Autymn

## Autymn, D.:

Refutation of Thermodynamic Laws (RoTL), © Autymn D. C. lysdexia@jps.net

v 1: 13­16 Sep 2002 (30 k) ; v 3: 16­29 Nov 2002 (101 k)
additions: sections; corrected negative mass interpretation; natural asymmetries; lots of citations; figures; multidisciplines; propulsion; disgruntledness; vengeance; Hess¹s Law; thermochemistry; Nöther¹s Theorem; QED; more examples; Baez quotes!; corroborated discussions and press coverage; debunks Howe, Krieg, Bishop, Randi, ele, and their followers; electronics; particulate theory; complex interactions; corrected inequalities

*Please redistribute this version everywhere.Do it!Print and fax it if you have to.I need to get myself on other websites.*

– Intro
– Free Energy Related to Antigravity
– Dealing with False Sceptics
– Debunking the Debunkers
– Thermodynamic Laws Break Down There
– Thermodynamic Laws Break Down Here
– Taking a Break
– The End

# Intro:

After unloading the first draft of this essay on a few eGroups, I wanted to elaborate on some sections, polish others, make the transitions more natural and appropriate, and address others in the third person more often.However, the people whom I am directly attacking shall still be addressed directly.But to appeal to a general audience, they would need to be informed of why I brought up each subject without their being led through a confusing path formed by my stream-of-consciousness.This version of the essay is still informal.If you¹d like, you can take the original version of this essay to see what I changed and added here.The prologue above the essay is complimentary.

In order to satisfy the thesis, as strange and unfamiliar as it may sound, it is my duty to show that all disciplines are reliant on more fundamental parents–categories–to describe and prescribe them.Without such, the lower disciplines could not function.Because of this undeniable relation, any of the lowers cannot be used as ends in themselves: One cannot claim that, after one person or a group of people in the past has established itself into a common culture where its ideas are hard to separate due to convention or laziness, one is warranted in retaining beliefs and practices which conflict with reality.I wonder about the great amount of crap out there, and how there are no laws against it or against lying.There are none to protect the regular spectator or member of a society against the obnoxious losers, clueless teenagers, or senile schizophrenics that are pleased–though such an apperception is nearly worthless on them–to share the same space as we.Yet we are not usually allowed to punish them with force: through apt words and reason first, then by a manual impact in the front or back of their head when they disregard words, and then by restraining their limbs with intense pressure and pain to show them the trouble that they have brought on others and on society.

Because that isn¹t permissible as of yet, much of the crap and confusion out there can otherwise be replaced with a given truth which is so perfect that it cannot be wilfully assailed even by those who were paying attention and able to think without continually relying on false preconceptions which have been reinforced only by like company.One of my future wishes is to collide every cult with every other so that all members can destroy themselves to leave those who are not part of any cult–ie, people who are no longer a part of humankind–to inherit anything they want.Politics is the masculine form of gossip and it is beyond me why anyone would want to dissolve oneself in that insane, never-ending noise.Damn the opinion and may it die.Build the world and life upon facts, to force oneself to never err, and reap insights and knowledge so tragic that articulating a few lines of them would sink the hearts of billions and make them weep for hours.Biology goes into chemistry goes into physics goes into mathematics goes into logic goes into wisdom, each one being able to suspend and reform the prior.

Understanding this, maybe one will understand that one is wrong because of personal and usually-oblivious incompetence.Stop it or shut up.There is no paradox or contradiction with the established facts; it¹s just that one doesn¹t even know how one /exists/.The rest of the answers to life, the universe, and everything are better left to be written on one or two websites.Ehh, I¹ll get around to them.

And to show how stupid people are, I¹ll correct many of their misconceptions.They¹re unreasonably attracted to Halle Berry and Jeri Ryan, two of the most ugly-to-average female celebrities out there.They only look good in certain lights, when their faces are optional.And people keep talking about Star Trek by the original series, which was full of greasy dumbasses and outdated concepts.Watch the newer series, and watch Stargate.If you don¹t know the difference between these words, you have no right to write any of them: criterion, criteria; phenomenon, phenomena; its, it¹s; there, their, they¹re; lose, loose; therefor, therefore; cannot, can not; datum, data; your, you¹re; peak, pique; wet, whet; affect, effect. If you don¹t know what a semicolon is for, you shouldn¹t write anything ever!And get rid of your Wintel boxes and buy a Mac.They save you money because they don¹t break down easily, can be replaced after twice the length of time as Wintels, have tied the highest brand customer satisfaction rate, and don¹t have 20,000+ viri but only a handful of ancient, vanishing strains.They do NOT have one-button mice with limited functionality.They came with 16-button mice since almost the beginning of time: click; shift-click, control-click, option-click, command-click; shift-control-click, shift-option-click, shift-command-click, control-option-click, control-command-click, option-command-click; shift-control-option-click, shift-control-command-click, shift-option-command-click, control-option-command-click; shift-control-option-command-click.And they can run over 17 operating systems, many of which at once: OS X, OS 9, Win2000, Win98, Win95, Win3.1, Unix, BSD, Linux, DEC, DOS, AmigaOS, MINIX, Apple II, BeOS, Darwin, Commodore…The writers of Apple Switchers probably didn¹t know the above two facts.I¹m going to introduce more facts that almost everyone in the world doesn¹t know.

# Free Energy Related to Antigravity

I was somewhat inspired when someone asked a newsgroup if anyone knew how antigravity worked.This is what I said was the simplest explanation of antigravity, using Newton’s gravitational relation:

F_G = -G_N Mm/r^2

gravity: Mm > 0 ; antigravity: Mm
And that we already see it in the cosmos: http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/physnews.454.htm
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1998/physnews.361.htm
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/physnews.460.htm

The combination of positive and negative matter, though, introduces the need for the conservation of charge and spin through massless and energyless particles.They have to overcome the de Broglie relation in which their wavelength would become infinitely long and their packet infinitely diffuse, though, if they’re ever to be found.If they /don’t/, then the product should become the vacuum state for the entire universe.It involves a reaction more fundamental than those particles with opposing charges and spins that annihilate into energy.No, those reactants do not have all opposing properties which is why they don¹t become extinct and turn into the nothing that never was, or do the opposite and turn into the something that never wasn¹t.The Standard Model of particle physics has not speculated in this area yet, and the ³divine² particles invoked to cause the broken symmetries that the universe once had wouldn¹t count.

Because Goldstone bosons (X^0) have energy and, like photons, they gain energy to become the Higgses (H^0) and axions (A^0) which both have mass and are electrically neutral, a different kind of particle is needed.
Rather than having no mass or energy, the imaginary mass was introduced when Nambu formulated string theory.Maybe that, or M- or brane theory will find a place for the null particles.(The classical concept of a point particle should become extinct.As I had written before on other message boards and websites, the nonextension of any property is unreifiable; that is, for the particle to actually exist in space, it must be a spatial element which the artificial point cannot be part of.If I had been born much earlier, I probably would have invented string, brane, or bulk? theory.)If the particles start out with no charge either, and are hidden within more neutral dark matter, a strong series of magnets (Refer to the Primakoff effect which is almost like creating or destroying light or allowing it to go through matter by converting it to and from axions.) or heavy nuclei (Their strong electric fields cleave energy like light into matter and antimatter.) may be able to bring them out.

By negative matter or energy, I don’t mean the charge conjugate.Dirac’s prediction of antimatter was an accident.He considered the electron hole, or positron, to have negative energy so that he could increase the energy difference from the electron.But if the positron had negative energy, the pair would sum to zero-energy photons which aren’t made.The negative sign was only to signify the unitary conjugate.U(1), is that it?I know almost nothing about group theory.The negative sign was used in the same way as that in a position vector and its derivatives to point a direction, or in a temperature to reorient its particles¹ direction of transferred heat.(Yes, magnetic cooling involves the application of a gas with a temperature of negative kelvins.But there is still no zero, or point.)So for the electron-complement system to have more potential energy than the ground state of the electron alone, the charge conjugate had to be found.Of course if conjugates could always be found or created without an expense of energy in the conversion, there would always be free energy.That’s what Bearden said, and he uses an alternate version of T symmetry to make the MEG work.One reason is that an attraction in gauge theory is a time-reversed repulsion.I’ll try to revisit the conservation laws later, as well as to provide examples of tenable attractors.

The negative mass that I proposed was a simple way of achieving antigravity wasn¹t that simple.I needed to think about the interactions between gravity and inertia, and to regroup shortly after the second version even though I later, and before, got extremely carried away with reading, recording, researching…But I was going to say that I found something very, very weird.Still back in September before I put away the paper, I was sketching two-body gravitational interactions and their acceleration vectors for different polarities of mass.It turned out that it wasn¹t exactly the presence of negative with positive matter for there to be antigravity; the negative matter had to be significantly greater lest it crash into the positive matter because it was still attracted to the positive matter.Rather, a two-body interaction both of negative matter was needed for true repulsion.Thus, simply having a little negative matter around is not sufficient to escape, say, a planet¹s gravity unless inertia was found to have polarity also.

