Infinite-energy theory challenges materialist thermodynamics dogma

Great article; This is perhaps the best physical evidence I have ever seen against the absurd assumptions of materialism. The materialists are utterly convinced that "free energy" is impossible, but they have totally ignored well documented evidence of miracles (e.g. walking on water, reviving the dead).

Let me explain: Such acts would have required a great deal of energy brought in from apparently nowhere. The laws of thermodynamics as Hawkings understand them say this can never happen. In hawking's world-view reviving the dead is impossible because a long-dead body contains a great deal more entropy than a healthy living body. On the other hand, well documented evidence says these miricales happened. As scientists we must follow this evidence wherever it leads.

This is a perfect example of how ultra-materialists scientists deny legitimate scientific inquiry. It's hardly surprising that the dogmatic neo-darwinist nay-sayers are often the same people who deny that Steorn's perpetual motion machine is possible WITHOUT EVEN SEEING IT!

Such acts would have required a great deal of energy

That's a pretty big assumption on your part isn't it? How do you know that these acts require a great deal of energy?

And why would a dead body have any more energy potential than a live body? With no input of energy into a body a dead body and a live body would have the same potential energy.

You seem to be confusing the energy that it takes to produce a miricle for some sort of magic trick. I think the model your using was a Star Trek episode where Cpt Kirk was fighting against the little person who thought he was a god but created his miricles with a machine that used huge amounts of energy. Spock found the machine and destroyed it by tracing that huge amount of energy back to it's source.

This may or may not be the way God operates. I'd like to know what you use to base your theory that huge amounts of energy are needed.

I've seen that a number of fanatical materialists seem to be dismissing this whole proposition before they have even had the chance to validate it's claims - now where have I seen this before?

It's funny that they are claiming that this device violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics - I've always felt that was one of the weakest and most politicized "scintific" principle since neo-darwinian evolution.

Basically the 2nd law states that the amount of chaos (evil) in the universe can only increase; It's basically another way of formulating the creed of nihilsm. Anybody with spiritual knowledge knows that there is ultimately a more powerful force of order; and that we have been promised that eventually all evil will be overcome with God's divine order. The fact that the 2nd-law cultists have failed to account for this should prompt us to check if it has any basis in fact at all.

Interestingly enough, ultra-materialist physicists like Stephen Hawking claim that the 2nd law does not always apply. That's almost like saying that the law of gravitation does not apply during Democratic party conventions. Either a law is a law or it isnt. What kind of law can you apply when you feel like it?

I think it's time for science to moved beyond this overtly politiczed pseudo-science and embrace the more sensible view of Thermodynamics proposed by William Brookfield from ICON-RIDS. He has demonstrated in his Cosmic Incompleteness Theorem Proof (2004) that hawking is wrong and a universal principle of thermodynamics applies.

4FREEDOM

This is not science yet. The findings have not been made public.
Just because they say it is "peer reviewed" does not mean it is real. You might do well to investigate various criticisms of their claims on the web, but even if you disagree, the technology means nothing until it is verified.

You should probably delete this article. By posting it you are A. making a fool of yourself and B. potentially misleading impressionable people.

"This is not science yet. The findings have not been made public. Just because they say it is 'peer reviewed' does not mean it is real."

So after hearing all this shouting about how IDers aren't peer reviewed we now find out that peer-review doesn't mean it is real? So what is the point of peer review? And for something to be science it has to be made public?? So everything scientists are doing in their labs today isn't science because it hasn't been made public yet? What standards are you following?

Here is another classic example of evolutionists back tracking (this time on peer-review) because they are losing ground to intelligent design. Because IDers are being peer reviewed (more and more now), evolutionists are now claiming that peer-review doesn't matter.

I wonder who is making a fool of themselves here.

And why would a dead body have any more energy potential than a live body? With no input of energy into a body a dead body and a live body would have the same potential energy.

I think you misunderstood - a dead or decaying body has a great deal more entropy than a living body. Living bodies are very ordered systems which can do all kinds of things (e.g. maintain concentration gradients, semi-permeable membranes) which dead bodies cannot do.

According to materialist thermodynamics, in order to take a disordered system (e.g. a dead body) and make it more ordered (e.g. a living body) you have to do quite a lot of work. Of course, this theory does not account for our knowledge of the soul, which I believe is a force much smaller, but not unlike God's holy spirit - which works as a entropy in reverse.

So after hearing all this shouting about how IDers aren't peer reviewed we now find out that peer-review doesn't mean it is real? So what is the point of peer review? And for something to be science it has to be made public?? So everything scientists are doing in their labs today isn't science because it hasn't been made public yet? What standards are you following?

That's so right: materialists are such hypocrites and fakes!

We ID proponents have one big advantage over ultra-materialists, specifically we understand the role of faith in science.

Faithless materialists will forever deny themselves the possibility of great inventions like the Steorn's orbo just because they presume that we need hard evidence of something before we are allowed to believe in it. Wouldn't it be more pragmatic to adopt any idea that seems to fit the facts?

Why are materialists against sensible pragmatism? Can somebody explain?

4Freedom

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but there have been hundreds if not thousands of free energy claims in the past, and not one of them has panned out. Not only that, but their validation process seems pretty shady to me - the "jury" that's actually testing the device is selected by Steorn, paid a good sum of money by Steorn, and agrees to give Steorn all of their results and not say anything about them publicly.

And anyway, let's use some common sense here, hmm? If they've really found a way to generate energy for free, there wouldn't be all this secrecy about their device - they'd have patented it, done a very public demo, and they'd be rolling in piles of money right now.

