SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGE CONTINUES - SCIENCE IS STUPEFIED – THEY CANNOT ANSWER ONE QUESTION POSED TO THEM ABOUT THEIR OWN OLD SCIENCE. WHY?

This is the third release of more Old Science questions for cynical physicists to answer, that started on Sept 18, and October 9, and now this set.  Why cannot any of the over 2 million answer just a few?  Probably, because they never thought about them, never taught them, or even never studied their Old Science history.  They are simply IGNORANT of the FACTS, as presented. The final last set  of questions will be on Nov. 20, 2006!

TO THIS DATE, NO ONE, IN THE ENTIRE WORLD ANSWERED ANY QUESTIONS.  PERIOD!     So far NOTHING has come forth.  NO ANSWERS!  NO E-MAILS!  NO PHONE CALLS!    NO LETTERS!  NOTHING!

Once again, WHY?

If one cares,  read the September 18, 2006 News Release if your just getting involved with this CHALLENGE.  This will give the reason we started CHALLENGING Old Science so called experts.

We are www. ONEGIFT4POWER .org, and Dante A. Donatelli Jr., President, Gift giver, and discover of the Technology, and WE CHALLENGED OLD SCIENCE CYNICAL PHYSICISTS, WORLD-WIDE!  Why did we challenge, because we are right, and they are wrong.  It is as simple as that.  Period!  If we were wrong, ANY physicists could prove us wrong, BUT as yet, NO ONE CAN!

If physicists are SO “EDUCATIONALLY SUPERIOR’, why then can they not answer a few simple Old Science questions, THEIR OWN HISTORICALLY ACCURATE science, and a few logical questions simply put to them?

Maybe THEY CAN’T!   Maybe THEY ARE NOT AS EDUCATIONALLY SUPERIOR than they think they are about Dante’s work!

MAYBE, THEY ARE the FRAUDS!

Lets now review a little about scientific history, and we will begin asking the next series of questions.       

FACTS:

The German philosopher and scientist Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646-1716), who was the first to get a clear notion of work in the physicist’s sense, chose to call this work-store, (in living and inanimate things), VIS VIVA (Latin for ‘living force’.) 

In 1807, according to a number of reference books, an English physician, Thomas Young (1773-1829) proposed the term ENERGY for this work-store.  This is from  Greek words meaning “work-within” and is a purely neutral term that can apply to any object, living or dead, but his work was with objects not living.

This term gradually became popular and is now applied to any phenomenon capable of conversion into work.  There are many varieties of such phenomena and therefore many forms of energy.

The first form of energy to be clearly recognized as such, perhaps was that of motion itself.  Work involved motion (since an object had to be moved through a distance), so it was not surprising that motion could do work.  It was moving air, or wind, that drove a ship, and not still air; moving water that could turn a millstone, not still water.  It was not air or water that contained energy then, but the motion of the air or water. 

Kinetic Energy was discovered in 1856, 49 years after ENERGY was discovered.

QUESTION #61: If the Kinetic  Energy  formula WORKS ON EARTH, WHY CAN’T IT WORK FOR EARTH, AS WELL?  In other words, the Earth is the heaviest object and traveling at a tremendous velocity, of 1000 miles per hour.  Why then cannot it be developing free mechanical energy and be the SOURCE of ALL the MECHANICAL ENERGY USED, ON EARTH?  And if you say IT CAN’T, THEN FULLY EXPLAIN WHY NOT?  Remember, ½ mass times velocity, SQUARED. The Earth would develop humongous amounts that could be tapped into and given back to, as mechanical energy PRESENTLY HAS NO SOURCE, even the converted costly kind, SO EXPLAIN FULLY WHY NOT?

FACTS:

The Earth has been in motion for eons!

It is the biggest OBJECT on and in Earth!
It weights the most of all OBJECTS in or on Earth!

It stays in motion, with no expenditure of ENERGY!

According to any Perpetual Motion definition;

“ Perpetual motion refers to a condition in which an object moves forever without being driven by an external source of energy”

QUESTION #62: Doesn’t the Earth, which is the largest object on Earth, move forever?

Hasn’t it been running, with no external source of energy, for eons?

Couldn’t the Earth’s motion be considered PERPETUAL MOTION?

And, because it started when the Earth was born, and has never stropped, couldn’t it be considered Perpetual Motion of the First Kind?