After using Newton¹s other equation, a = F/m, to parse the sign of the mass from -G_N Mm/r^2, I sketched seven interactions due to gravity or levity (from quintessence) alone, roughly expressed in ASCII:

(-)-> (+)-> ; ( – )-> (+)–> ; (-)–> ( + )->

(+)-> ;

So I just thought about extending these interactions to the signs of electric charge also, and drew about 12 diagrams.Then I put all the pluses and minuses into a square mixing matrix, and asked myself why I should stop there.Finally, I drew a 9X9 matrix with four signs per cell, formed from the signs and neutrals as a function of momentum and charge (p,q):

|+,+|^2 ; |+,0| ; |+,-| ; |0,+| ; |0,0| ; |0,-| ; |-,+| ; |-,0| ; |-,-|

It was freakish.The bottom left corner of redundant combinations was eliminated to leave 30 unique interactions between mass and charge.The remaining cells could be divided into 3X3 submatrices, further sectioned into quartets and quincunxes, except for the three diagonals which got partially cut off.So I turned this triangle of cells on its base and wrote all the combinations with their acceleration vectors.The quincunxes had bodies where at least one property was neutral, so I shaded the correlated spaces in the pyramid which formed pretty, somewhat-random striations.The centre of the matrix that became the base of the pyramid housed bodies that didn¹t interact at all because they were purely momentumless.There is a category of particles called luxons which have no mass and therefore must be luminal, like photons or gluons.But I don¹t think these fit; not having any energy they may be perfectly stationary, or they may represent imaginary points where charged particles revolve or oscillate about, sort of like electron-plus holes in a semiconductor.yes or no?

Above the base were two groups of half ³nullons² whereof some pairs only one interacted by converging or diverging with the other particle.I¹d call these the ³midlife marriage bodies².On either side of the base are odd hybrids.Every system interacts and here those in the grey parts of the right submatrix repel due to quintessence and those in the left submatrix attract due to matter.The white parts did the opposite due to electric forces.So whether or not like or different charges attract or repel depends on their mass.It was so much simpler in our small universe.Finally, the top or crown of the pyramid that was the corner of the matrix houses systems that attract and repel at the same time.I¹ll type them here, where asterisks are grey rows and dots are space-fillers.

..(+,+)->..(-,-)->
..(+,-)->..(-,+)->

Now in my search for a cause of antigravity, I also found one for possible overunity and kinetogenesis all located within this ³crown².If you draw the electric field lines for one of these systems you¹ll see that one set will sink into the other body but the other is repelled out.Unlike the virtual particles that exist for a short time and distance, these are real and so would exist indefinitely if they¹re isolated.Once isolated, both particles will accelerate indefinitely in one direction inversely proportional to the distance between them.This is really cool!Because both particles keep accelerating, they¹ll radiate continuously: One has positive momentum and loses positive photons and the other has negative momentum and loses negative photons.Two of the systems, those that accelerate toward the negative mass, will radiate these photons into each other to neutralise the energy.The seven others will radiate them out which will probably never neutralise.So the formation of this latter system can be another possible cause of gamma ray bursts and cosmic rays.

Even though the system continues to accelerate, it does not–funnily–violate momentum conservation because the sum of the momenta of the system is always zero.In the mutual electric field is an open system or a nonconservative field where any closed loop of one particle does work coupled with another system or field that undoes work on the other particle.Get half to gain energy then toss the other half into a planet or sun. *g*The way to gain energy is to keep these systems running in a ring trap and increase the distance between them to slow their acceleration and eject all the negative matter into a remote part of the universe or into another universe entirely.The sum of the momenta over the entire system, either this region of space plus that region of space or this universe and that universe, is conserved even though we have created energy for ourselves.The expense is relegated into the increase in entropy by the creation of more particles, unless negative mass comes with negative entropy.In that case, the total entropy of the system is also unchanged.

So what the hell did I find?Does it have a name, like Extended Electrostatics?These particles reminded me of a hypothetical spaceship design from NASA¹s Breakthrough Propulsion Physics featured in the May 2001 issue of /Popular Science/:

Diametric Drive
Today, scientists know that interactions between matter and fields produce force.For instance, gravitational fields accelerate masses–like the apple that supposedly struck Newton.And electric fields accelerate charges.If a spacecraft could create an asymmetric field around itself somehow, then perhaps the field would propel the spacecraft.The Diametric Drive, a generic version of a 1957 ³negative mass propulsion² concept, uses the interactions of a positive and negative field to propel the spacecraft.

The people at BPP used to get together at lunch scribbing their ideas on napkins.I used to do that too alone at a café until I regularly ran out of room.How about someone invent a memo pad entirely consisting of napkins?

When I was wrapping up this essay, I was forced to look through the sci.physics.research archives on the Cornell website, where a few other relevant links appeared.Then I ran into the Alcubierre warp drive which used a similar idea to those above, but it involved creating positive gravity in front and negative gravity in back in order to zip the spaceship along faster than light, taking advantage of fields from the
Here are the negative energy discussions on said newsgroup, in the Quantum Gravity thread which was probably the longest-running.To avoid spending entire evenings wandering through the replies, I¹ve included the paths:

5>1>2>1>1 http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-01/msg0038480.html

8>1 and 11>1 http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-06/msg0033497.html

all http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2002-02/msg0039369.html

I found two /Scientific American/ articles covering positive and negative energy, probably reprinted without permission:
– http://www.physics.hku.hk/~tboyce/sf/topics/wormhole/wormhole.html
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM.html

It bothers me that, because I have limited time and resources, I find something interesting and exotic except that someone else already discovered it a few years to a century back, and it turns out that I am only rederiving the history of human knowledge without knowing what already exists until too much time later when I have to finish my work and use external sources.Well, it usually doesn¹t happen.Then again, at 11 I was making and playing with Riemann spheres without ever hearing of Riemann.Just now did I find out what a Riemann sphere was. *mutter*

I have to re-iterate that the effect I described above does not completely resemble those in either of the above two websites.The former involves ³squeezing² pre-existing positive energy into positive and negative phases, not creating whole, discrete matter from no energy.And the latter involves zeropoint energy, in other words zero-temperature [positive] energy, which implicates the Schwinger effect, whereas my idea is wilder than the Schwinger effect and should occur even if there¹s nothing in the vacuum field.When negative energy was published, it had to be immediately policed–and taxed–by people who saw that it violated LoT2, that entropy in a closed system must increase or remain the same.The entropy does not actually change until the different energies interact with matter.Entropy depends on the number of possible states a system has, based on how free the particles are.For photons, I¹m thinking it¹s huge.The exotic laser the first article suggests decreasing the entropy of a bunch of water by cooling one part and heating another.

Here I also found a long thread on the Alcubierre drive, leading into another one about a negative mass puzzle, and both were very satisfying: .Amazingly, but not surprisingly, almost all of the content of the second thread fit the work I did alone above and on one of many papers on my desk.Negative mass does not violate momentum conservation, though.If you collided two similar and opposite masses, their scalar momenta would be +1 and -1 and sum to nought.(The second doesn¹t have negative velocity!)They would not be stuck together, nor would they bounce off; they would simply stop.You¹re able to apply mechanical force to the positive ball to roll it away, but not the negative ball.Your positive magnitude force will make it try to push into your hand.You¹d just have to keep hitting the ball so it sticks and rolls to your hand.

Ford and Roman developed ³quantum inequalities² which limited the amount and duration of negative energy to be extracted for every accompanying presence of positive energy and which depended on the local curvature of space.(Flat space makes the extraction harder.)Because I put Acrobat Reader away on a Zip disk to make room on my hard drive, and my Zip drive broke, I can¹t read their PDF articles now.Why the hell can¹t everyone publish in HTML files?They¹re the most universal.But I suspect that the inequalities depend on how foamy space is, and the Planck scale.Fortunately, none of the webpages covering negative energy and quantum inequalities have included extra dimensions in their constraints.Then I am able to derail them, like I did in the following sections for people who attempted to debunk Bearden¹s MEG, by simply pointing out that all Planck quantities have been reduced from the supergravity scale to the electroweak scale in the presence of extra dimensions, making all exotic effects 10^16 times easier!Thus, Planck mass goes down to 2e-24 kg from 2.18e-8 kg, Planck length up to 2e-19 m from 1.62e-35 m, and Newton constant up to 7e21 m^3 /kgs^2 from 6.67e-11 m^3 /kgs^2.How easy it really turns out to be is subject to change, of course.

So, to correct the demands in Ford and Roman¹s article, the submicroscopic wormhole can be up to 10^-16 m wide, not 10^-33 m; a one-metre wormhole have a 10^-5 m negative energy band, not 10^-21 m; its energy requirement take 6.3 solar luminosity-seconds rather than 10 billion solar luminosity-years; the Alcubierre and Krasnikov warp bubbles at 10c be 10^-16 m wide, not 10^-33 m; and the 200-m Alcubierre starship energy requirement be a millionth the mass of the observable universe, not 10 billion times.van den Broeuk somehow managed to make all values 10^62 to 10^65 times easier, so that only a few solar masses are needed for the last vehicle.The press coverage didn¹t reveal anything.(Warp drive around the universe would be easy if they¹d just fit the craft with a quintessence scoop.)There may be other ways to cheat Nature¹s numbers, and even to create dimensions for ourselves, including exploiting the curvature in the electron explained later.I can imagine a rudimentary alien culture living undersea and heated only by the planet¹s molten core.A few of its scientists propose the existence of organisms which have freer roam of the planet and don¹t need steam power–plants and animals, namely–but most point out that there couldn¹t possibly be that much energy.We have a sun, and everything we¹ve used came from it and its ancestors; we¹re somewhat lucky.So let¹s find its ancestors.