I think everyone here has missed something very important: by the time this was posted, and before any comments were added to it, this demonstration had failed. In other words, the second law is still alive and strong. Seems that we evil materialists will live to fight another day...or something like that. Also, as an aside, the physicist your so critical of is named Stephen Hawking, not Hawkings.

http://derivationsofrationality.blogspot.com/

"It's hardly surprising that the dogmatic neo-darwinist nay-sayers are often the same people who deny that Steorn's perpetual motion machine is possible WITHOUT EVEN SEEING IT!"

The reason we deny it isn't just because we haven't seen it, its because neither has anyone else. There is no empirical reason what-so-ever to believe in this. Until that changes I see no reason at all why scientists should change their tune

http://derivationsofrationality.blogspot.com/

Also, as an aside, the physicist your so critical of is named Stephen Hawking, not Hawkings.

Well, if you want to be picky like that, this sentence should read "Also, as a aside, the physicist you're so critical of is named Stephen Hawking...."

Just thought I would be petty if you were going to be.

Thank you for your interest in my work however, I fail to see how my work (on the Second law of thermodynamics) can be used to call into question the law of conservation of energy. The first law of thermodynamics is this very conservation law when applied to heat. I have always assumed the Law of conservation energy and the first law of thermodynamics to be valid. Moreover, I consider the second law to be valid, but merely imperfectly formulated at this time. My efforts regarding the second law is to support the development of a new (info-dynamic) formulation of the second laws that permits a grand unification of the Second Laws of both thermodynamics and black hole dynamics.

William Brookfield - ICON-RIDS

I wish to make it clear where I stand with regard to Hawking's statements in A Brief History of Time.

The functioning of science depends upon the explication of real laws of physics. Without real laws, scientifically precise predictions are not possible. According to Steven Hawking and the orthodox scientific community the Second Law of thermodynamics is a "law" that "is not always right, only in the vast majority of cases."

Under normal circumstances, scientists would be encouraged to try to fix this "law" (and indeed any law that is "not always right") so as to make it a real (scientific) law that is always right! Anyone working to upgrade this particular "law" however (from an uncertain semi "law" to a certain real law) is treading on dangerous ground it seems. This is because the orthodox scientific community, as far as I can tell, does not like the (ID) implications of this particular law and wishes to keep it sloppy. Any effort to keep a law sloppy is an anti-science, anti-precision effort. Unfortunately some scientists seem to think that bashing God or ID is more important than real scientific precision and real laws of physics.

William Brookfield - ICON-RIDS

It was chen caloric explnatirons for thermodynamic effects was "disproved".

In his paper "Réflexions sur le phlogistique" (1783), Lavoisier argued that phlogiston theory was inconsistent with his experimental results, and proposed a 'subtle fluid' called caloric as the substance of heat. According to this theory, the quantity of this substance is constant throughout the universe, and it flows from warmer to colder bodies.

Since heat was a material substance in caloric theory, and therefore could neither be created nor destroyed, conservation of heat was a central assumption.
From Wikipedia.

I mean, in some ways it makes alot of sense right? As there is an immaterial soul why cannot energy be considered just another manifestation of the same basic force? And so if a 'subtle fluid' can fulfill in many ways observed facts then why not consider it as an possible explanation? After all, we're always being told that science is open-minded and willing to go where the evidence leads right? We can still learn alot from Lavoisier even today I believe, and I go so far as to say that one day I hope he will be a household name. The so-call cannon experiment needs to be repeated in proper modern scientific conditions, there was far too much experimental uncertainty there originally.

Friend William,

There are purportedly two types of perpetual motion machines, according to the critics.

Those that do not work because they violate the 1st law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy), and those which do not work because they violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the trend from order+ to evil- ).

The critics claim that Steorn's machine violates the 2nd law because it purportedly extracts energy from the magnets that surround the rotor without increasing the amount of entropy in those magnets. This they say is impossible.

I think if they carefully studied your well-argued paper on the cosmological incompleteness phenomena they would be shocked to find that your theory predicts that under certain circumstances the 2nd law would break down and systems would not behave as expected, which seems to be what is happening here.

I'm not sure that the people at Steorn are aware of your work, however I feel this could be the first major validation of your theories. You should contact them imediatly and offer your help. I think you would do a much better job than the ignorant materialists who are currently working for that company.

I'm honored that a researcher like yourself would take time to read my post.

Helena

HI Helena,

Thank you for your kind words. Sorry to take so long to respond.

I consider the Generalized Second Law to be perfectly valid as a physical law (a law of physics). Physicalists/materialists are supposed to be interested in discovering and verifying physical laws in the physical domain. In this case however orthodox scientists are not very interested because the implication of a (fully verified) second law is that the physical domain is incomplete -- and must be supplemented with some kind of (gasp!) meta-physical domain.

Devout materialists are required, as a matter of faith, to dismiss with contempt any possible existence of any metaphysical (cosmic mind) domain. The "mind" therefore must be "explained" by materialists as just a meaningless, accidental, material-only byproduct of a meaningless accidental, material-only world. I am convinced however that there does exist a metaphysical domain and that physical laws have their ultimate source in this domain. So while the metaphysical domain (mind) can under certain conditions interfere with the subordinate Second Law this fact does not negate the law's full validity as a physical (order to disorder, not order to evil) law in the physical domain.

WRT Steorn my suspicion is that something else is going on and that there is no violation of the second law -- or first law-- occuring here. As I see it, the magnets are in no position to violate the Orbo's system-level second law (nor the first law).

William Brookfield - ICON-RIDS

And why would a dead body have any more energy potential than a live body?

----------
mp3 music

I'm not sure that the people at Steorn are aware of your work, however I feel this could be the first major validation of your theories.

mp3 downloads