IF NOT – WHY NOT?

QUESTION #63:  And, by the way, why are there FIVE FORMS of PRIMARY ENERGY, and NOT FOUR PRIMARY FORMS and ONE CONVERTED FROM THESE FORMS? 

In other words, why does science state one thing, and explain another, or give the sources for four, but not the fifth, explaining it is converted.  Wouldn’t this then make the fifth, a SECONDARY ENERGY FORM, since it has no source?

QUESTION #64:  Why can’t other innovative functions be invented for the three basic physics machines?  According to the “Machine Design” Old Science text, ANYTHING CAN BE INVENTED, IF ONE IS A GENIUS!  In other words, is  a crowbar the only lever function that can be invented, or a plank be the only inclined plane?  If innovative mechanics are designed, why couldn’t innovative, mechanical advantages of these basic machines, ALSO be discovered?

QUESTION #65:   WHY DIDN’T GALILEO SEE THAT THE HEAVIER BALL HE DROPPED, LEFT A BIGGER DENT IN THE GROUND, WHICH WOULD HAVE MEANT SOMETHING AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SIZE AND WEIGHT OF MASSES?

QUESTION #66: Why, when Newton was discovering gravity, did he have such a hard time accepting the  force of gravity, and he then had to create EXPEDIENTS to get it to work for him, when everyone knows an EXPEDIENT is something worked out to satisfy an end, with no regard to the truth has to be included, according to Webster?  If he would have made ACCURATE experiments, would his laws of motion be different?

IF HE KNEW OF ENERGY - WOULD HIS LAWS BE ANY DIFFERENT?

QUESTION #67:  For example.  Answer this.  Is the “straight line traveled” of any object, in the first law,  a two dimensional or three dimensional line?

In other words, is it a line which radiates out from a point, into space, which is impossible because the force of gravity would be applied the minute it started, OR is it a two dimensional straight line, following the curvature of the Earth? 

Is this important, YES, when you consider Newtonian Mechanics formulates every scientific mind.  What if there was a different angle to his laws of motion?  After all, he never knew about ENERGY, WORK, or POWER and how that would affect them?  He also didn’t think much of HIS OBJECTS being put into KINETIC ENERGY MOTION

FACT:

The energy associated with motion is called KINETIC ENERGY, a term introduced by the English physicist Lord Kelvin (1824-1907) in 1856.  The word “kinetic” is from a Greek word meaning “motion.”

QUESTION #68:  If kinetic energy is matter in motion energy, or objects in motion energy, is then potential energy that of matter or objects at rest?

QUESTION #69: Explain why the kinetic energy of chemical energy and nuclear energy can go from potential to kinetic BUT NOT BACK AGAIN, but that of objects or matter (solid, gaseous or liquid, as water, wind and solid objects) in motion can go from potential to kinetic to potential to kinetic to potential, etc., etc., and never stop or never wear out? 

QUESTION #70:  Shouldn’t there be two sets of kinetic energy and potential energy, say one set for that which cannot be returned, and one set for that which can return as many times as it wants?  If not, explain why not!

QUESTION # 71:  Is it not true, that kinetic energy and potential energy IS PROVED IN EVERY CLASSROOM of PHYSICS, IN ALL THE WORLD, by the pendulum bob and string arrangement, whereas the bob has to have a kinetic energy input, then turns kinetic by itself, then potential then kinetic, etc., etc.?

QUESTION # 72:  WHY isn’t a lump of coal burned, from potential to kinetic, AND THIS USED TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF KINETIC AND POTENTIAL ENERGY, or BURN GAS,  OIL, or ANY OTHER ENERGY FORM THAT CANNOT GO BACK AND FORTH?  IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH THIS?

Or even using the 5th CONVERTED COSTLY MECHANICAL ENERGY and see if it will go back and forth,  and explain why not?

Does it act like the  6th DEVELOPED FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY of 1807, which CAN GO BACK and FORTH?

QUESTION # 73: If the FIRST concept of energy was inanimate objects that had work-stored-within, why then TODAY, does science not recognize this AS A VIABLE SOURCE of ENERGY?   Non-living objects, in motion, to develop free energy?  After all, the work is stored in the object, the object then, if stone or other free materials, is free, why not then isn’t the work inside, free as well, and when put into motion, by a natural phenomena of the force of gravity, why isn’t the motion of the object which develops energy, FREE ENERGY?  Seems only logical!  It has to be free, since it cost nothing to get the work, energy, out!