# Dealing with False Sceptics

Why there is still research on the structures of fields should be a sign to all that physics is not done yet, not even its supposed laws.Science is supposed to predict effects based on understood and presumed principles, but it is generally not qualified to predict those principles.That is why, in the case where physics is silent, mathematics and its parental disciplines take over.That is why the classical concepts of a point particle or singularity are being abandoned for spatial elements, because mathematics allows them.That laser interferometers are trying to measure extra dimensions at submillimetre scales just for gravity means that the dimensions are still available for other forces like EM to become stronger than expected.This could be the reason why many of the presented FE motors use very high voltages and frequencies unlike how any of our common appliances run.Engineers deliberately avoid them because of the hysteresis losses and high reactances, and wouldn¹t know what they¹re missing.Some of the motors use batteries in order to store the charge they’re supposed to generate, like the Tilley car.Maybe Tilley et al. would benefit from these new supercapacitors, or hybrids of batteries and capacitors.The critics should explain how to measure the charge in a battery, rather than the voltage, to establish the credibility of the inventions involving batteries, rather than complaining and handwaving that it is the battery only that runs the motor.

Dave Howe, are you some kind of electrical engineer?If not, and you haven’t even investigated this or any device, you should learn to keep your mouth shut.I would appreciate it if a gag order were available for him.Has it ever occured to you that some of the FE inventors know more science than you, and is why you’re never able to hold up a discussion or debate with them but choose to only cowardly opine and denounce on this list without contributing anything all the while making beaucoup petitio principii fallacies?Howe is a troll, pretender, and pseudoscientist.When has he ever been objective?It’s never more than 10%.After I sent out this first draft he became a little more quiet, but after my absence a few others on the free_energy list became rude and prejudiced about other FE devices.These CSIpigs who say the same things keep sitting on their fat arses and complaining that there’s been no evidence even /when/ there are motors on public display and when the inventors are open.These are damned hypocrites who don’t know the difference between a sceptic and cynic.

As a paranormal and atheist apologist, I have had experience reading, anticipating, and refuting the articles of both self-proclaimed sceptics and the devout.I have noticed an inherent correlation between the behaviour, habits, and thought processes of both groups.I worry about them as much as I hate them.Both of them are regularly oblivious of what they say or write and they accuse the opponent of committing the very same logical fallacies or factual errors that they commit.They almost always base their argument on faulty premises, usually circular, because they do not know how to argue their case any other way.Also, whenever a lengthy and detailed rebuttal of their arguments and beliefs are given, including real-world confirmable facts, both groups disregard the essay and continue with their assertions as if the points made or sources referenced in it did not exist.Both exhibit some form of antisocial dissociative-cognitive schizophrenia which liminally prevents them from being fair and reasonable with subjects and from learning.

Members of both groups also exhibit the peculiar social behaviour of lying when questioned in different circumstances.When self-proclaimed sceptics are asked privately if they treat fringe ideas with scepticism and rationality rather than with cynicism and prejudice, they will definitely say they do.But their public behaviour is the complete opposite, as their inherent biases and emotional attachment to their beliefs cause them to immediately dismiss, disregard, ignore, and denounce some to most fringe ideas and people when they are unwilling and unable to substantiate their claim that the subject is wrong.Moreover, they blatantly do not understand that if they have a position, negative or positive, on a subject, then they cease to be a sceptic.They also do not understand that, when they affirm a claim against the validity of said subject, they are obliged with the burden of proof to avoid double standards in which party should do all the work to evaluate the subject.Eric Krieg and James Randi regularly exhibit these characteristics because not only are they called sceptics, they publicly and authoritatively self-administer the title.But they and their devout followers are not sceptics but pseudosceptics behaving as cynics.They haven¹t realised that assuming the title openly without offering much work to establish themselves credibly into that title disqualifies them.One who regularly asserts that one is humble is not humble, and one who regularly asserts that one has no position will soon assert a position if one has an incompetence to substantiate the validity thereof and the invalidity of the opposite.

One member of the devout group is Robert Sungenis, a Catholic apologist who issues challenges with moderate monetary rewards to prove geocentrism wrong and to prove evolution right, uses a circular method of argument that any of the kinetic, gravitational, relativistic, or relational effects and celestial systems we observe are all due to a great illusion caused by ætheral drag and shortened stellar distances and an intricate balance of gravity about a stationary Earth.If one goes through his archives one will notice that he will rely on this generic argument: If you are holding a pencil in your hand, it is not the fixed hand and paper that allow the pencil to move and write but it is the fixed pencil that writes by moving the hand and paper [which is much much more difficult].Of course, he had to have developed such a hypothesis because otherwise our observations in astronomy would directly conflict with the accounts in the Old Testament.If the Bible were never written, he would have no reason to adhere to it.

Believers of divine books try to re-interpret observations of the universe to fit them with the scripture.Believers of hardcover books try to do the same to fit them with their understanding of common and conventional science.Thus, they will also rely on circular arguments in order to ³disprove² or debunk a fringe subject when the conclusion relies on the validity of the premises which are really conclusions of unestablished premises.They are happy to repeat this rationale whenever another instance of the same subject appears.They are hopelessly unaware that they regularly commit petitio principii, argument from authority, argument from ignorance, false analogy, stacking the deck, strawman, equivocation, and composition fallacies.Because I do not have a website to publish my thoughts in, I am each time forced to respond with my Very Long Paragraph (VLP) on a message board to debunk the /Skeptical Inquirer/ article often cited which tried to discredit John Edward¹s abilities by fraudulently covering his incidences and by committing many of the logical and journalistic fallacies given above as well as basing its premise on plenty of uninvestigated speculation.Also, because that or any other article has a position ab initio, as explained before, it is not a sceptical article at all.

Eg, scientists say that perpetual motion can¹t exist because the thermodynamic laws forbid it.³Why do they forbid it?²³Because they¹re laws.²³Why are they laws?²³They¹re based on thousands of years of consistent observation and are supported by common sense.²No, the observations have been mostly limited to familiar and common events.Adding them together into a body of science does not make them laws, but theories, to avoid committing the composition fallacy.As physicists are reaching both ends of the observable spectrum and are using more and more powerful and sensitive weapons and instruments, they are finding that the laws of thermodynamics simply don¹t apply rather than acknowledging that thermodynamics do apply but that they are not absolute.That is why my essay is titled ³Refutation of Thermodynamic Laws² and not ³Refutation of Thermodynamics².I have been able to dismantle the beliefs and arguments, if not to correct many of their factual errors, of both believers and cynics because I do not operate from either motivation.I don¹t care about absurd god or stupid man, but only about the Truth and my understanding and accuracy of it.

# Debunking the DebunkersOne member of the cynical group, Shawn Bishop who is new to me, put up an article on his site and James Randi¹s about Bearden¹s Motionless Electromagnetic Generator:Use the second address if you don¹t have Acrobat Reader.The cache doesn¹t come with images but they can be found from the references at the bottom.Bishop uses the standard circular argument against PMMs from presupposing the thermodynamic laws and applying them to anything that moves, and it is clear from the start that he is not interested in whether the thermodynamic laws could be wrong.With a standard understanding and explanation of thermodynamics, mathematics, and physics, it is not possible to support systems or events which, on the surface, appear to violate them.However, with further thought and analysis of such systems and events, compared to the more exotic physical processes physicists are aware of and open to study which I will go into in the next section, such systems or events do not violate them.As a hint of what I explain in that section, when a cynic dismisses a proposed PMM by saying, ³1 + 1 = 2 always with no exceptions and cannot equal 3², respond by saying, ³The 2nd Law doesn¹t even allow 1 + 1 to equal 2 but significantly less than 2.Also, 1 + 1 can equal 3 if 1 is subtracted from it, 1 + 1 = 3 – 1, or if it¹s multiplied by 2/3, 1 + 1 = 3*2/3.This is done to balance the equation and has many variations in mathematics and chemistry problems which would be unsolvable unless an excess amount is corrected, grouped, and operated on such as the variable shift for Ocompleting the square¹ in algebra.The origin of the term Oconservation¹ in the thermodynamic laws has nothing to do with physics or statistics but with mathematics; it comes from Oconservative field¹ in vector calculus.Such a field is defined as a set of force vectors arranged such that the potential energy change after travelling through a closed path on these vectors is zero.The field also has zero curl which means the forces don¹t circulate.Thus the thermodynamic laws are based on self-supporting premises which may not apply with the existence of a nonconservative field, which is well accepted in mathematics.If the conservation of the entire system is at stake, then an opposing nonconservative field is posited to be in another location to satisfy the balancinove.²Because I am familiar with the electrical concepts he explains in the beginning, I will skip to his criticisms of the device.He correctly stated that a magnetostatic field does not induce currents in a wire, but misapplied the law to this device and suggested that the magnet can be removed when the law had nothing to do with the device¹s operation.A static field, or a standing wave, can be decomposed into any number of pairs of propagating waves opposite in direction and value according to the simple arithmetic I illustrated in two sections above.Should one or more of one half of the waves be isolated by some exotic process, the field will acquire more or less energy, velocity, momentum, moment, etc. than it started out with.A magnetostatic field then becomes a magnetodynamic field, plus junk, and is able to induce a nonconservative electric field according to Maxwell¹s 4th equation because the field¹s curl is no longer zero.The equation /allows/ free energy to be used electrically in the same way that the Gibbs free energy equation allows it to be used in chemistry when a potential is formed.As to the purpose of the [giant] magnet, the magnetisation of a solid involves the coercion of all domains opposite to the desired magnetic field to align and causes the domains to be lower in potential energy than those of a regular solid.The current run through the magnet then the magnet will attempt to use to demagnetise itself and for its electrons to gain potential energy overcoming minor losses.If Bearden thinks that using a high-enough alternating current can split the domains¹ static fields, then that is the premise of the device.Don¹t complain about unnecessary components when you don¹t even know what the device is supposed to do.Then Bishop resorts to the standard illogic again, “If this data[sic] is not fabricated, what is wrong with the experimental method and/or Naudin’s interpretation of his data to produce this false result?”So the result must be false because he says so.No, the result is independent of his opinion.Also, it¹s his interpretation of the data which is completely wrong.I was rusty with electrical equations and reading multiple waves on an oscilloscope; but after reading Bishop¹s numbers and trying to compare them with the data on the images I was pleasantly surprised that it would not take much to apply my understanding to expose his incorrect explanation, as I have for many other past cynics and believers.The wonder and purpose of life is restored.In Fig. 4 he consistently misreads the waveforms.I don’t know how he arrived at those numbers but he appeared to be playing baseline hopskotch.The voltage is 24, not 28.The input is DC and is clearly marked “DC INPUT”.Did he not spot the difference between mean and root mean square units in the left and right sides of the diagrams after the photos?He figures the waveform is alternating because it doesn’t appear straight, which could be due to anything, yet he continues to measure the wave from the baseline even though it doesn’t oscillate about it!How do you form a DC voltage with an AC current, Shawn?The current is also DC, and the trace is displaced about 160 mA.If it were an AC wave, it’d only have an amplitude of 15 mA.These two [correct] values multiply to 3.84 W.Tell me your age, Shawn.I’ve taken Network Analysis or “Intro to Electronics”, albeit years ago but I still have the textbook, and noticed that students of senility and myopia tend to become confused when they had to interpret and transcribe the wavy lines against the rectilinear background.You should stick to pop physics and try not to understand anything past your eternal state of disinterested stupor.Again, I have no idea how he got 500 V anywhere from the output figure.The distance between the blue peak and base line is 725 V, according to the legend which is RIGHT THERE!500 V is the rms value, not the peak value as he confusedly tried to explain.Also, the current amplitude is 72.5 mA, not 44 mA.The two [correct] values multiplied together and divided by two (square root of two squared) yields 26.3 W, which is 6.8 times the input power.Besides, my power products accurately match the bottom wave in either figure.What’s his excuse?Could it be possible that Naudin switched the images since June, the date of Bishop’s article?Well, it’s the only excuse he’s left with.If it¹s true, then and only then does Naudin owe the public an explanation due to the possibility of intentional fraud.Maybe the explanation for why Naudin didn¹t respond to email inquiries was because there was nothing wrong with his data?Oh wait, with faulty reasoning and failing perception, Bishop could prove or disprove anything despite what the truth says!Way to go you damned retarded cynics.And because he got the output voltage wrong, he also got the power through the resistor wrong.The correct approximation, from the given waves, is 725^2 /2*100000 = 2.63 W.Double this to get 5.26 W for both output coils; imagine that, it still runs at almost twice CoP with a 100k resistor on it!Bishop ³used Naudin¹s own values against him² when I used Bishop and Naudin¹s values against Bishop.Where do ye live, Bishop and Randi?I’d like to egg your houses.
# Thermodynamic Laws Break Down There

