[skiwi]

Free download of the video http://www.josephnewman.com/

or torrent it at Conspiracy Central

This is Joseph Newman's amazing video presentation Cut the Cost of Oil (2006) where this famous american inventor presents the results of his life-time work on the extraction of useful mechanical energy from magnetic field of powerful magnets which would literally revolutionize the world and improve our lives. The energy machine of Joseph Newman, as it is commonly called, utilizes Newman's theory that all electric and magnetic fields are actually made of tiny little gyroscopic particles rotating at enormous speeds which explains the fact that an object still has inertia (resistance towards any force from outside) even if put in gravity-free space, something which baffles science to this very day. His machine has repeatedly been verified by dozens of scientists who have all testified that it produces more power out than it's put in with all the excess energy coming from the "perpetual" magnetic field of giant magnets he uses. An electric car is also presented running on batteries which were powered by the same machine and after almost 1 hour of drive the batteries are still full. Then Newman shortly presents his incredibly simple theory on how the electromagnetic world around is built on the principle of gyroscope and how you can use it to propel mass through the space thuss greatly improving space travel. Often ridiculed but always confirmed by scientists who actually tested his machines, Newman is a typical case of a lonely inventor who tries to change the world but finds himself pressured by the giant oil monopolies and ridiculed by the ignorant public. Find out how some clever amateur inventors are using the very forces that shape our universe to power their electric machines with a fraction of costs of today's oil-driven technology. 70 min. long. A must see for everyone. Video specs: Video: divx, 480x360 Audio: mp3, 44 kHz, stereo

[Aaron]

I weep for the future

[gego]

This guy has been around making his claims for a long time.

If if really works, then why not produce a few machines and run some simple electric appliances for an extended period of time. He can't do it, and in fact I remember at one time he was going to run an electric car around the country, which failed.

The proof is in the pudding.

[rogerhb]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gego', 'T')his guy has been around making his claims for a long time.

[SolarDave]

I'm glad this crackpot has a site. I am going to add alink to it from my pedal generator site. It amazes me how many people write to me with similar ideas. Now I have an interesting place to send them. He's doing the world a service, providing a safe, nurturing meeting place for the "over-unity" crowd.

Fact: According to my Web site logs, an unbelievable number of people are searching google for ways of generating "free energy" with "magnets" (and they end up disappointed on my site when they read that generating electricity requires work, though I doubt they understand or believe it).

To all you believers out there, I suggest you send Mr. Newman lots and lots of money. Really! Bury him with it. The ask him to post the plans for free.

[coyote]

Normally I expect to see these kinds of posts from newbies. skiwi, after over 500 posts, haven't you noticed any of the other claims of free energy / perpetual motion, etc.?

[gg3]

1) Provide complete blueprints and schematics.

2) Allow independent engineers to build the device and measure its performance.

3) Otherwise, file in the recycle bin.

In any case, unlimited energy just gives human population a little more room to grow before it hits another ceiling, and overshoots another limit, and dies-off with as much misery as before but on a larger scale.

[bobcousins]

Ok, where is Monte when there is a genuine need for explaining the laws of thermodynamics? Perpetual Motion Machines, Free Energy, Over Unity devices, whatever the inventor wishes to call them, are impossible according to the laws of thermodynamics.

Inventors are left to creating devices which obfuscate the operating details in creative ways. But they can't escape the overall principle.

In this case, the motor requires a battery to operate, which becomes discharged! Hardly a useful device, at best he has an efficient motor.

On an historical note, the consistent failure to build a working PMM was used as a premise in the formulation of the first and second laws of thermodynamics.

[gnm]

But Bob, this time the magnets are SPINNING!

Ugh what a crock...

-G

[Denny]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skiwi', 'T')he energy machine of Joseph Newman, as it is commonly called, utilizes Newman's theory that all electric and magnetic fields are actually made of tiny little gyroscopic particles rotating at enormous speeds which explains the fact that an object still has inertia (resistance towards any force from outside) even if put in gravity-free space, something which baffles science to this very day.

[entropyfails]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Denny', 'I') don't think anybody who has successfully completed high school physics finds it at all baffling that an object has inertia. And, intertia has no relevance at all to gravity. If I skate across a pond, and I lose my balance, I go skidding along in whatever direction I was moving at the time I fall.

[emailking]

(This is meant to be informative, not confrontational.)

"I don't think anybody who has successfully completed high school physics finds it at all baffling that an object has inertia."

That's like saying anyone who has lived on earth sees nothing strange about the sun being yellow.

No one knows why an object has an inertia. Mach had the idea that an object's inertia derives from the gravitational influences of all of the other objects in the universe...somehow. Einstein embraced the idea at one point, and rejected it later in his life. There are a number of pet theories in particle physics that try to explain inertia. But no one really has a clue.

"And, intertia has no relevance at all to gravity."

