to be tested at this point in time.

let's start over. My aim is gathering opinions of more educated individuals on my fictitious conotative theory that space is more than a mathematical necessity to explain how matter and forces interact. I do understand the denotation of theory, and that scientific theories are developed after ovservation, reaearch, and testing. The focus is to ponder about such things that may not be tested. To the comment on the definition of logic. I understand logic. logic is the simplist answer to the information given. What you may have overlooked is that you may have different information than I. If I am instructed to find the easiest way out of a room with a permanently locked door and an open window, I would climb out of the window. should you be given information about a key to unlock the door you're answer may be different due to the information. I took a less direct way of explaining this by acknowledging the difference in education some of you have. That was a mistake on my part. I accept my mistakes and apologize to those who may think my intentions are to challenge the well tested and proven rules and laws of physics. Basically my thought is that space itself is more than we think. Einstine spoke of the ether of space. Suggesting space is not a tangible substance is, in my oponion, likened to saying the space represented by 0(zero) doesn't exist. We could not exist if we did not have a "space" to exist in. It would be kind of hard to count to 11 without 0. Is there any evidence or theory to suggest that the expansion of the universe, theoretically caused by dark energy, is actually a property of the space in which all things exist? This is a belief of mine. It is not a hypothesis forged in the scientific method. It is a simple comparison to the theories of dark energy's proportion of the universe, and its effects on the universe. If "dark energy" makes up most of the universe and drives the expansion; then wouldn't the proportion of space to matter seem to coincidental to not at least be a potential candidate for explaining the expansion. I would like to know your thoughts. Thank you for baring with me this far. I do very much appreciate the input.

Exactly, you lack the ability to understand. Not all of the questions of the universe have been answered. Some of our answers may be wrong or simply stop being correct due to changes in the cosmos. we may never know and an individual such as yourself will never know everything. most of my posts have been met with negative replies, No matter how respectful my intentions were.Still, I shall look to the sky in awe of our relativistic size and role. To the closed minded persons who shoot down the radical ideas of lesser individuals, I hope you can look back to before you became educated, and reflect on the ideas and aspirations you had that lead you to persue the scientific fields you are in. Maybe some of your ideas were a little radical themselves.

If, belief and speculations are not observations or measurements; then, perhapse the speculations section is not the place to argue observation or measurements. Maybe this is the wrong topic for some of you guys. I posted an open minded idea in the speculations section. If an Apple falls on my head and I believe it's gravity. It's not actually gravity until I prove it. I'm not sure why people insist on complicating rather easy to understand concepts by changing the message intended. It's a post of speculations in the speculation section. It's not an attempt to undermine mainstream science. Until a like-minded respectable individual were to present evidence to the statements, ON THE ACTUAL TOPIC, this is all just fictional, mind expanding thought for fun. lighten up people.

The observational evidence and mathematical models come from beliefs and speculation. One does not exist without the other. Apples fall with inspiration. Only later may that inspiration be accepted as reality via research and testing. I had to edit my previous response. I think you may have misread. My comment about the lack of educational background in physics refers to the people, like myself, trying to make sense of the information we are spoonfed. The people that may benefit from understanding our perception of the physics are the people of higher education that deliver said information. So basically, scientists can understand how their work is viewed by someone who doesn't speak their language. The comment was not a conceited attempt to place myself above anyone else. Rather a respectful gesture to the more highly educated professionals on this forum. I can't stess enough that I posted in speculations.

physics(spelling) I'm not terribly great at spelling. I have a perspective that having the ability to phonetically communicate to someone may be more important that having 100% error free spelling all of the time. I come from the age of spell check where spelling was slack in school. Or, Perhapse I was. Never the less, low blow, undermining an attempt to be respectful in a post about speculations on mainstream unanswered questions we wonder about. We think science is right until we discover something that the earth is curved. The earth is not the center of anything. Our galaxy is not the entire universe. and so on. I do respect that mass causes spacetime to curve, and thatvthe result is gravity. But, space is not noting. dark energy makes up most of the univese. There is more space than matter. Space is expanding. Space should be given the term of dark energy. the very substance, or rather anti substance that matter exists. Without space, Gravity could not exist as space time curves to matter. I just think spacetime is being overlooked because of the indirect way in which we must study it.

Everything in our observable universe exists in space. Space is not nothing. Invisable energy and matter make up a greater portion of the universe than all of the matter and detectable energy combined. Space is not nothing. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you split an atom(smaller than a human eye can see) you get a release of energy hard to miss for miles. If you were to crush all of the "space" out of an atom the reaction must me opposite. Instead of an energy release, I believe energy would be condensed(rather than released) into matter. Black holes are something of the same nature. The idea of a body in space with an infinite density where light can not escape is hard to make sense of. Gravity affects matter. Light is not matter. So, the gravity of a black hole doesn't allow light to escape? I think we have it wrong. I believe a black hole exists when all of the space has been removed from a mass of matter. Space and Gravity are in a 13+ billion year long battle over matter. gravity pulls and space pushes. space will always try to exist between the particles of matter, and gravity will always try to pull them together. With the space removed from our theoretical black hole, we would observe space trying to once again enter the particles. As the space nears the black hole, it brings with it other bodies of matter. When the matter is brought to the edge of the black hole, the matter will then become part of the black hole while the space is pushed back out. all of the energy will, as mentioned before, convert to matter. Light travels through the vacuum of space at a fixed rate of speed. If there is a lapse in space around the black hole, then energy, in the form of light, will not have the required medium in which to travel. All energy that travels in waves travels through a medium. Why would that not apply to light? Space is not nothing. Light travels through space. The absence of space in a black hole can explain the infinite density problem. Space being more than a required tool to explain how we may perceive the universe can explain the behavior of light around a black hole, and the existance of dark energy. Compounding light energy into matter absent of space may also have the ability to explain how we may only indirectly observe black holes. Please share your opinions on my theories. I am fascinated with astronomy and phisics. Please take note that all of the statements above are simply logical connections and opinions formed from many basic rules of phisics, that I try to make sense of day to day. To the higher educated professionals who visit this site, I apogize for how silly some of this may sound, but this is my generalized perspective from bits and pieces of information that I obtain from reading discoveries, and further research on the things less explained. This post may shed some light on people's perspective who don't have a respectable education in phisics. Thank you all for reading.