Critics claim to know what physics establishes about thermodynamics, and are quick to label presented motors as hoaxes and junk, when no one can even be sure where the boundaries of a system are in order to establish whether it is open or closed!

Either type of system really is a figure of speech, especially now that we’ve found many sources and scales of energy where fields in one scale can be modelled nonconservatively in another.Do the challengers accept demonstrations of the opposite of free energy, or stolen energy?That is where matter-energy conservation is violated (violated, at least, as the CSIpigs consider it) by destruction or disappearance.I suggest that they request a copy of /Review of Particle Physics/ for free from .I just got the 2002 volume a couple weeks before the first draft of this essay, published by Physical Review D and in 2000 by European Physical Journal C.The above type of violation is sought in the appropriately-titled “disappearance experiments” which look for “missing energy”.(There are also appearance experiments where some particle appears because of a weak field, naturally or artificially.Whether it got there by always existing in some form, or by really appearing can¹t be determined due to the tiny cross-section of weak interactions.)By poring over the many particle entries you’ll eventually find where there are decay modes with a significant probability of the collision energy becoming “invisible” or into supposed cold, weakly-interacting particles.They didn’t turn into neutrinos because those are recorded in other entries.

Before neutrinos were first posited by Dirac, a loss of momentum in nuclear decay was noticed and where the vertex of the decay paths was was appropriately assumed to be the neutrino leaving.So eventually detectors became better at sorting out all of the decay products.But how is one to determine if the energy loss is the result of a detectable particle, undetectable particle, or by nothing else?That is, if the process was dissipative (transverse or longitudinal to the beam) or nondissipative (poof)?Those who believe that violations necessarily occur because there were no unknown processes are fooling themselves.But, upon learning this, they will have to accept that free or indefinite energy does not violate conservation of fundamental properties and that some FE inventors actually know and understand more than they do.But the pretenders don’t always shut up.As they’re complaining about the FE inventors they ignore that CERN, SLAC, KEK, Fermilab, etc. may also be “violating” thermodynamics.

Here are some of the stolen energy (invisible) and free energy (anomalous) candidates:

G10 W -> invisible [b] (1.4 +/- 2.8)%
[b] This represents the width for the decay of the W boson into a charged particle with momentum below detectability, p
Compare m_W = 80.423 +/- .039 GeV

I assume that the momentum was calculated by subtracting that of the gamma radiation.If not, that’s an even bigger problem.

G5 Z -> invisible (20.00 +/- .06)%
G37 anomalous gamma + hadrons [c] G38 e+e-gamma [c] G39 mu+mu-gamma [c] G40 tau+tau-gamma [c]
Compare m_Z = 91.1876 +/- .0021 GeV
G37 to G40 Limits on additional sources of prompt photons beyond expectations for final-state bremsstrahlung.

This sounds like evidence for extra dimensions leaking in.Do extra dimensions violate LoT1 just because they introduce (create) energy into the closed system?

ngamma A^0
l+l- A^0

– From Figure 1, possible m_A in eV
Lab experiments, telescope: [20,1000], [,2]
Globular cluster stars, inflation: [,.2]
Dark matter: [1e-6,1e-2]

A^0 (Axion) Mass Limits from Astrophysics and Cosmology
> .2 MeV
> .25 MeV 1
> .2 MeV 2
> .3 MeV 2
> .2 MeV
1 Lower bound from 5.5 MeV gamma-ray line from the sun.
2 Lower bound from requiring the red giant’s stellar evolution not be disrupted by axion emission.

A^0 (Axion) Searches in Quarkonium Decays
A^0gamma (A^0 -> missing)

Invisible A^0 (Axion) Mass Limits from Astrophysics and Cosmology
3 to 20 eV 164 KSVZ, hot dark matter
164 MOROI 98 points out that a KSVZ axion of this mass range (see CHANG 93) can be a viable hot dark matter of Universe, as long as the model-dependent g_A_gamma is accidentally small enough as originally emphasized by KAPLAN 85; see Fig. 1.

These entries don’t include the many decays that involve heavy X^0 bosons, the six neutrinos, and the rest of the axions of different masses which all constitute dark matter.There are too many to type.Even though electron anti/neutrinos from nuclear reactions are best understood, most of the entries producing neutrinos are not from such reactions.That nu_e or nu-bar_e really left the centre of mass was supported when the particles (more precisely, the effects of those particles) could be recovered in detectors looking for Cherenkov light cones or spontaneous transmutations in giant underground tanks of liquid.Neutrino beams have been sent from one city to another through the earth and a tiny fraction was recaptured.But as for the nonnuclear products, most of the neutrino entries weren’t confirmed.The beam momentum was compared to the decay products momentum and the large deficit was automatically assigned to a bunch of neutrinos because the conservation of momentum (mass, energy, etc. too) was presumed.This was done even though the neutrinos couldn’t be detected.

The missing electron neutrino energy from the sun was also assumed to be an oscillation into another neutrino midway, the mediation of which they posited a fourth kind of neutrino for called a sterile neutrino because it doesn¹t even weakly interact.(/RoPP/ includes an article, ³Neutrino Physics as Explored by Flavor Change², which says that enough uncertainty exists for a quarter of the solar neutrinos to become sterile, at 1sigma.)But is either of these methods scientific, or are they nothing more than induction?By presuming that conventional thermodynamics is preserved in exotic reactions, even though or especially because the processes are currently hidden from us, in order to induce workarounds which may have no support–because of the alternative that I’m to suggest–it should strike you as stupid dishonesty.What if these aren’t neutrinos and these decays, or energy losses, do violate thermodynamic laws or involve oscillations into particles that drop out of the universe?I prefer events of the latter type, even though some may conflate the two.The electron, muon, and tauon exist, and the electron neutrino exists with confidence, but what if the mu and tau neutrinos and other weak particles were invented as a cover, whether accidental or intentional, for larger and larger destructions or disappearances of energy from our closed system?

Above I am only talking about decay products for colliders.It does not include neutrino fluxes from the sun, cosmic rays, and supernovæ, which are actually sought and detected by the Super-Kamiokande and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory.The latter can detect all three neutrino flavors by energy formed by nuclear collisions in heavy water.The mentioned article focuses mainly on natural events, and briefly addresses invisible neutrino decays, ³In principle, upward-going (long-distance traveling) muon neutrinos could be disappearing, not as a result of oscillation, but through decay into invisible daughters.This possibility is theoretically less likely than oscillation.However, there is a model of this kind that proved totally compatible with all the atmospheric neutrino data for a long time.Only very recently was it finally possible for SK to show, using a neutral-current-enriched event sample, that this model is disfavored at 99% CL.²Yeah, but I could make a case that neutrinos /do/ come with more invisible decays, /and/ have them total the missing or extra momentum properly if the neutrinos actually have or develop larger interaction cross-sections than thought–ie, dilution.I wonder what model the author meant.

