The Magnetic Engine and anti gravity propulsion system , an artistic view

[thadea]

2:04 - makes no sense

[32bevula]

tesla technology i can accept, even morays radient energy devices- but this searl guy is a blatant charlatan. i mean, a working anti gravity device would have tv channels fighting to show it in action to their viewers. theres no cospiracy to suppress searl -- just common sense.

[TheDigitalStone]

You're between science and conspiracy-shit.

[LORDofLIGHT777]

Nikola Tesla! *** Not NiCola idiot! -.-

[realisoph]

Huh?

[Bugstomper2]

If the Maya know so much, and are so awesome, then why did they become extinct aprox 900 years ago?

[MrFriedolays]

@Bugstomper2 aids

[MegaSteadfast]

@Bugstomper2 They didn't become extinct, they disappeared. To become extinct is for a species to cease existing

[YoungTesla]

This approach is very close to the "real deal", however, there are a few missing components... I will soon upload a video that fills the missing gaps and provides a cohesive explanation of the scientific principles and how they can be applied to a working system that does not require superfluid (it operates at normal temperatures). The video will also contain footage of various experiments, demonstrating the phenomena. Stay tuned, because it will be worth the wait:-) ~YT~

[cjl85uk]

@YoungTesla

Hey there Young Tesla - previously already subbed your channel - if you could just wondering if you could say when your next vid will hit the shelves so to speak??

[hideaway33]

Nay, if you could accelerate lite by 2, warp2, it would still only take 4.15 seconds to get here. if photons, going around the sun lets say, or pulled closer to it by gravity, it would accelerate, but the distance is shorter, simmilar to a string on a map.

[scienceminded]

@hideaway33

I've recently considered the possibility that the observed 'gravitational' lensing of the sun and of galaxies and nebulae are due to the atmospheric conditions extending around the sun and the galactic dust actually refracting light.

In fact some non-scientists, or people that fancy themselves 'dissenting physicists' suggest that classical physics needs to be rewritten and relativity to be improved, and that 'photons' create more problems than they solve.

[CupCakeArmy1]

This movie was really bad. Time and time again it has been proven that magnets cannot provide free energy. If you honestly think the Mayans knew more than we do today, ask one how to build this magical engine.

[mrlobo357]

@CupCakeArmy1 you obviously haven't seen the multitude of magnet motors that have already been built, and DO run quite well utilizing nothing more than magnets to initiate, and perpetuate all motion necessary to rotate stator thereby generating electricity for free... but i suppose it's impossible to run a vehicle on water as well, right?

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mrlobo357 its not free energy, the magnetic field creates the conditions which can accelerate an object. However, natural magnets eventually lose their magnetic field over time, and eletro magnets require an external power source.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mrlobo357 Just to clarify even further, in the case of natural magnets, some outside force MUST give them their magnetic charge. Nothing is free in those world, everything requires equivalent exchange per newton.

[mattyelle1]

@CupCakeArmy1 newton is now amateurish pseudo science when compared to our new discoveries of reality (physics). The concept of relativity and the mathematics that developed around the concept blew Newton out of this world 80 years ago. All energy comes from an imbalance (whether macro or micro) in quantum physic "particles". Mass & energy are interchangeable at the quantum level, therefore infinite energy (or free energy) is possible.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mattyelle1

Conservation of energy is a law, not a theory. There is nothing Pseudo about it. And if you know enough to realize that mass and energy are the same, then surely you must realize that you cannot create mass or energy from NOTHING(virtual particles being the exception). Matter can only be CONVERTED into energy, and vice versa.

[mattyelle1]

@CupCakeArmy1 Believe me, I understand the principles of conservation of energy. We covered this thoroughly in uni Mech Eng and I have applied the concept to design various machines including an amphibious all-terrain-vehicle. It is essentially true because when there is an action, there is an equal reaction. But this ceases to hold true at the quantum level. Quantum physics is the perpetual discovery of smaller "particles" which the smaller they get, their energy becomes exponentially bigger.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mattyelle1

I am not sure what any of this has to do with your point of being able to create free energy(energy from nothing) and that it has been done before. Please demonstrate your understanding of Mech Eng 1 and how it relates to what you have learned about QM. Specifically where conservation of energy is violated in regards to energy becomming extracted from a system where it did not exist before.

