I like the thought experiment, Paul, but then, I like odd ideas.

How does it work if the Universe is infinite?

I just thought of something else , Bill.

if the expanding space is the REASON why the galaxies
are all moving away from each other then this proves that

FREE ENERGY REALLY IS POSSIBLE

not that I ever doubted that it was , except for when I
really didn't know much about physics that is , even then
I didn't really know the concept of what free energy actually meant.

actually I firmly believe that energy can be made free.

once energy has been expended to build a machine that will
continuously output energy 24/7 without the need for energy input of any type and that type of machine would be described as a free energy machine.

the machine itself cost energy but the energy that it outputs
would be free , therefore the energy that it outputs would be free energy

simply tie a string from one of the expanding galaxies to
a spool of string that is attached to a electricity generator
on another one of the expanding galaxies.

the galaxies will expand away from each other because
the space is expanding , this will cause the spool of string
to unwind from the spool and will turn the electricity generator that will generate FREE ENERGY


TA DAAAA !!!


now if theres anything that simply cannot be tolerated by
either real science or ( possibly )even the fantasy science cults it would be the existence of
FREE ENERGY

some might say that the free energy would only be available
until the string unwinds from the spool and that would of
course be true , but if free energy is not possible then
it should not be possible for even a short amount of time.

so either the galaxies are moving because of the initial momentum of the big bang which would be the energy input.

or

the galaxies are moving because of the expanding space
that results in zero input energy to the free energy machine.

if the universe is infinite then you would never be able to
build a box around it.

What about an infinite box?

Every so often you actually think Paul

The situation is elegantly described for a layman by Sascha Vongehr in his article (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/energy_not_golden_holy_cow_urine-72881)

So science agrees totally with you Energy is not conserved if space-time is not static.

The problem part from a science perspective is trying to exploit the loophole and that is a whole different ballgame.

It is interesting watching you guys go at it, so many errors but finally an answer that is correct

does that mean that I can resubmit my ideas to the
department of energy and they cant deny funding because of
violations of thermodynamic laws?

It would be nice if it were that simple , but Im certain
that they would only feel the way you do about it when it
fits into their agenda exactly like you feel about things when they fit into your agenda.



just because free energy really is possible does not mean that the expanding space theory is correct , it
only means that energy always has been free it just has not been allowed to
be free.

you would still need a finite universe in order to build anything outside of the finite universe.

You miss the more important part of that thought which is what is energy?

You are defining something as being free without defining exactly what it is ... are you sure it is something in the first place? A whole lot of nothing is still nothing and it's always free

This is the same problem as the ingredient rubbish none of you want to define an ingredient and you don't see the issue and why the whole discussion cracks me up.

There is another thing you use everyday which has these same problems it's called currency and in your case it would be US dollars. The US dollar is real and you use it everyday but what is it's real value in the universe? If I was a alien from across the other side of the universe does it have any value to me at all?

Do you see the issue here it's called A REFERENCE POINT and what all this stupid discussion from everyone is just ignoring that problem.

Energy may have a value to you but please prove to me it has value to the universe as a whole please and it doesn't take US dollars either they are worthless as well

Cantor identified various sizes of infinity. Couldn't your infinite box be larger than your infinite universe?

This brings to mind a discussion, years ago, in college, about the statement: "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". I was the only one in a group of 30+ who disagreed with this statement.

to me , which may not be the way that the new modern science cult feels about it or should I say is allowed to feel about it , to put it in layman logic no matter which so called form of energy you use , energy is simply motion.

for example:

gasoline is not energy!
but by using gasoline in a machine , gasoline can be used to make motion.

so , anything that has motion , is energy .

Paul, I thought you might like this quote from New Scientist.

"The universe today is a little like one of those ghost movies. Galaxies whirl around in unexplained ways. Groups of stars race across space, pulled by forces from beyond the visible universe. The fabric of space is inexplicably elastic, expanded ever faster by an inscrutable energy all of its own.

Not an overly superstitious bunch, cosmologists invent names for the poltergeists responsible – dark matter, dark flows, dark energy – and invest a lot of effort in proving they are real. But might they, too, be chasing ghosts?"

I know , I suppose they want to use that type of terminology
for sensationalism in order to draw in more victims into their web of fantasy , and of course to compliment the absolutely fantastic unbelievable theories or beliefs.

I cant wait until the entertainment industry picks up on it
resulting in spoof movies and tv shows that reflect what the
new modern science cults beliefs look like to normal logical thinkers , in comparison to the abnormal illogical thinkers of the nmsc.

That is an interesting view so potential energy, chemical energy and electro-magnetic energy don't exist. More than a few issues with observation and experiments

So you really do have a lot in common with Marosz, ask him to explain snikers

Under classical physics that is one of the problems with energy is you can't develop a universal value for it. It is the identical problem to the value of US dollars it only has meaning to a discrete reference point.

I think I will side with the science cult group on this one, hopefully no goats involved in the cult

I wouldn't expect anything else from you , orac



you have only listed forms of energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy#Forms

and these forms of energy do exist.

but they are not energy , they can only be used
to cause motion which is energy.

if energy is not motion then why do all of the energy
and work and power equations used in physics describe
motion?

or do you think that these equations would be better
by simply not using motion to calculate energy?


Energy
E=m
vs
E=m(c^2 motion)

Kinetic Energy
Ke=.5m
vs
Ke = .5m(v^2 motion)

Potential Energy
Pe =m
vs
Pe= m(gh potential motion)


one of the main issues I have with the qmers
is that they simply lack logic.

in your post you asked me to define energy and I have defined energy , and in all of your wisdom you have attempted to refute my definition of energy using forms of energy.

I guess the real difference between real science and
the new modern science cult is that when real science goes
to the bathroom they give a [censored] and then when the new modern science cult goes to the bathroom they actually do take a [censored].

striving for perfection here !!

and thats probably why you and the new modern science cult are so full of [censored]

you can add me in there Bill S.

I certainly wouldn't agree either.

they probably used a saw with a thick blade and didn't weigh
the sawdust when they weighed the parts.

the universe or cosmos is by definition everything that exist.

so if the universe is infinite then placing a box anywhere in
the universe would make the box a part of the infinite universe.

I'm not alone!!!!!

refuted? Sorry I just laughed I am not sure I would bother even discussing much less refute. One can only discuss goats for so long before they become tiresome

What do I care what you think, I am not here to convert anyone

Paul you are sounding more and more like Marosz every post, even down to the repetition. Seriously you guys need to get together and discuss snikers, Ask Marosz to explain.

So lets just say you are free to believe whatever you want, may the big goat in the sky be with you!!!!

as expected , orac.

once again you have opened access to the thing you call
your brain and attempted to retrieve some defensive morsel of value that you believe to be there stored deep within the few
remaining healthy brain cells that you have left
in defense of my post.

the results of your attempt to access some measure of value that may or may not still reside in your knowledge acquisition and storage device that flowed from the mangled mass inside your head through your fingers tips and was deposited onto the keyboard of your computer clearly implies the current status of your so called brain.

it may be that your brain is just saying [Censored] it
this guy is trying to make me look like im stupid so im
going to turn the table on him.

you rarely do have anything correct or relevant to say when
you say anything , so from now on im just going to request
that your post be removed from my discussions.