Talk:Free energy suppression conspiracy theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge[edit]

Per discussion, No Merge. Renamed "Free energy suppression conspiracy theory"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose: List class articles should contain only very superficial and short descriptions. If List of conspiracy theories contains too much info now, then that article is flawed, and most of its material should be spawned into separate articles like this one. List of conspiracy theories should also be more clear on its theory subgroups. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 16:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


Definitely not merge. First of all, it's a notable conspiracy theory, perhaps as much or more so than the Apollo hoax; the conspiracy theory of free energy suppression, would, if true, have massive implications. Second, it is very plausible if you consider how Big Oil (not to mention Big Coal and other energy cartels) is a multi-trillion dollar industry, fully capable of ruthlessly suppressing free energy and falsely convincing the public and the science community that free energy isn't possible. In other words, if people around you tell you free energy is impossible, question it; there is a conflict of interest.
Third, there are numerous sources saying free energy is possible, so many that i believe them. Websites such as [1] “Pure Energy Systems News -- Team Reporting of Alternative Energy Developments”. Peswiki, [2]. [3] by Tom Bearden whom you may well have heard of. [4] “Panacea-Bocaf: Building Our Children A Future”. There are also books such as William Lyne's Occult Ether Physics and Pentagon Aliens; Tom Bearden's Energy from the Vacuum: Concepts & Principles; David Hatcher Childress' The Free Energy Device Handbook: A Compilation of Patents & Reports (Lost Science Series) and The Fantastic Inventions of Nikola Tesla.
Fourth, there are scientific mysteries that have gone unexplained for decades and, so far as I, cannot be explained without free-energists' theories. (1) UFOs. People have been seeing these mysterious aircraft/spacecraft for over 60 years, and no-one has explained them. William Lyne's books say that UFOs, aka flying saucers, were invented by Nikola Tesla, suppressed because they amounted to free energy - reaching very high speeds and altitudes on very little energy; and are secretly flown by the U.S. government, which falsely claims they are by aliens, hence the book title Pentagon Aliens. The very existence of UFO sightings proves that something is going on; since the sightings appear to be too vivid to be illusions, and the UFOs apparently fly without wings, the UFOs must be using antigravity. If antigravity is possible, then free energy must be, for, with antigravity, one can lift an object to high altitude on much less energy than the classical gravitational potential energy. (2) Also, there was the Tunguska event in 1908. You would think it was a meteor/asteroid, but no evidence of the remains of such an object has been found. In Occult Ether Physics, Lyne proposes that this event was due to a mishap with Tesla's Wardenclyffe tower. (3) Then there's Brooke Greenberg, a girl in Maryland, born January 8, 1993, who is trapped in the body of a baby; documented in Child Frozen in Time - My Shocking Story on Youtube. Doctors are still totally puzzled about the cause. Tom Bearden says it's due to what he calls “precursor engineering”, which he also ascribes as the reason Jesus and others in the Bible were able to perform so many “miracles”, and how Stanley Meyer was able to break up water into oxygen and hydrogen using much less energy that is released by burning them back into water. ([5] “The Tom Bearden Website: Precursor Engineering: The Direct Engineering of Physical Reality Via Tickling of the Dirac Sea Vacuum”; [6] “Precursor Engineering”). (4) The fact that Tesla was, for many years, and to a lesser extent otday, relatively obscure, even though he invented so many great things. Do you think this is because he was deliberately obscured by the powers that be so that people wouldn't learn about him and free energy?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

William Lyne's books say that UFOs, aka flying saucers, were invented by Nikola Tesla, suppressed because they amounted to free energy - reaching very high speeds and altitudes on very little energy; and are secretly flown by the U.S. government

.
Yeah, sorry, but no one is going to take this seriously here as WP is not a conspiracy theory wiki. You may want to read up on WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:OR. Noformation Talk 01:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Nonetheless, i suppose you agree that this page should not be deleted or merged. At least i provided some food for thought. I hope someone will look at the sources i cited.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Based on what you've written in the section below it appears you have a decent grasp of WP policy so you must know that it's very unlikely these sources will be considered, much less integrated. Noformation Talk 02:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Good idea, changing the title to “Free energy suppression conspiracy theory”. Clearer. Also, i suggest a better definition of “free energy”. Perhaps i can provide one.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, just make sure it's reliably cited if you give it a go. In fact much of this article needs cleanup and more sourcing to reliable journals and such. I'm sure there's no shortage of commentary on the subject. Noformation Talk 02:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
There is clearly consensus against the merge. There is also clearly agreement that “Free energy suppression conspiracy theory” would be a more approriate title (no objection has been raised to the move). That being the case, I will make the bold move of renaming the page to said title.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Done. Given that the discussion died out about a year ago, it dosen't seem likely there will much objection to this. Of course, it can always be changed again if there is. But there appears to be a clear consensus here.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A changing future: "What would constitute absolute proof?"[edit]

The last talk article "Here's the proof" and the rebuttal begs the question "What would those moderating this article consider constitutes absolute proof?"

