AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:
But you could still charge people by alloting a certain amount of power per week / month or whatever. Money would still be made.

And I think if we really did have free energy people would find other ways to make money and exploit people.

The energy would be produced independently of any distribution center. Your home would contain its own "mini" power plant, eliminating the need for an electric utility company.

Sirius Star Photography wrote:
The Germans used torsion field technology during WWII to create the so called" foo fighter" ufos. We held their scientists under lock and key to access this technology. I am unaware of our government sharing this technology with the public or what their intentions were for obtaining this technology. The reason I'm mentioning this is because I'm sure that scientists in other countries are victims of suppression as well, it's just that in Germany's situation, they we're absolutely bent on winning the war and chose to use this once suppressed technology to do so, which, of course, didn't work as planned.

I think you're saying that there are greatly superior technologies that some people have known about for a long time but that most of the best scientists in the world either don't know about or won't talk about.

Is that right?

Digital Photo PLUS wrote:
Today's science knows of no feasible way to travel faster than light. There are mathematical models but they would have to be bigger than the visible Universe or would use up more energy that the mass of the visible Universe. Or rely on materials with properties that defy laws of physics that we know of today.

I know that.  Another poster in this thread seems to not believe this.  And, when trying to answer the question, uses generalities like "the amount of energy used would depend on how far you have to travel".  That tells me that this poster has not grappled with the collision between the theory he touts and our current understanding of physics. 

I could tout a new theory of space travel today.  I worked at Area 57 (more secret than 51) and I saw a new breed of alien ship.  It uses Element 218 and it creates this matter-anti-matter toast that........

Ok, terrific.  Now, to be considered a valid theory, I must prove it with MATH.  Otherwise, it is gibberish on a page.  QM is weird, very, very weird.  String theory is weird.  Very very weird.  But they use the common language of mathematics to prove or disprove certain things. 

I would still like to see the energy calculation for this theory.

Top Level Studio wrote:
There are no truly free energy sources.  Back in the Fifties, it was thought that nuclear power would be so cheap that there would be no need for meters on customers' buildings.

Then the reality of the cost of building and running nuclear reactors made it obvious that the utilities would have to charge significant fees for the power.

Wind farms cost money to build and operate; solar farms cost money to build and operate.  Tidal power turbines are not cheap, either.

In the long run, renewable resources will cost less than fossil fuels, but they'll never be free.

Even if there were totally free power sources, it would still cost money to build and maintain the distribution systems.

I think that was my point. Even if we could have broadcast wireless electricity like Tesla dreamed of you would have to charge people to use it because the infrastructure would need to be built and maintained...  BTW he did do a successful demonstration of this, but the idea did not catch on.

Digitoxin wrote:

I know that.  Another poster in this thread seems to not believe this.  And, when trying to answer the question, uses generalities like "the amount of energy used would depend on how far you have to travel".  That tells me that this poster has not grappled with the collision between the theory he touts and our current understanding of physics. 

I could tout a new theory of space travel today.  I worked at Area 57 (more secret than 51) and I saw a new breed of alien ship.  It uses Element 218 and it creates this matter-anti-matter toast that........

Ok, terrific.  Now, to be considered a valid theory, I must prove it with MATH.  Otherwise, it is gibberish on a page.  QM is weird, very, very weird.  String theory is weird.  Very very weird.  But they use the common language of mathematics to prove or disprove certain things. 

I would still like to see the energy calculation for this theory.

First off, you have to convert mass into light. If something weighs at a zero mass, getting it to achieve light speed would require very little energy, a couple volts. This would allow you to disappear into the electromagnetic spectrum. Everything in front of you appears physical, it's just waves on a micro-atomic level. Study particle-wave duality. Solid mass or electromagnetic wave frequency is at near-zero state frequency, light is at a higher frequency, follow me? When you change the frequency of mass into a high frequency state, it takes on the properties of photons. When a series of waves go from a low frequency state to a medium-high frequency state to an ultra-high frequency state, you transform mass into light. This allows for levitation and light speed travel using very little Einsteinian energy...

Justin wrote:
Oh, goodness.

Just because a metal is magnetic doesn't mean it has levitating properties. If it does, you can put iron in that same category.

Sirius Star Photography wrote:
I am speaking of diamagnetic materials such as Bismuth and Graphite which can be used to assist in the production of a state of levitation, not ferromagnetic iron.

Magnetic repulsion in response to another magnetic field is not levitation per se. It's magnetism.