Here¹s a new point to add in this version, after I had already noticed the correlation earlier and later in the essay.It should not be a surprise that matter-energy conservation violations could be found in the so-called ³weak interactions² because the error of the most common thermodynamic reactions are nominal.In discussions of Quantum Mechanics and Superstring Theory together, the weak gauge theories are known to violate conservation laws including for electric charge, so the _____ theories come with as many _____ anomalies where the blank is an aspect of the particle in weak interactions.They¹re so damned weak, they can¹t even tell if momentum is really conserved because they can only capture a miniscule fraction of the products.In sci.physics.research again, John Baez had this to say in a thread about the weak force, after saying that conservation laws are arbitrary (Wow, we really think and write alike.confer ), ³OGravity is by far the weakest force and should be rich with non-conservations and loopholes.¹Well, if Hawking’s calculations are right, gravity should violate LOTS of conservation laws.² ()

These conservation laws for quantum and thermal events are intriguing.Both come with three: charge conjugation, parity, and time reversal (CPT) and momentum conversion, entropy nonreversal, and equilibrium (MSE).If you transpose PT you’d see that the resulting six effects are somewhat correlated: charge with momentum, time with entropy, and parity with equilibrium.But because the events are on different, and opposing, scales quantum violations are expected whereas thermal conservations are expected.Quantum conservation for each of the effects was expected initially until asymmetries arose (which are necessary for our existence) and physicists resorted to grouping the laws until they weren’t violated as a whole, or three at once, CPT.Each of CPT are violated in special cases and I will continue showing how each of MSE are violated also, so the pretenders will have to concede that this double standard of which laws to be allowed broken will end.Notice that if some particle unexpectedly decays to the left instead of the right as often as observed, the physicists don’t try to induce or invent a law that elsewhere in the universe that twice as many of those particles decay to the right to make up for that asymmetry.Yet they will induce or invent undetected or undetectable particles if they find energy lost from the collision, and unobserved extra dimensions if they find extra energy from the collision.

I usually call M, S, and E LoT1, LoT2, and LoT3.I’ve already shown plenty of small processes above that may destroy or create matter-energy.The quantum mechanics discovered (invented?) the reduced Planck constant (h-bar) because they conceded that two wrongs can make a right.MS violation happened with the big bang, where enough energy gathered in one place to be unstable and the temperature combined with the entropy was almost infinite.To say that it was always there doesn’t help, which is SE violation where no entropy became great entropy, and to say that time began then doesn’t either, which is still M violation.When a FE dabbler thinks about getting energy from, say, a boulder on top of a mountain or a hollow container at the bottom of the ocean, one knows that energy must have been inputed into the object to /get/ it there, and that the object had a history of energy change.Thus it should be no problem if the universe got its energy from another or from another version of itself in order to create energy within that thereafter closed system.Does the vacuum energy provide only an acceleration, or also a jolt?The latter implies a continual input or increase of energy, also M violation.

S violation occurs in small frames, such as for a couple seconds and microns in a colloid as announced in the recent AIP, Nature, etc. publications, in open systems such as the Earth, and for condensing attractors especially black holes or big crunches.The colloids sometimes gain energy through ³random² successive collisions of the fluid media.I can also think of a similar case extended to the light in background radiation upscattering to become visible since there are an indefinite number of electronic transitions and no lower limit for the energy of a photon and, thus, no upper limit for the number of low-energy photons.The last cases are special, because for BCs violations apply to everything and for BHs the violations are appreciated two ways.From the observer¹s rest frame, the infalling object will continue to freeze approaching the event horizon because of time dilation, and this time dilation continues to decrease entropy to zero.From the infalling object’s frame, everything becomes undissipated and soon compact and crystalline, or also without entropy, when it reaches the singularity.In a BH, isn’t time reversed?(Time reversal means entropy reversal.)Its space then forms a hypercylinder where the singularity stretches all the way back to the big bang.

How do BHs apply to regular situations?Well, since so far the colliders haven’t found an electron substructure, physicists have concluded (Oh, that word should leave a bad taste in their mouths.) that it is a “point” particle, presumably smaller than the classical electron radius of 2.818 fm.But because they do know the electron mass, they haven’t been very careful to observe that a point is smaller than the Schwarzschild radius.The Planck mass is 2.18e-8 kg, or 2e-24 kg with extra dimensions.It’s no large step to guess that when the big bang collided crap energetically enough to forge miniBHs, that electrons and neutrinos are stable examples thereof.But because the electric field is so much stronger than its source’s gravity, the muon and tauon are unstable BHs and rapidly break apart into the stable BH or electron.What do you think?If the electron’s a miniBH, its event horizon is buried within its charge density where time reversal occurs.As a source or sink for charge, the path can be cut if the flux is recovered from the source.By accelerating the electrons, the electric field increases, which would tend to tear apart the BH, and the distance between the singularity and EH decreases.The entropy-reversed flux has a greater chance of tunnelling across the barrier to be recovered, hence the MEG!It involves symmetry unbreaking of T or CP invariance.I mean, this explanation is somewhat self-consistent and uses already-understood principles, unlike those of the uninitiated.I’m not a Bearden convert; it’s just that with the more independent thinking I do, I arrive at the same arguments and models, simplified.

I know there are problems with the electron being a miniBH, even with the reduced Planck mass, and that more factors would need to be introduced to make it work.Six or seven orders of magnitude still separate the mass and one would need to explain how it is missing from the rest mass yet still be able to form an EH.However, it does not need to strictly be a gravitational BH, as long as it is able to capture some form of energy.Optic and sonic BHs have already been invented using ultracold, rotating Bose-Einstein condensates by blowing up the refractive index.Because condensed matter physics is where I suggest worldshaking technology to be found next because it offers experiments to test the Standard Model and theories of all other forces, and an electrical current taken as an exotic gas or plasma qualifies as an instance of this, it is possible to regard the electron to be more special and able than regularly.They don¹t know everything there is about the electron and its interactions with matter because experiments are usually based on conditions which are obviously and immediately useful for public consumption.

Another reason I think that the electron is a black hole is its unique ability to absorb and emit photons, neutrinos, and other neutral particles in the presence of a strong, opposing electric field.For the example of light, it does not scatter off electrons if they have lost potential energy by being bound around the nucleus.When a photon is absorbed by a bound electron, the photon does not actually become extinct but is lodged somewhere near the electron’s event horizon.Upon gaining or losing energy, the photons either tunnel in or out of the electron.If the electron did not have an event horizon, real or effective through escape velocity or exploding refractive index, then one would be hard-pressed to explain how light could be captured by it.Because physicists have not been able to set lower limits for electron and photon sizes, and because one particle accepts the other so well, it is reasonable for them to be of similar size.If the electron is a black hole, there are tremendous implications for… everything.You fill in the blanks.

In lighter collapsars the potential energy lost can’t be recovered as easily, but it doesn’t prevent random collections of material to violate S invariance at least once.LoT2 has two versions according to the descriptions of entropy.One is that heat, overall, only flows from hot to cold systems–the corollary being that heat, overall, does not flow from cold to hot systems.The alternate, less specific, description is that work becomes more unusable or unavailable with time–the corollary being that used work, or heat, does not become more usable or available with time.What violates the first description of entropy is a sufficiently-large cloud or nebula of any kind.In space, each particle is only a few kelvins, yet their self-attraction from gravity and/or London forces does work on this system, turning a very cold system into a very hot system.The result is a thundercloud, moon, planet, star, system, galaxy, etc.Gravitationally-bound systems possess negative heat capacity, and are bad for thermodynamics, as Baez admitted.

Therefore it is feasible for a shattered cup to come together again, using attractive static electric and magnetic fields, through smart materials or nanotechnology that would help recover the energy from the impact and deliver it efficiently to the fracture sites for their heat of fusion.The process has two parts, wherein the latter serves as the glue and the former serves as the clamp.The lesser the impact, the more the clamp will hold and the less glue is needed.The greater the impact, the less the clamp will hold but the more glue is available.This would be similar to attaching elastic bands to all of the pieces, by reducing the available energy states of the pieces, but the efficiency varies more and the bonds are stronger.The cause for statistics and for determinism are mutually exclusive, though, so it¹s possible that systems will prefer to be ordered and actually have fewer states than described by a general statistical model.The attractor is an example of an S violator, its amount measured as negentropy, and is responsible for self-organising systems.Negentropy, in familiar cases, opposes entropy incompletely even though it may be regarded as violating both descriptions of entropy if the boundaries of the system are loosely presumed.Under the word’s strict usage, the attractor does not violate not creating work from an unusable system, as obviously the potential energy was /used/.

But the potential energy is presumed from the apparent boundary of a system, and the number of forms of energy and their degrees of freedom is unknown, meaning that the internal energy of any system is undefined.Thus, whether any process, observed or proposed, is believed to violate thermodynamics is ultimately unresolvable.The potential of any set of fields is likewise undefined and arbitrary.Einstein said that the laws of thermodynamics were the only laws that will remain unprovable for the lifetime of the universe, and the third law which has been condensed into “You can’t quit!” or “You can’t leave!” reinforces this situation.Because the LoTs are unfalsifiable, they are unscientific and should not be enforced.Even if their application is to fall back on likelihood, it is not possible for such to be determined either because of the ambiguity of the properties of the physical system involved.How much deviation is allowed from the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, for example?