QUESTION #74: Tell the World why science today has FIVE PRIMARY FORMS of ENERGY, but NONE of them ARE THE 1807 ENERGY?

WHY NOT?

DID IT GET LOST IN THE CENTURIES?

ANOTHER PROVABLE FACT:

The ENERGY USED IN THE HOOVER DAM
IS NOT ANY ONE OF THE FIVE,
 PRIMARY KNOWN OF BY SCIENCE IN 2006,  FORMS,
OF ENERGY EITHER.

QUESTION #75: What form is it? 

And don’t say the Sun, because you would be entirely wrong, as the Sun ONLY lifts and moves water, naturally, BUT IT DOESN’T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO ONCE the WATER LEAVES the CLOUDS. 

In fact, EVEN the LEAVING of the CLOUDS ENERGY, IS NOT FROM the SUN!

EVERY FORM of ENERGY FROM the WATER LEAVING the CLOUDS, ALL the WAY BACK TO the TURBINES,  IS PURELY the 6th FORM,  DEVELOPED FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY, PERIOD!  It COULDN’T BE ANYTHING ELSE.  PERIOD!

QUESTION #76:  Everyone knows that the Perpetual Motionalists started their major work right after this work-stored-within was understood as ENERGY. 

Didn’t science start this revolution by stating this work-within was a fact?

Did science not  tell them that the “work-within” couldn’t come out until 1856, when the term KINETIC was discovered? 

NO, THEY COULDN’T!  THEY DIDN’T KNOW THEMSELVES!

In other words, was it sciences fault that so many perpetual motionalists came onto the scene, only to be defeated by incomplete  science?

After all, back then, if one believed that there was “work-stored-within” OBJECTS, wouldn’t it be a next logical step to just hang a few objects on mechanics, and the energy would run the device?

FACTS:

TODAY, WE KNOW DIFFERENTLY!

As of 1856 the OBJECTS have to be in MOTION, not put themselves into motion, to get the release of the “work-stored-within” all objects!

Didn’t science then have to invent a law, the Conservation of Energy Law, to stop them, BUT this law had nothing to do with the 1856 KINETIC ENERGY of SOLID OBJECTS, IN MOTION, DEVELOPED FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY?

It seemed pretty clear that in 1807, ENERGY was discovered, and in 1856, KINETIC ENERGY was discovered and it was very clear, at least now looking back, that all one had to do was to take a solid matter object, place it in motion, thus releasing the kinetic energy, and perform any type work wanted or needed, SO, WHY DID SCIENCE SCREW THIS UP?

QUESTION # 77: Why did they have to invent a law, THEY ALREADY KNEW that KINETIC ENERGY of SOLID MATTER in OBJECTS, COULDN’T BE CONSERVED?

Science even had a problem with putting the supposed Law of Mechanical Energy into the Law of the Conservation of Energy, but they did it, and they teach it today!  One reason they try to put every law, into one law, is because most in science believe there is one magic law that sums up everything on Earth!

YES, the TRUTH IS:  THE DEVELOPED FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY OF SOLID MATTER OBJECTS, CAN IN FACT,  BE INCREASED, AND AS MUCH AS ONE WANTS or NEEDS, JUST BY INCREASING the VELOCITY.

EINSTEIN PROVED THIS!    MACH PROVED THIS!

WHY THEN DOES SCIENCE HAVE SUCH A HARD TIME WITH the TRUTH, the FACTS and THAT WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN?

QUESTION  #78:  Was the Conservation of Energy Law devised to stop them?

Look at the facts:  The only ENERGY discovered, of its day, was in 1807.  The Conservation of Energy Law came out in 1847.  WHY?  Why conserve the only ENERGY that can be INCREASED in a closed system, JUST BY INCREASING VELOCITY?  There was no other energy form known of in 1847!

Or, was the Conservation of Energy Law born to stop anyone from thinking coal, oil and the such, that which cannot be potential again, after it was kinetic, couldn’t be brought back to potential again?