London Fog wrote:
According to this article there may be as many as 100 billion planets in our Milky Way alone, and some of these may well host advanced alien life.

http://news.yahoo.com/100-billion-alien … 53897.html

Meanwhile, here on earth, Justin Beiber, Jersey Shore and the Karskankians are what we can offer them when they arrive!

Nice eh?

We are screwed if that is all we offer them they might just blow up the planet lol

Justin wrote:

Magnetic repulsion in response to another magnetic field is not levitation per se. It's magnetism.

Yes, levitation under high field superconducting magnets (high static magnetic fields) which create a low gravity environment. I'm speaking of levitating objects, not simply how two magnets behave during magnetism .

Justin wrote:
Magnetic repulsion in response to another magnetic field is not levitation per se. It's magnetism.

Sirius Star Photography wrote:
Yes, levitation under high field superconducting magnets (high static magnetic fields) which create a low gravity environment. I'm speaking of levitating objects, not simply how two magnets behave during magnetism .

We've gone from short-lived ununpentium to bismuth "properties of levitation" to diamagnetism to superconducting magnets causing levitation. And faster than light travel, but converting matter into "light" ... which then would, of course, be limited by the speed of light. (And if there's no converter for taking light back to mass at the other end of the journey, it will be off-putting for the travelers.)

All righty. I'm ready to discuss the physics of Stargate.

Digital Photo PLUS wrote:

I'm taken aback by hyped-up press announcements of scientific discoveries.

Hey, it beats the hell out of the latest Kardashian exploit.

Sirius Star Photography wrote:

So you're saying that nanodiode technology is pseudo-science, and that nanodiodes  that are aligned along with zero point energy, free from the universe, acting on them, producing one way electrons, comparable to a photovoltaic cell as photons, free from the sun, acting as a stimulant couldn't possibily be used to create a 1 meter square, solid state device capable of producing continuous energy, free from fluctuations or pollution?

From what I've read about it, it's cold fusion all over again.

AdelaideJohn1967 wrote:

I think that was my point. Even if we could have broadcast wireless electricity like Tesla dreamed of you would have to charge people to use it because the infrastructure would need to be built and maintained...  BTW he did do a successful demonstration of this, but the idea did not catch on.

Broadcast wireless electricity could work well in transmitting energy within limited areas, but unlike sending power through cables, it would drop off with the square of the distance, so broadcasting towers would have to be fairly closely spaced.

Right now, some people are concerned about the energy being broadcast to operate cell phones causing health risks.  If sufficient power to operate cars, truck, buses, and heating/cooling systems for large buildings was being broadcast wirelessly, I think the effects on human health would be obvious very soon, and they would not be good.

Sirius Star Photography wrote:
First off, you have to convert mass into light. If something weighs at a zero mass, getting it to achieve light speed would require very little energy, a couple volts.

So, back there on page 2 you said this:

Sirius Star Photography wrote:
Faster than lighting travel has always been a major topic for quantum, astro and theoretical physicists. In fact, there are multiple ways to achieve faster than light travel.

Notice you said: " IN FACT, ......multiple ways to achieve FASTER than light travel" (emphasis added)

Now you only want to convert MASS into LIGHT and send it across the galaxy (and, I would guess, reconstitute it into MASS after it arrives).  Oh, and you don't want to do this anymore FASTER than the speed of light, you only want to do it AT the speed of light. 


Anyone who wishes to state it is a FACT should be able to tell everyone here the ENERGY necessary to do it.  How much energy does this FACTUAL process you describe need to convert mass into light, beam it across the galaxy, and reconstitute it into mass require?

I also recall you earlier suggesting that the energy required to do this would depend on the distance travelled: 

Sirius Star Photography wrote:
Of course it would depend on the distance travelled, the amount of space/time you are bending.

How does that jive with your most recent "fact"?

Look, I could care less if you beleive that what you say is true or if you believe that Elvis is still alive.  You can have and espouse any THEORY you wish.  It is voices like yours that make the world interesting.   I am objecting and continue to object at your assertions that it is a FACT.  It isn't.  I may never have even responded to you if your language simply said: "there are multiple THEORIES out there (some of which I strongly believe in) where it is possible to ......."

So you're saying that nanodiode technology is pseudo-science, and that nanodiodes  that are aligned along with zero point energy, free from the universe, acting on them, producing one way electrons, comparable to a photovoltaic cell as photons, free from the sun, acting as a stimulant couldn't possibily be used to create a 1 meter square, solid state device capable of producing continuous energy, free from fluctuations or pollution?

This statement has nothing to do with inter-galactic, faster than light travel. You keep changing the subject as a diversion from bringing forth facts.