I’d like for them to be demoted from laws and be schismed into special and general theories.(I’d also like the “law” of gravity to undergo the same review, knowing that gravity has polarities like for electricity or magnetism and that G_N is dependent on the number of dimensions and may decay with the universe’s expansion as Dirac suggested by the similar ratio between the electron and universe radii and the electric and gravitic strengths.The amounting constants that are really unconstant should also be renamed “instances”.)The current LoTs would occupy the special theories, now SToTs, and the rarer but ongoing violations of the SToTs to be accommodated in the general theories which consider the processes elaborated above, not to exhaustion, now GToTs.The SToTs do not ultimately matter to the universe because it does not care.It only cares if its statistics are disturbed too much, which can be disturbed to arbitrary degrees.(Probability is conserved in the multiverse, as it was unlikely for the physical constants to have supported a stable universe and its very complex systems.)For people to assert the LoTs, such as Howe, despite being a thermodynamics professor, Park, and Randi, using circular proclamations, even to believe that they can immediately disprove a FE motor by invoking the LoTs and refusing to investigate, is what makes them pseudoscientists.There is no excuse for their ab initio treatment of this improving niche field.

Back to the violations, the last is the trend toward equilibrium.Because the potential is undetermined, so is equilibrium because the ground state is an oscillation between equilibrium and inequilibrium.Like Dirac’s electron hole, how many of these imbalanced systems are available are left to group theory if it can predict such.If not, maybe there’ll be a group theory theory!I mean metagroup theory…The oscillation allows S violations involving loops of recoveries of small-scale work or large-scale heat to be E violations.Not included in the previous section are photon, electron, and neutrino decays.They determine the limit for heat death for the universe, if it were open.Within a googol years, all the matter-energy disappears and is used to rebang even though it¹s dispersed.(I’m not sure how, ask Tony Smith.I came up with the idea independently, even though or because I don’t believe in a hyperbolic boundary.A spherical boundary may intervene any time after a hyperbolic one too.)If the universe contracts or oscillates, it still violates SE as much as any collective subset thereof does.Because its contents are never ideal, the LoTs are never ideally followed either.Note and beat that!

Microscale oscillations can be gambled to fight chaos not only in suspensions but in complex systems.Again, this shows that many-bodied systems are not necessarily statistical and can be deterministic.Thermal rachets do this by limiting the number of states that will change their potential energy.The temperature of a fluid is never zero, and the number of molecules higher in temperature than the average levels off much less than those lower, so what would happen if a bunch of rachets only a few nm wide were attached to the side of a closed water bottle?The final momentum of an object depends on its initial momentum.That a buttered toast always falls with its buttered side down is example of randomness defeated by limiting the number of possible toast states and its fall to one-half rotation.The same will work with a coin, or a large wheel.A few people over the years have understood and tried it with the Showcase Showdown Wheel on The Price is Right: By exerting the appropriate amount of torque when the wheel starts at $1.00 the spinner can get the wheel to land on $1.00 again, instead of spinning it with an indefinite force and wishing that it lands on a high number.If the wheel completes less than one rotation, the contestant gets to spin the wheel again without affecting one¹s total.

I have tried applying the concept of a statistical rachet to my television remote.The bottom is tapered and rounded so it can stand vertically.The remote is flipped very quickly, and I try to catch it so it has the right orientation.There should be four states, and any orientation should come with 1 in 4 chances.Each state can be assigned a value of whatever: momentum, energy, probability, etc.Catching a wide end is -1, catching a narrow end backward is 0, and catching a narrow end forward is +1.As the number of flips increases, the total should change by an average of -.5 each.But it doesn¹t; the total continues to increase, toward the positive end.That is because I, the observer, am somewhat able to spot the narrow end coming and have a feeling of how much force to exert based on the last flip¹s orientation, even over several rotations.Probability and disorder are violated because objects are deterministic.

A great example of defeating equilibrium that still stands was the Finsrud mobile I challenged the CSIpigs with before but the hypocrites still won’t look at it.(Between this first and third draft, they still haven¹t and won¹t.They exhibited the same behaviour that religious racists have in ignoring or disregarding what I¹ve corrected them with in the open.There are several motors on Eric¹s list of perpetual motion that haven¹t been resolved or even investigated.What do they have to lose?)And when they don’t, they spout strawmen such as that inventions in public display involve hidden power sources or that this mobile runs on background noise.If the latter, it still qualifies as S violation.At undiscernible scales, the difference between M and S violation breaks down so it doesn’t matter what their excuses are.I ought to punch these obscurants every time they have the nerve to mislead people.Perhaps they really don’t care about inventions that run for days or weeks in the open.I found this when trying to find detailed objections and workarounds for Maxwell’s Demon: .I only got the latter.So, who here is thermodynamically-qualified to review these?

# Thermodynamic Laws Break Down Here

Here I’ll talk about the state of physical experiments today and their alleged reproducibility.Why are millions spent on projects to probe the limits of the universe when it only takes thousands for an individual or a few people to conceive and/or achieve (some symmetry breaking there!) what the former group couldn’t?It’s likely that they’re trying too hard.Tell me if it’s an urban legend that it cost millions to research a toilet seat or screwdriver.With each successively-powerful collider, they are sort of screwing themselves over.And they automatically think that the others are kooks.The background increases along with the uncertainty, and particle detectors do not improve.Counts become vanishingly small or undiscernable.With the exception of weak processes, they find little interesting, earthshaking debris.

Dave Howe, how well has thermodynamics been tested?(Only insisting that it has doesn’t count, as has been the tactic of obstinate science professors.He did not answer by this version.)Calorimeters are imprecise and unreliable.Because most thermodynamics processes happen at the chemical scale, let me shake up your worldview even more.Having taken two chemistry courses including labwork, I can say that chemistry is the least exact or consistent of the physical sciences, along with hydrodynamics.Taking great care to follow the same steps does not produce replicated products, but a wild variety to the left and right.About a fourth of the experiments behaved like this.There were no visible impurities or clumps or allotropes in the reagents.What is the name of those balances that include like five significant digits, and how do they work?The same balance calibrated again, loaded again, and free of impurities again always produces different weights!Reactions involving clean glassware and any balance, even accounting for error, always produce errors exceeding that of what could be accounted for.Trying the experiment a second time only gets mediocre improvement, and not even usually, and the students just learn to accept the odd value or make up their own to closer conform to the theoretical.Measurements in quantum chemistry are the same.

Have you compared the numbers between three or more textbooks or other sources?They’re wildly off.Thermochemistry will not save you.It’s amazing that, even with much smaller processes and particles, physical constants exist whereas chemical constants don’t.Physical constants are good down to ppm or tens of ppb, .001% or .00001%, whereas chemical constants are only good to .1% to even 50%.Results are supposed to be unacceptable if they¹re off by only a few percent from a published source, but those sources are off from and within each other by much more.Atomic and ionic radii vary to 25%, state transitions by 5% to 20%, densities to 10%, K constants by about the same as state transitions, bond enthalpies by .1% to 50%, and thermodynamic values also by .1% to 50%.Compounds with polyvalent elements tend to have the greatest error.

Hess¹s Law is the physiochemical application of LoT1.In the Born-Haber cycle, the sum of the enthalpies (transferred energies) taken by the state changes and decomposition of a compound is equal to the energy given back when such is returned to the same compound.This is used to calculate a missing enthalpy value if all others in the cycle are known, such as for the formation of a compound from its base elements.The following is for an ionic solid or salt.If the element is a solid, the enthalpy of fusion for melting, of vaporisation for boiling, and of ionisation to bring it to the needed charge are added to get the solid¹s enthalpy of formation of its plasma.Then another element, usually a gas, goes through the formative enthalpy of its monatomic state, then of ionisation (called electron affinity because electrons are added instead) which are added to get the formative enthalpy of its plasma.Then the two plasmas (ions) combine and release the lattice energy and some more as it cools to the original temperature.The lattice energy is the ion pair energy from Coulomb¹s Law, E = kQq/r combined with all the pair energies released when the gaseous salt cools to a solid.The lattice energy is too hard to measure, so it has to be calculated by taking the sum of enthalpies experienced by the plasmas and subtracting the formative enthalpy of the compound.

What¹s the problem?In order to preserve Hess¹s Law, chemists must assume that the lattice energy doesn¹t include intermediate events where the ions mysteriously gain or lose energy which is included in the total change of energy to form the compound.Because they can¹t measure the lattice energy, they can¹t tell if it does include such events what nature they are.Whether the reaction includes such events may be found by the formative enthalpies of a compound and how much they vary, taking the maximum difference of enthalpies, and seeing how much that difference is greater than the combined errors of the thermochemical instruments.If it is much greater, it¹s a serious problem for thermodynamics.And I feel that it is.The formative and intermediate enthalpies for various compounds were measured from the 50s and again a few or more times every following decade.The oldest values diverge greatly from the newest which are decently close to another.The [recent] chemistry textbook I have includes a chart of lattice energies taken from the 50s: ³Lattice energies of the alkali halides and electron affinities of the halogens.² /Journal of Chemical Physics/, Vol. 31, p. 1646, 1959.These values are 40% to 50% off from the newest values, from the 80s.So some of the values are up to twice the old values.

If you don¹t have an adequate number of sources for thermodynamic data, you can check the NIST database: .It includes a few enthalpies for each compound from the 50s to the 90s, and before the 50s for common compounds.Most values are from the 70s, fewer from the 80s, and least from the 50s and 90s which are as frequent.Even though the recent [average] values almost agree, one should look at their errors.The salts have nominal errors, and even the explosives have small errors.But the greatest errors I found both for formation and protonation were for the hydrides, common and uncommon, except for the acids and hydrocarbons.They usually approached 50%.If, say, a chemist needed to know what to expect from a given reaction, s/he would get data for each element and then for either the compound¹s formation or lattice.However, different kinds of data always come from different sources, different journals, and even from different dates.So… the enthalpy for making the compound either as given or from the lattice energy for those with the highest error will definitely be greater or less than what the chemist measures by actually running the experiment.Since the error is plus or minus the average value, maybe the pattern or cause of each extreme can be identified of those which don¹t involve varying amounts of energy input, then the energy released from one of the higher results could conceivably be kept in a reservoir and the cycles repeated until there is enough excess energy to self-sustain the formation and destruction of the compound indefinitely as excess energy can be extracted from it.So in order to prevent that from happening, someone must explain what causes so much error.