FACTS:

AND, the fact that steam engines ARE HOT, therefore HEAT, which is the definition of THERMO, and DYNAMICS is defined as KINETIC, motion, or the such, ergo THERMODYNAMICS, that which science today states is the reason THAT NO FREE ENERGY CAN BE DEVELOPED, GAINED or COME ABOUT, CANNOT BE USED AGAINST DANTE’S WORK, simply BECAUSE OBJECTS in MOTION, DO NOT FIT THIS LAW or GROUP of LAWS.  DO YOU AGREE?

If you do agree, then why not accept what Dante states, as fact?

If you do not agree,  WHY NOT?

QUESTION #79:  What is the TRUTH? 

Is there HEAT in HYDRO or WIND-POWER?

If you believe there IS HEAT,, explain it?

If you decide there is NO HEAT, as Dante believes, THEN WHY NOT STATE WHAT ENERGY or LACK of ENERGY or LACK OF HEAT or LACK of the LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS, DO NOT APPLY?

There is NO HEAT in Dante’s discovered New Science Technology, “SOLID-POWER”, (except a little frictional heat of well lubricated bearings, that can be controlled by the addition of a little more “fuel”, solid matter in motion)  but science accepts hydro and wind, BUT REFUSES TO ACCEPT “SOLID-POWER”, WHY?  SOLID OBJECTS were the FIRST RECOGNIZED FORMS OF ENERGY CONTAINMENT, and WHEN PUT INTO MOTION, DEVELOPED ENERGY.   WHEN A ROCK FALLS FROM A CLIFF, BY MEANS OF THE FREE, FORCE OF GRAVITY, ISN’T THE ENERGY IT DEVELOPED   - FREE ENERGY?

DID IT COST ANYTHING, BUT A SIMPLE PUSH or A SIMPLE TREMBLE OF EARTH DISLODGING IT?

FACT:

In 1847 the Conservation of Energy Law, the First Law of Thermodynamics was introduced by Heimholtz and Mayer (in 1842 and Joule (in 1847) also contributed to the development of this law.

FACT:

In 1765 the steam engine was refined by James-Watt, with:

NO ENERGY DEFINITION!

NO KINETIC ENERGY DEFINITION!

NO CONSERVATION of ENERGY LAW DEFINITION!

QUESTION #80:  Looking over these dates, it becomes apparent that something went on between 1765 and 1847, with the term ENERGY coming into effect in 1807 and the term KINETIC came about in 1856.  WHAT WAS IT? 

It seems that energy was ONLY stored in living and inanimate objects, not machines like the steam engine, so:

QUESTION #81: Why did science develop a LAW that DEALS WITH HEAT, when it is apparent that there is NO HEAT IN AN  INANIMATE OBJECT, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT HAS NO KINETIC ENERGY?

FACTS:

Energy was discovered in 1807!

Kinetic Energy wasn’t understood until 1856!

The steam engine, which was already invented, was refined in 1765, 43 years BEFORE the term energy was known of, so did anyone think that ENERGY was used in the steam engine, or that this energy was conserved, or that this energy was potential to kinetic, as it is thought of today?

BUT, in 1847, 39 years after ENERGY and 9 years before KINETIC, a Law was invented.  WHY?

IS THIS A REAL – ABSOLUTE – IRREFUTABLY UNBREAKABLE  LAW, for ALL ENERGIES or a MADE UP, BY FRUSTRATED SCIENTISTS  LAW to ENCOMPASS ALL ENERGIES? 

IF SO, THEN WHY DID EINSTEIN and PAULI BLAST IT AWAY, IN 1905, and 1935?

AND, was the Law restated after 1856, when SCIENCE KNOW KNEW of VELOCITY and KINETIC ENERGY IN OBJECTS?

AND – IF NOT – WHY NO0T?

The object of 1807, had to be put in motion of 1856, and the only motion of that day was the steam engine and the FORCE of GRAVITY!

We are REALLY MAKING a BIG DEAL ABOUT THIS,
as it is the beginning of what science believes in today.

EXCEPT, IN 1807, the TRUTH WAS KNOWN,
but today, THEY SEEM NOT TO KNOW!

Answer this one completely, PLEASE, as the answer will be really a good one we believe. 

QUESTION #82: Did science start their tricky UNIFIED THEORY bit back then? 

Putting EVERYTHING PHENOMENAL into the ONE ENERGY BASKET, THUS CONFUSING the FACT THAT the MOTION OF MATTER WAS THE FIRST FORM OF ENERGY, and that the term ENERGY was given to a solid object?