I ask because I've been following a non-profit opensource group for over 2 1/2 years that has been building such a device. Is this article about 'free energy' as in as physics states "energy free to do work", or "something from nothing" which doesn't exist. Or is it stating that free energy (or overunity energy) as in energy from nature is a conspiracy theory. Or is it that those developing these devices are subject to harassment, skeptics, or possibly killed. Either way, other than being killed, this group could qualify as the proof needed for both the device, and harassment.

BTW, For now, I'm leaving the names out of the discussion. So, what constitutes proof for a rewrite of the original article: Proof of the device, and proof of conspiracy in action?

Initially they (the group) provided the Tesla patent which was the basis for the improved generator that would be built, the basic modifications to the patent, a forum for discussion for those interested in such a device, and a promise: "all the plans and research will be opensourced, without patent, and freely available to everyone." They have held to this agreement, although admittedly and for valid reasons extremely skittish as the project nears completion. The conspiracy is no theory if once the device is built, and substantial proof exists to show people conspiring.

Using an modified inductance generator producing Reactive Power (VARS), in July 2014 they initially got 800W output from 1kW REAL, and realized ultimately they needed more than resonance. One year later, the device was able to output 5kW VARS from 1kW real once properly tuned and conditioned. Although not the solution, it was a milestone. As expected, the conversion from VARS to REAL power would be the biggest hurdle, although achieving overunity in VARS is significant! From July 2015 through May 2016 progress was slow but progress existed. More and more pressure was placed on the family, houses lost, laboratories burned, etc. Nevertheless, the family and supporters once more in hiding have been releasing the building plans, research and information on the Reactive to Real Power converter. The claim is that four methods have been found to convert VARS to Real Watts, they have chosen the cheapest.

The claim is that the generator has reached the last phase, more information and plans to follow. The output power expectations have dropped from initially a 10:1 overunity to approximately 3:1 overunity (nothing to be ashamed of), with hope for more power with further research. China has been involved in this from the start, claiming a vested interest. (From posts I can attest to this) as well as, to my knowledge of many other countries being involved, I know of 5 based on forums. There is also claims that 100+ people are building the generators (I have seen proof of 'some' in the forums), and know of 3rd party vendor factories building the precision components, who are also accessible through the forums. The cost is dropping. There are also claims of NASA, Lockheed Martian, Los Alamos, and other agencies interested in the project, although this has been only very recently. (Since they developed the Reactive to Real power converter.

So, having been present from the start...I re-iterate: "What would those moderating this article consider constitutes absolute proof?" We know videos can be faked, so no videos. Some news agencies aren't considered trustworthy. So what does constitute proof. Are we only to accept proof from the megacorporation media, who may get advertising dollars from those who would not see this invention get into the world? So, what is absolute proof, and who can be trusted?

Personally, I think this organizations discovery that the only way not to be killed, by way of conspirators who want to see this invention suppressed was to make it non-profit, and opensource, free to all. I also think the world governments know the 'cat is out of the bag'; and there are plans to re-monetize the world banking system, and detach it from oil; there are certainly rumors. The recent plummeting oil prices could be an indicator, after all, how long will we be using oil, once a device like this gets out? The time to ask the question, "What proof do you need", and "Who is a trustworthy source" are valid questions in this day and age.

What proof is acceptable? Cyberchip (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Released Article "Multiple Scientists Confirm The Reality of Free Energy – Here’s The Proof"[edit]

FYI. I recently saw a link posted to this bunk article. http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/10/11/multiple-scientists-confirm-the-reality-of-free-energy-heres-the-proof/SbmeirowTalk • 03:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The site itself is not a reliable source. Just a clearing house of old stuff that's been covered before.KaturianKKaturian 19:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Cold fusion and Category:Perpetual motion[edit]

An editor insists on restoring these categories. If anything, those categories would be subcategories of Category:Free energy (if it existed). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I just saw both of these fringey categories as applying to this topic - it should fall under both categories for that reason. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

An animal isn't a kind of elephant, and "Free energy" isn't a kind of "cold fusion". Bhny (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I may have misinterpreted how the category tags are being used. I thought I was listing "free energy suppression" as a sub-set of articles related to those topics. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I created Category:Free energy conspiracy theories, for articles related to the subject of this one; said category is a subcategory of Category:Perpetual motion, among others. Happy?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free energy suppression conspiracy theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)