[mattyelle1]

@CupCakeArmy1 -"where conservation of energy is violated in regards to energy becomming extracted from a system where it did not exist before." A BLACK HOLE. It is a void that sucks up energy indefinitely. How can it consistently pull on mass & light? A MAGNET. It will pull on an idle object. If designed similar to a turbine except with a device spinning in the flux of electromagnetic field (transfer linear energy flux into tangential vectors). Nicola Tesla believed this was possible.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mattyelle1

Black holes suck energy from outside into the hole. But they do not exist forever, with the absense of mass to feed off of, the eventually decrease in size and mass via hawking radiation. (Also why we are confident the LHC will not produce black holes that will consume the earth, for if this was true it would be happening thousands of times per day in the high energy particle collisions that occur in the upper atmosphere).

I have already spoken about the problem with magnets.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mattyelle1

The problem with magnets, as ever, is that they either:

A: Require an outside powersource to generate field

B: Use of natural magnets degrades m-field over time. The energy necessary to give it its charge will never be more than the energy you can extract from the system you used to generate it.

Remember, conservation laws only apply to closed systems. If you introduce outside forces you influence the overall energy of the system

The universe is considered to be a closed system.

[scienceminded]

@CupCakeArmy1

I am of the opinion that recent discovery of negative mass electrons demonstrates the 'time' reversable nature of physical interactions. A negative mass electron generator would run cold by absorbing waste heat, reversing entropy, energy is conserved because now it accelerates away from the source of gravity, inverting the equations describing conservation.

Anti-gravity is the natural consequence of a time reversible physical world.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@scienceminded

I am happy b/c energy is conserved regardless of how it is transferred. I have not read much into negative energy particles but they do sound intriguing.

[scienceminded]

@CupCakeArmy1

I suggest reading the Alternative Physics website of Bruce Harvey. Whether he is a quack or not, his mathematical models suggesting unified field theory, faster than light travel, and some other interesting consequences of rewriting our assumptions of relativity and QM are either true, or false and can show us why the relevant theories are so experimentally valid.

His classical description of antimatter 'annihilation' accounting for missing mass is interesting.

[mattyelle1]

@CupCakeArmy1 Just think of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) and all the energy being released there. Some scientists thought their would be so much energy unleashed it would have created a black hole which could have sucked up the earth (clearly not backed with much theory though). Or even the nuclear bomb. Crash one nuclei with a proton, and a chain reaction starts unleashing energy only seen on the Sun. Newton principles generally work at the macro & micro levels, but not in quantum physics.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mattyelle1

Why are we considering ideas that are false, as evidence for your argument? Newtons laws are laws because they are always true. You have not provided any evidence that breaks these laws, just a misunderstanding of what they mean.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mattyelle1 You are also describing nuclear fission here, and not nuclear fusion, which is what the sun does.

[mattyelle1]

@CupCakeArmy1 Oh, and not to mention newton's principles ONLY work on a planet's surface. Newton considered both time and gravity to be constants. This is not true. The faster an object moves through the relative photonic field, the slower time gets. And the further an object is from the surface of a planet, the weaker gravity gets.

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mattyelle1 Like your sun example, there is binding energy in the atomic nucleus that was put there at some point in the past. We can release that energy through various ways, but again, it came from somewhere, and that energy value is known. Its not free. If we were to continue that chain reaction, we would eventually run out of the primary source of fuel, hydrogen, for fusion. Nothing free about converting one form of energy to another, just a transfer of states.

[mattyelle1]

@CupCakeArmy1 It is not as much that there is no conservation of energy, but rather that modern physics explains it better this way: The entire universe is but a tiny imbalance in a sea of potential particles (which can be mass or vibrational energy) which are unpredictable. So energy is NEVER conserved. Sometimes it is energy, sometimes it is mass. Just cuz its called Law, doesnt mean it is true

[CupCakeArmy1]

@mattyelle1

I assume you are talking about wave/particle duality, but again, that does not break any conservation laws. Matter, (especially at the tiniest of scales) tend to exist as waves of potentials until an interaction forces them to take up a physical reality. You cannot convert energy into mass or vice versa without some force(which also requires energy to produce) All energy is accounted for, even if you cannot always pinpoint where it exists at any given moment in time.