# Taking a Break

In all sorts of scientific applications the thermodynamic laws presuppose the Lagrangian; that is, the kinetic energy minus the potential energy constitutes the total energy of a system.The total is used to calculate momenta, velocities, forces, or changes therein.Noether¹s Theorem was developed in 1905 using the fundamental symmetries in nature to prove the thermodynamic laws mathematically, using constant physical properties including Lagrangians and then taking their derivatives to yield a zero result which indicated the invariance, or symmetry, of a system before and after an event.The theorem stated that the laws of physics are the same for all translations and rotations in space and time and thus formed the conservation of linear and angular momenta and energy.

On the Emmy Noether website I considered the pointer example of showing that space is homogenous, or isotropic, and that its length does not change despite its orientation in space.That, and other given examples of symmetry in nature, were at best inaccurate if not completely incorrect.Nature has limited and crude symmetry; it approximates the ideal forms that we ascribe to it and does not actually match them, at least at the scale that we can see.Nature /depends on/ asymmetry; rather, what symmetry is left was due to redundancy and economics in evolving more permanent, albeit dynamic, systems.It is trying to be static and dynamic at the same time.The pointer¹s length does change.It increases when pointed vertically due to Earth¹s tidal forces.And it decreases when translated through time due to its ubiquitous vapour pressure.

An important precept of General Relativity stated by Wheeler was, ³Matter tells space how to curve, and space tells matter how to move.²It also comes with the Cosmological Principle, closely related to the first symmetry-conservation law, in that space appears (is?) isotropic in all directions so that there is no preferred direction or reference frame.But these two laws conflict and are mutually exclusive.Take a machine with a supply of coins and a system of tumblers which jostle and spin the coins in some random-enough fashion so they are deposited anywhere onto a mat.Before the experiment has begun, the mat /is/ homogenous and a coin has a similar chance of being anywhere.So start dropping the coins and watch them fill up the mat.Soon you¹ll notice that when a coin lands on another coin, it does not simply bounce off and occupy another, empty spot all the time.Rather, the energy is conducted into the other coin and into the mat such that two coins rest together.The coins do not simply coincide; but the greater their concentration the more they attract other, new coins.With each drop, a vector can be drawn from the origin toward the greatest and least concentrations of coins because the coins are finite in number.

So are the celestial bodies in the universe.A random distribution is only possible if the number of elements approaches infinity.There is a direction for both the greatest and least mass.It¹s just that there are so many bodies, and they are all moving, that the directions are slight and changing and very, very hard to find.The spherical symmetry of stars is broken going tens of thousands of light-years up and down the galactic plane, and about the same going closer to the nucleus as the stars become denser.Exchanging stellar for galactic or clustered scale, the interruptions are similar.Then bodies are arranged in irregular shapes called superclusters.There are also plenty of irregular galaxies.Irregularity isn¹t homogeneity!At the largest scale, space is still not uniform but is arranged in bubbles where superclusters are the membranes and voids are the pockets, both hundreds of millions of lightyears wide.This ANISOTROPY has been explained by the introduction of negative energy or pressure during the inflationary era of the big bang.Positive [gravitational or radiative (like the coins)] energy would make the membranes the balls and the pockets the gaps instead.If space were isotropic and its elements infinite, our Virgo Supercluster would not have a net motion toward The Great Attractor, another supercluster, nor would Earth¹s rotation be slowing, nor would there be a spatial separation of planetary and planetesimal bodies by state and molecular weight.On the above site the author admitted that if space had crystalline structure, then changing the co-ordinate system between being centred on a nucleus or a void would change the laws of nature.This very thing can be done between the superclusters and the voids.Besides, what could exist in space other than aspects of that space; fermions have to follow hexagonal close packing like atoms.Nuclei can have all sorts of dipole and quadrupole moments based on their asymmetries and proton-to-neutron ratios, called superdeformed and hyperde ? erage out radially in space does not mean they don¹t have a structure.

How is homogeneity defined, as uniformity for all directions or all locations and how much uniformity?Neither of these is satisfied.As for local anisotropy, one would only need to add up all of the acceleration vectors for all rotating, revolving, and translating systems from asteroids to superclusters and see what the total is.As the number of objects increases, the probability of the total being zero becomes vanishingly small.The result then is the preferred direction, in our de Sitter space (observable universe bounded by its lightcone).I have to ask if the conservation of linear and angular momenta utilises the vector or only the magnitude.If the latter, clearly the global anisotropy of the Hubble Flow outward in space, its small tangential components, Time¹s Arrow outward in time, and the weak chiral, axial, and charge anomalies violate that conservation law.And the combination of all particle symmetries CPT supposed to be thought secure, which call for the conservation of probability, is obviously violated too.The probability of anything happening is one-half for a particular period of time.But lifetimes are finite, as are cross-sections, and events mostly cause others rather than happen in spite of others.Your hand is not going to turn into wood and shoot fireballs at birds and cities.If it won¹t happen, or isn¹t likely to happen, its probability is not one.CPT violation is why we need alternate universes.

Symmetry, as described ideally by Noether et al., does not exist in space or time where there is a nonzero gradient or curl, in which case the Lagrangian need not apply because this is a nonconservative field and/or an open system with an undefined potential, which is practically everywhere.There are no absolutely closed, or isolated, systems and no absolutely open systems.But the presence of mass, charge, and family automatically change the vacuum state into anisotropy.Take an object resting anywhere on a concave surface in a real gravitic and electrostatic field.Does Noether¹s Theorem or momentum conservation law even apply?Not really, the complex field is path-dependent and any closed loop does work against the object.So is a muscled limb on any animal, despite the crude and inaccurate demonstrations in high school physics that holding a weight or walking level with it does no work.I consider the buildup of lactic acid doing work.In such cases, the field could be corrected by including a term in the expression of the system so that it does become invariant before and after the action, when it is known, such as the co-efficient of rolling friction for the former and the basal metabolic rate for the latter.

There you have it, from the fingers of John Baez, ³In the real world it appears so far that the only systems which are not described by a Hamiltonian or Lagrangian are those where we are ignoring detailed information about a system, e.g. systems with friction. Mathematically it’s easy to invent dynamical systems that don’t come from a Hamiltonian or Lagrangian, and there’s a big industry of studying these – but Nature appears not to like such systems, except as simplified descriptions where we ignore certain degrees of freedom.²Therefore, with a given proposed or presented free energy device, Noether¹s Theorem and the conservation of momentum and energy do not apply, but are not violated, unless and until the source of the energy, the debt, and the boundaries of the entire system can be identified.When it is electric and continues to do work, without batteries or under a Faraday cage, and isn¹t drawing power from other electrical currents of the same phase or heat from the environment, then it should be known that the system includes another region of the universe, another version thereof, or an entirely different one.

The Noether website again supplies the idea of using an oscillating Newton constant to make a perpetual motion machine:Every other day gravity¹s acceleration is stronger and the rest it¹s weaker.So water can be pumped to a tower on the weaker days and dropped on the stronger days to generate excess electricity to sell.But this is already done twice a day to power tidal engines and gates.g does oscillate whenever we rotate against the moon¹s orbit.A typical water tower holds 1.5 Mgal., or 5.7 ML, and is 50 m high.The change in energy is thus (5.7e6 kg)(50 m)(6.38e-5 m/s^2) = 29 kJ per day and the expense is added to Earth¹s slowing rotation.Similar cases could be found for the odd Coulomb constant, celerity, or changes in length and time.But forces have many terms and many possible causes, including their Fermi coupling constants.Changes in G_N can be explained by changes in mass in higher dimensions at smaller scales, or by changes in the Higgs field thought to be responsible for mass.If g oscillated via the Higgs field to supply us extra energy, then perhaps it does the same thing in another region of space in order to oppose any attempt to extract energy, which would appear as an extra drag.The Voyager probes are feeling an unexplained drag as they¹re leaving the Sol system, by the way… which poses a danger not only to conservation laws but to general relativity.The superconducting rotating gravity screen that Podkletnov made critics complained would allow perpetual motion because it allowed any uniform object or system to be continually unbalanced and to circulate.But that is based on the assumption that it doesn¹t expend energy to operate the rotor, that it doesn¹t make gravity stronger elsewhere, or that another nonconservative field is included so it¹d take work to cross the boundary.Then there are less obvious causes: .

Let¹s use a conventional physics problem I taught myself, with standard assumptions: The gravitic potential energy of point masses M and m are U_G = G_N Mm/r.They begin at rest and are located 1 m from their barycentre.Find the total work done on the system as they join.This is calculated by taking twice the integral of the gradient of U_G, over the interval of their initial and final distances, with respect to r: W = 2int[1,0]gradG_N Mm/r dr.By the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, taking the integral of a gradient, a derivative, produces the integrand: W = 2(G_N Mm/1 – G_N Mm/0) = -2f.uh oh!It¹s a good thing that black holes include event horizons with time dilation or we would be inundated with an infinite amount of radiation every time something fell in.They stop radiating when they reach their mutual Schwartzschild radii 2G_N/c^2 (M+m).But from each mass¹s reference frame, it¹s clear that they possess an infinite amount of potential energy as they fall in.Even the classical conservative field describing gravity or electricity is not when including their singularities.The equivalent problem for two point charges of opposite sign also produces infinite energy.But since we know matter and antimatter produce only a couple gamma rays of finite energy, the energy from experiment can replace the answer in the work equation to derive the final distance, for an electron and positron: 2(kQq/f – kQq/r) = 2(-510.998902 keV) where k is c^2 /10^7 and ^2rt(|Qq|) is 1.607176462e-19 C.After converting eV to J, r comes out to be 2.81794029e-15 m, the same as the classical electron radius.This length does not express the actual radius, only where the electron-positron system quits releasing energy.Of course if they start with kinetic energy, their wavelength decreases and more energy can be produced as they approach another closer.Colliders have been trying to find an electron substructure by finding the maximum energy for an electron, and thus the minimum size, without avail.