QUESTION #83:  Did this phenomena thing cause a great running together of terms, forms, types and anything else to do with motion, objects, force, man made (the steam engine), or natural, (the force of gravity), and  ENERGY and did science  start screwing it all up back then?

QUESTION #84:  Back to the Perpetual Motionalists.  Did science start the law of conservation of energy because these were taking money from the public that science should have been given?  And, did science TELL the entire truth, that motion AND matter , objects that had work-stored-within, had to be combined for any machine to work, ergo a force, as well had to be forth coming, natural or man made?

FACT:
When Dante studied physics he discovered over 18 various explanations/definitions of the one word “ENERGY.”   WORK, that which energy is associated only had one, (a force moves a distance), and POWER only had ONE, the RATE work is performed, (a force moving a distance in a given time.)

QUESTION #85: Why were there over  18 definitions/explanations of the ONE TERM “ENERGY”?

AND, WHY WASN’T EVEN ONE OF THESE, the 1807 OBJECT with ENERGY stored within?

QUESTION #86:  Explain the truth? 

FACT:

From the McGraw-Hill source:

“energy, the ability of one system to do work on another system.”

QUESTION #87:  Does this mean, that TWO SYSTEMS can be located within ONE CLOSED SYSTEM, as the Conservation of Energy Law is concerned about, a “closed system”?

OR, does it mean that maybe the “closed system” is larger than the bounds of the machine?

Could it be that a “closed system” of an object in motion, delivering kinetic energy, could be the atmosphere where mechanical energy COULD COME FROM?

NO you say! 

Then explain WHERE  MECHANICAL ENERGY COMES FROM?

DO NOT USE the OLD RHETORIC THAT MECHANICAL ENERGY COMES FROM the CONVERSION PROCESS of THE OTHER FOUR PRIMARY FORMS of ENERGY, BECAUSE IT DOESN’T HOLD WATER WHEN TAKING ABOUT, OBJECTS in MOTION KINETIC ENERGY, that which was the first and truest of 1807 and 1856!

COULD THERE THEN BE TWO FORMS of MECHANICAL ENERGY?

FACT:

From the same source. 

“The term energy is used to describe an amount of work performed.”

QUESTION # 88: Does this mean their first or second explanation is right? 

Or, can one believe that ENERGY IS AN ABILITY TO NOT ONLY DESCRIBE AN AMOUNT OF WORK DONE,  BUT IS ALSO THE CAPACITY TO PERFORM THAT WORK? 

In other words, is ENERGY WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE, or WORK THAT IS ABOUT TO BE DONE?

QUESTION #89: Then from Webster’s Dictionary. “Energy:, the capacity for performing work”.  Then another from the same source: “Energy, Power efficiently and forcible exerted”.  Can one reasonable thinking person assume that ENERGY and POWER ARE ASSOCIATED?   Why then, are most engineers and some physicists  APPALLED when one states the exact same thing?

FACT:

Dante met two engineers that told him. Point blank, YOU CANNOT EVEN USE THEM in the SAME SENTENCE, that’s how different they are.

QUESTION #90: Why then if you look under ENERGY in Webster’s Dictionary, you will see as a synonym, POWER.  And look under POWER and see ENERGY synonym.  Then, looking in any Thesaurus, under ENERGY and usually the second word is POWER. WHY, if they are not kissing cousins?

QUESTION#91:  Do WORK, ENERGY and POWER ALL SHARE ONE UNIT OF MEASURE?  Is that unit, FOOT-POUNDS?  And, if it is, WHY CANNOT ANY FOOT-POUNDS, developed freely by objects in motion, by electrical energy driven motion, or even as a result of the force of gravity, BE CONSIDERED THE SAME, like a term Dante coined, “ENERPOWER”?

FACT:

If one reads any Conservation of Energy explanation, besides getting the same “energy cannot be created or destroyed, there will be words like:
“the sum of all energies remains constant”, or “the energies can be interconverted, but become less and less available” or,   “For a system that is both gaining and losing energy in the form of work and heat, as is true of any machine in operation, the energy principle asserts that the net gain of energy is equal to the total change of the system internal energy.”

And, in the Bernoulli principle:
“energy cannot be increased in a streamline.”