Depends what you mean. It turns out that an objects inertial mass is exactly equal to its gravitational mass. (In General Relativity and Newton's theory anyway. It's only been tested to something like one part in 10^12.) This is why all objects fall the same, if there is no air. But the fact that it is true is another mystery in and of itself. For example, this is *not* true of electromagnetic "mass" if you will. The electromagnetic mass of a particle (better known as its charge) has nothing whatsoever to do with its intertial (actual) mass. Thus particles of different charges fall differently in an electromagnetic field. That we can use the same mass both for F = ma and for gravity allows for such a beautiful theory like GR. So in some sense, yes, inertia and gravity are very much related.

[entropyfails]

Emailking hit the nail on the head...

For more information you can read the following.

http://chaos.fullerton.edu/~jimw/genera ... /index.htm

Personally, I have no problem with either spooky action at a distance or with waves propagating backwards in time. (one or the other will end up being the cause of inertia) The Zero Point Energy field, however, seems weird to me. How did the universe expand if the vacuum has that much energy (and hence gravity in the very early stages of expansion)?

[emailking]

Well it expanded because of the as of yet unexplained explosion of space (and time) that is the big bang. Think of the raisin bread analogy. The raisins may want to pull themselves together, but if the bread is baking fast enough they'll just keep getitng further apart. Yes there was a lot of mass/gravity but the expansion overwhlemed it. Moreover, shortly after the big bang (as in a fraction of a second) the expansion began accelerating. This is called inflation, and it may have something to do with dark energy/zero point energy/etc. Shortly thereafter (as in another fraction of a second) the inflation stopped and by that point we were doomed to keep expanding. (This almost certainly had to have happned if inflation happened, because the proportion of elements in the universe is beautifully explained this way.) However, observation supports very well the notion that at present the expansion is accelerating again. The world works in mysterious ways! Hope this helps.

[NEOPO]

Yes and that bothered me slightly.
I must go read up on this.

How many times if any have we inflated before and should we be concerned?

We believe everything is nearly flat - now they say we believe we are inflating again....
Dont tell me something is occurring now that has not occured since directly after time and space were created cause I cant deal with that!!!

Is it hot in here? ....I am finding it very hard to breathe and now must end this conversation...thank you...

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'Y')es and that bothered me slightly.
I must go read up on this.

How many times if any have we inflated before and should we be concerned?

We believe everything is nearly flat - now they say we believe we are inflating again....
Dont tell me something is occurring now that has not occured since directly after time and space were created cause I cant deal with that!!!

Is it hot in here? ....I am finding it very hard to breathe and now must end this conversation...thank you...

[emailking]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emailking', 'S')omething like the solar system won't expand because gravity overwhlems the expansion.

[NEOPO]

Right and good to know
So when these people suggest "recently" they may be referring to billions of years ago.

What side of the debate are on as to the ultimate fate of the universe and have we ever observed space "retraction"?

[emailking]

"So when these people suggest "recently" they may be referring to billions of years ago."

They could be. The universe is 13.67 billion years old (last digit may be off 1 or 2) with the margin of error in the last digit. So if something happened 2 billion years ago, in some sense that's recent.

There's also the case when we "see" something. It could have happened billions of years ago, but a layperson magazine article or newsreport will talk about it like it just happened. Scientists talk like that too, but the difference is they know implicitly what they mean whereas 95% of the readers of such an article won't realize that.

"What side of the debate are on as to the ultimate fate of the universe"

What side of the debate am I on or are scientists?

Classically (just based on classic general relativity) there are two cases:
1. Universe is finite (but unbounded...i.e. no edge) and will collapse in a big crunch
2. Universe is infinite (literally) with infinite matter and energy (literally) and will expand forever (literally)

Inflation adds two more possibilities:
3. Universe is finite but will expand forever
4. Universe is infinite but will collapse in a big crunch.

#1 is all but ruled out with our observational evidence. #2 seems the most likely possibility at the moment, both to me and to scientists.

There's really a case 2a/3a.

2a/3a. The universe has the exact density necessary to expand forever as opposed to recollapsing.

This is really where the great debate lies. The density is so frigging close to the magical number, it begs for there to be a reason why. Inflation provides this reason. The universe could have started out with a density much less mid boggling and the initial inflationary period smoothed it all out so to speak. Bu there remains the question of whatever or not it might be exactly the right number, as if it's somehow built into physics in a way we don't understand yet. Or it's God's work, if you believe in such.

" and have we ever observed space "retraction"?"

Nope. The universe is clearly expanding. Hubble first discovered this in I think 1929. Einstein could have predicted it as GR implies the universe must be either expanding or collapsing, but he had to be stubborn and force a constant into his equations to make sure the universe stayed static. (This was considered common sense at the time.) It creates a sort of anti-gravity that gains strength over large distances, which prevents the universe from collapsing due to gravity. Now it is that constant that represents the inflation. Einstein called it his biggest blunder when Hubble announced his results. Turns out he was just way ahead of his time (again).