[scienceminded]

@mattyelle1

The trouble you get into however is that indeed this imbalance implies a negative, equal force. So conservation is held while regular matter can exist, it is charge and mass that can be equal and opposite, the universe exists in dichotomy, but the impetus for this imbalance is unknown and does NOT create energy or destroy anything, it merely creates the negating forces and does not allow them to rejoin immediately. A local change in energy we MAY be able to exploit.

[scienceminded]

The line "charge and mass can be equal and opposite" implies not that they are opposites, but rather that charge can have opposite charge, and that gravity and distance (or perhaps negative mass as the recent electron studies imply) can also be opposite.

And then there's matter and antimatter and it's whole canbag of fishworms.

[scienceminded]

@mattyelle1

Bruce Harvey had something to say about that too, the further you get, but also if you go INTO the planet, as in a tunnel to it's core, relativity starts to suffer.

He goes on to propose classical mechanical interpretations of time dilation, and suggests that when GPS technology was discovered that relativity didn't hold up, but the 7 decades of prevailing espousal of relativity kinda dampened reform that should have happened, instead leading to some fuzzy math.

[LDOG2006]

yes yes this is gut

[ChicaWolverina]

Wow BS, lame what have you will in delusions!

[DICKIEMONSTER]

cool

[edlingja1]

1:08 OMG grammar fail.

You, sir, are the greatest commentator ever

Really lame magnets, guys

I couldn't imagine how boring it would be wasting 9 mins watching when the intro is the funniest part

[Arjetube]

2:06 wont work xD

because the blue edge of the shaped magnet would simply connect to the red side of the upper magnet!

[CupCakeArmy1]

@Arjetube

Lol, the magnet would simply fall over to a stable position, you cannot accelerate mass in the simplistic way described by this video.

[hideaway33]

Hre on ths plnt, rth --- ____.

[hideaway33]

Be carefull though, if the Bismuth particles accelerate to warp in a circular tube, in Liquid Helium, freely, no resistance, super diamagnatism, in side of Magnetic fields, and start colliding with each other, they could create a working model of a Black Hole! Whch wold b lke nt G--_

[hideaway33]

Try Bismuth particles in liquid Helium, in a tube, with magnets on both sides, at an angle to push collectively in 1 direction. I do disagree with Mr. Einstein about something, If all this chatter about time and space bending at warp, how is it we can mathematicly figure it takes 8.3 minutes for sunlight (photon) to get here from the sun?

[CupCakeArmy1]

@hideaway33

Photons travel at the speed of light. The speed of light is known and can be measured. Even with a big enough body of mass between us and the sun, light would still take the same amount of time to get here regardless of the path it had to take(ie: bending around the large mass, increases the distance but not the time)

To account for this, we must add in time dilation and length contraction to solve our problem. Both of these facts are supported by mounds of experimental evidence

[triplebog]

Force means accelleration, actually

[CupCakeArmy1]

@triplebog

Actually, a Force is a change in something, not always acceleration. For instance, a supernova collapsing under the weight of its own gravity experiences a change in size, and not vectors.

[DarstOmega]

"What did the ancient people knew that we did not?" Apparently grammar.

[JasonW7467]

When you show the example of the rhombus shaped magnet in-between the track of magnets, i think the magnet wouldn't fly outwards, i think it would just flip over. 1) because of the magnetic forces pushing on it and 2) because the center of mass isn't over the base of the magnet

[DanaHamelit]

Ding dong the witch is dead.

[nutCaseBUTTERFLY]

There is a mistake at 8:07

The correct arrow direction should be from south to north

These artists never learn

[mzwgd]

rotfl



[dokvictor]

это видео мне понравилось , вот и решил показать

[marinohell]

Your explanation is similar to his alienScientist.

[joelito101]

How about using Graphene nanotubes instead of using copper.