QUESTION # 92:  WHY CAN’T IT BE INCREASED?  What happens in the Hoover Dam machine, where there is NO potential energy at the surface  of the Lake, but over 2.1 million horsepower is developed at the end of the machine.  WHERE DOES ALL THE ENERGY COME FROM, IF THERE WAS NONE TO START WITH, NONE CAN BE INCREASED, AND ALL REMAINS EQUAL, WHICH MEANS ZERO IS EQUAL TO ZERO?

QUESTION # 93: ONCE AGAIN, WHY?   Do all these things in the Law and as mentioned, cannot be increased in a streamline, happen in HYDRO and WIND-POWER?  Is there any heat in either of theses two?  Could there be any heat when solid matter goes in motion, as liquid and gaseous go in motion to develop free mechanical energy?   Is it because of that Old Science Unified Theory once again. 

QUESTION # 94: Explain WHERE THE ENERGY COMES FROM at the HOOVER DAM?   If you say, like McGraw-Hill states, the Suns heat energy, YOUR WRONG!  We have already explained why your wrong!

FACT:

Then, consider this, Pumped Storage!  Pumped Storage is a FACT that HYDRO-POWER needs NO SUN to operate the Power Plant!

QUESTION # 95: WHY isn’t “pumped storage” used in the U.S.A. as much as it is in Europe?  After all, it is economically viable!  WHY doesn’t the government want this FREE ENERGY?  Yes, the generators, at night are turned into motors, and by purchasing CHEAP electricity from another source, pumps the down Lake water, into the upper Lake, and then during the day, WHEN THE PRICE OF ELECTRICITY IS DOUBLED, the water from the top Lake, runs FREELY through the HYDRO machine, and FREE ELECTRICAL ENERGY is developed, to be sold at twice the cost it took to get the water to the top. THE POINT, WHY ISN’T THIS USED IN THE U. S. A , and the SUN ISN’T IN ANY WAY INVOLVED IN THIS HYDRO PROCESS? 

Now, getting back to the 18 definitions/explanations:  WHY SO MANY?

FACT: 

And, from Webster’s Dictionary, once again: (Found under “POWER”, Syn. Energy):

“Energy, power thought of as expended or ready to be expended.”

QUESTION # 96: Once again, WHAT IS THE EXPENDING SOURCE FOR the HORSEPOWER GAINED AT THE HOOVER DAM?  If it isn’t energy, as described here, WHAT IS IT?  Isn’t this in contrast to “no energy can be increased in a streamline”?  Doesn’t the RATE of  WORK of 2.1 million HP, need a corresponding CAPACITY of WORK, called ENERGY?  IF NO, WHY NOT?

FACT:

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

“Energy, in physical sense, a term which may be defined as accumulated mechanical work, which however, may only be partially available for work”

QUESTION # 97:  DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS?  “accumulated mechanical work”.  Does this mean, mechanical energy or mechanical mechanics?  And, why is it ONLY, at time, partially available for work?

And, from the same source of reference:

“Energy is commonly defined as the capacity for doing work.  Since, however, we can not always bring about changes the term capacity is somewhat misleading.”  …

 “It is better to define energy as that which diminishes when work is done by an amount equal to the work done.”

QUESTION # 98:  The WORK DONE at the Hoover Dam, is the electrical generation of over 2084 MW of electricity, every second, and this RATE is performed by over 2.1 MILLION HORSEPOWER DEVELOPED, but WHERE IN the WORLD IS THAT WHICH IS DIMINISHED, IF NO ENERGY EXISTS, OR CAN BE DEVELOPED, OR CAN BE GAINED, OR CANNOT INCREASE, AS ALL STATED ABOVE, IN THE CONSERVATION LAW? Remember, energy starts at zero at the TOP of Lake Mead!  ZERO POTENTIAL ENERGY!

FACT:

In sources like Dante’s 50 year old High School Physics book, it states the same,

“Energy is the Capacity for doing work.”

FACT:

And the same in three other sources, BUT, in Dr. Olenick’s college textbook, he states:

“We need the idea of energy because it expresses one fact our old descriptions didn’t prepare us for.”

What ever this means is totally foreign, but it seems to indicate that what we believed in the old days, wasn’t enough to prepare us for what we believe in today, whatever that is.

FACT:

REMEMBER, the concept ENERGY was from the GREEK WORDS,  “WORK-STORED-WITHIN”  INANIMATE OBJECTS.  PERIOD

QUESTION # 99:  WHY MAKE IT DIFFICULT?  Why not stick to what got us here?  Why fight those who have brought it back?  DANTE for instance!