Still, how does matter acquire an infinite potential energy?Since the big bang was supposed to have started from a point singularity, probably electrically-neutral, it had to separate matter to the finite distance we see today which required putting in an infinite amount of work.To get around this pecularity, some theorists like Hawking, Turok, Hartle, Moss, Coleman, and de Luccia turned the cone or cusp singularity into a cap, which is called the instanton.At least from the pages on Cambridge¹s Relativity Group () I could see that the instanton was described similarly to that of the classical electron radius above.All but the first three theorists used an instanton with no point singularities, so the boundary of this superparticle can be thought of as the event horizon of a white hole, or an anti-Schwarzschild space, where the inside is spacelike and prevents having to overcome an infinite potential barrier.Revisiting the electron, in QED the particle possesses a bunch of ³bare² values: charge, force field, energy, action?, and maybe even spacetime curvature (In GR, gravity couples to energy as well as to mass.) which are all infinite.We don¹t see those values because of the electron¹s screen [or event horizon!] of virtual particles which impose opposite infinities to produce finite values which concur with experiment at particular, arbitrary distances.

Because I didn¹t take QM, I had to resort to message boards again to find out how to remove the infinities from a charged particle and find accurate functions to describe its Lagrangian etc. ( and )It¹s odd that even people who were supposed to know what renormalisation and QM were fought with each other.Apparently it¹s regularisation that removed, or avoided, the infinities and renormalisation that found an appropriate and accurate Lagrangian when changing scales, preferably to find a finite polynominal that could be used in place of the infinite corrective polynominal Lagrangians cancelling the infinite bare values.Infinities arose when the power series diverged and was a sign that the theory was incomplete or inaccurate and couldn¹t predict effects at that scale./All/ theories, though, break down at r=0.As seen in the diagram in the second site above, and described at , the electronic charge is constant at large scales, then increases logarithmically, then greater and greater so it may not even converge to a finite value at r=0.A way to get at this bare potential may be similar to the black hole method given by the negative energy /Scientific American/ article and Scharnhorst¹s method of decreasing the virtual e-e+ pairs in the vacuum a beam has to interact with.

Using negative energy to remove the screen, the electron now can participate in inelastic scattering to produce excess currents to our advantage, rather than having them dissipate them through friction and drag and all that crap.Here, Baez explains that all 4-fermion interactions in three or more spacetime dimensions are nonrenormalisable: .This should include a simple electron-electron collision.But we live in four spacetime dimensions, not two!We don¹t restrict electrons to straight lines.Electron scattering can be coplanar or noncoplanar, like very fuzzy billiard balls.So this means, unless I¹m missing some glaring exception, that whilst QED is very accurate in describing multi-electron processes under simple, standard, general, and bulk conditions, it isn¹t under many arbitrary, intricate, possible currents in all three spatial dimensions, much less more.Even with my lack of background or education in this area, I¹ll still compare the unpredictability of electric currents with molecular currents, and the large error that still creeps in when physics tries to describe them… unless this is wrong.

To get excess electrical current, then one must treat the bare electron as a naked singularity where it is possible to take the difference of two infinities and get any arbitrary result.Electrons collide and scatter through the exchange of virtual photons of various momenta and depths, depending on how hard they hit.Suppose the event horizon is flashed a little, so the photon is captured, at the horizon, but a finite chance exists of it being re-emitted at a higher energy, within the black hole (negative potential, spacelike events, time reversal), or a lower energy, within the ergosphere (positive potential, timelike events, frame dragging).Then its interaction with another particle is to end up with a different momentum than it started with.The opposite interaction to balance the sheets would probably happen to another electron under the exact same conditions, wherever and whenever is Nature¹s choice.We¹d /prefer/ that it happens in another universe.My best guess as to how to arrange such conditions is what I briefly mentioned before, wherever a system¹s symmetry is spontaneously (discretely) broken.

In a common alternating current, a current runs through a wire loop which is rotated by a motor through a magnetic field.Due to the loop¹s approaches and recessions to and from the magnetic poles, its simple circular motion translates into a sinusoidal wave when plotted over time and the voltage and current reach maximum, positive, values and minimum, negative, values.The graph is smooth everywhere.But graphs of state and phase changes involve discrete changes of symmetry.Plotting temperature vs. time of ice turning into water and steam, for example, shows piecewise functions of lines with positive slope interspersed with lines of no slope.And external field intensity (H) vs. internal flux density (B) of a material being magnetised and demagnetised, called a hysteresis loop, shows two sigmoid curves meeting at two sharp points.These types of graphs aren¹t smooth everywhere, and their vertices are called cusps whose derivatives are undefined.One can take limits of the derivative as the singularity is approached from either side, but the transition itself is where the event breaks down.(I¹m reminded of one version of the Twin Paradox in special relativity where one twin gets in a relativistic rocket for awhile then turns around going the same speed reaching Earth again without having to decelerate at each turn; but when the time dilation graph is drawn, most of the aging of the other twin occurs during the undifferentiable vertex of infinite deceleration and no time!In the real world, the velocity graphs would be curved, not piecewise… unlike other quantities.)Plenty of these singularities are found in natural occurrences such as sound waves, heartbeats, brainwaves, and thermophotoelectric noise.What matters is if one¹s located at a spatial element or between its neighbours.If the former, the graph becomes discontinuous (The cusp¹s a hole.) and the value there has indeterminate height.

Trying to manipulate these events for gain, say, for physical changes (evaporate, condense, repeat) seems to be quite impossible, but for chemical, electrical, nuclear, and elementary changes is very promising because one gets to be in closer touch with the particles which, unsurprisingly, turn out to be grey holes.Here I¹ve decided to call objects which can act both as black holes and white holes that, meaning they can absorb and emit stuff so that the subordinate particle seems to disappear from and appear to spacetime.And under special conditions those objects can behave as clothed and naked singularities which shift the balance of momentum any which way.Magnets are not regular, normal objects.They¹re an example of a condensed matter, lower-dimensional, anisotropic system with a lower potential energy than the material¹s ground.They don¹t exist above several hundred kelvins.Even if one took the hysteresis loop and plotted its halves over time, the cusps would remain.Some graphs show the cusps clearly, and others have the halves trail off into horizontal asymptotes.The curves never touch the asymptotes, though, and reflecting the demagnetisation curve about the vertical axis at y=+/-B_max still gives different slopes at the vertex.Technically, anything can happen to the electrons there.

Just as how free neutrons or W bosons just sit there (Drift there really, but in their frame they¹re sitting there.) for awhile then suddenly break apart, also in reverse, what they¹re doing in the intermediate stage could be anything, and more power to the scientists who find out what and how.We can discuss and could (³could² = ³are able to²) have negative quantities because mathematics is higher than physics, and imaginary spaces and alternate universes because logic is higher than mathematics.I can come up with this stuff because I¹m higher than ye!³Ye² is the archaic plural of you, then thou, as ³we² is the plural of I.I¹m reviving it in order to get rid of this stupid ³y¹all² and ambiguous ³you².Use it!

# The End

Screwing oneself with error is applying to high energy physics where they think that banging something harder is better at getting a reaction to occur rather than subtlety, harmony, and tension.My suggestion is that they’ll find more interesting results in quasiparticles formed in low-temperature matter, superconductors, Fermi gases, Bose-Einstein condensates, degenerate gases of pure isotopes and their compounds, condensed matter, exotic atoms and ions, compressed matter, and ultracomplex compounds and suspensions in lifeforms from bacteria to small animals.There are 19 orders of magnitude separating the electron-volt and the joule.If the potential energy of the mass of a speck of dust were inserted into a single particle, it would be enough to make a wormhole.Screw the calorimeter and use and build more accurate and precise torsion balances and interferometers so they can find if that’s where the conservation violations are.Stick them over the PMMs even.(I know how stupid FE disbelievers are as I noticed how their eyes glazed over when I told them what to do with a Faraday cage, so maybe these suggestions won’t work.)Find the quasiparticles.

So what if improbability pans out and someone tries to make a more effective bomb?These reaction rates have limits if not discrete levels as with any other reaction.The SSC funding was cut not only because it was too expensive but it was feared it would destroy the world, I guess by decaying or consuming it.There’s no excuse for that since by the time cosmic rays get to Earth they are as energetic as 2×10^20 eV, enough to make over a billion gold atoms, and they have been around longer than the Earth has.By comparison, the last top quark events used only the energy of one gold atom.It doesn’t look like the rays have screwed up space too much.Though if they did closer to their sources, we’ll get all the neat anomalies as seen in Star Trek.Collider magnets have limits, being huge and useful only in a loop, which is why they don’t do unthinkable damage.To the naïve who thought that FE motors could destroy the world, which was why they didn’t exist, there are two things that Nature likes to have, called dissipation and breakdown.The energy created will still need materials to store it that already exist.You’d need a lot of parallel motors in order to melt down a bridge, which would not only be expensive, but indiscreet and wasteful as you would be better off with a bomb that’s meant to destroy itself after use rather than by circumstance.Whilst FE may make manufacturing explosives easier or more convenient, it is not capable of more power than pre-existing bombs are able to deliver.

-Aut