QUESTION # 100:  WHY NOT JUST STATE: 

“ANYTHING WITH WORK-STORED-WITHIN, IS ENERGY?”  And, ANYTHING THAT DOESN’T HAVE WORK-STORED -WITHIN ISN’T ENERGY! 

FACT: 

And, from Dr. Isaac Asimov:

“The idea of energy was invented precisely because it is conserved.”

WHAT?  WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?  ENERGY WAS DISCOVERED FIRST, THEN IT WAS CONSERVED SECOND, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND!

QUESTION # 101: Is the ENERGY or WORK-STORED -WITHIN an OBJECT, CONSERVED?  How is this so, when it CAN  BE MEASURED as MORE or LESS  WHEN VELOCITY of the MOTION CHANGES and determines HOW MUCH WORK CAN BE DONE WITH THE SAME OBJECT! 

Example.  If a ship of old, with sails, went fast, THE VELOCITY OF THE WIND WAS FAST, BUT THE SHIP WAS THE SAME, and the STREAMLINE THE SHIP WAS HEADING IN, WAS THE SAME, BUT THE ENERGY WAS MORE, than if the wind wasn’t blowing hard.

FACT:

ANOTHER EXAMPLE, if 20 more feet of water was added to the top of Lake Mead, (which isn’t possible, but theoretically a situation would come up, like this one), the HORSEPOWER developed at the end of the DAM MACHINE, would be increased!  AND SO WOULD the DEVELOPED  ENERGY, INCREASED!  WORK-STORED - WITHIN is the ONLY ANSWER.  The ONLY DEFINITION.  Work stored within the water.  Period!

QUESTION #102:  WHY ISN’T SCIENCE USING THIS SIMPLE DEFINITION, AS IT WOULD SOLVE A MULTITUDE OF SITUATIONS, LIKE DANTE BEING ABLE TO DISCOVER ANOTHER “WORK-STORED-WITHIN” SITUATION, LIKE SOLID MATTER OBJECTS, AND WHEN PUT IN MOTION, ENERGY, FREE ENERGY, DEVELOPED FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY?

FACT:

And, from the same source,

“Work then was obviously stored in inanimate objects as well as animated ones.”

QUESTION #103: DOES COAL HAVE WORK-STORED-WITHIN?  DOES NATURAL GAS?  DOES OIL?  DOES NUCLEAR?  HOW ABOUT THE SUN, or GEO-THERMAL from inside the EARTH, of even the electrical outlets in one’s home?  DOES NOT ALL THESE HAVE “WORK-STORED-WITHIN”?

QUESTION #104:  WHY THEN NOT SIMPLY STATE THIS?

FACT:

from Compton’s Encyclopedia:

“Energy is one of the most basic ideas of science.”

QUESTION # 105:  IF THIS IS SO, WHY THEN HAS SCIENCE SCREWED THIS IDEA UP SO BADLY?

FACT:

From the same Compton’s  source:

 “All occurrences in the universe can be explained in the terms of energy and matter.  But, the definition of energy is not at all simple, since energy occurs in many different forms and is not always easy to tell how these forms are related to one another and what they have in common.  One of the best-known definitions of energy is the classical definition used in physics; Energy is the ability to do work.”

ENERGY IS SIMPLE!  SCIENCE MAKES IT NOT!

QUESTION #106:  O.K. It seems to be getting clearer, but it could be simpler, just by the work stored explanation, BUT if this “ability”  is workable, WHERE THEN IS THE “ABILITY”, the ENERGY THE HOOVER  DAM NEEDS IF 2.1 MILLION HP  IS THE RATE the WORK IS DONE?

FACT:

(As to work) from the same source: “Physicists define work in a way that does not always agree with the average person’s idea of work,” then again, in another place, in the same source: “In physics, work is done when force applied to an object moves it some distance, in the direction of the force.”

QUESTION #107: O.K.,  WHAT’S NEW HERE?  YES, THE WORK PERFORMED AT THE HOOVER DAM, MOVES A TURBINE A GIVEN ROTARY DISTANCE, EACH SECOND, A UNIT IF TIME, ERGO, 2080 MW of ELECTRICITY PRODUCED, IS THE WORK!  WHERE IS the COMPLICATED UNDERSTANDING?   WORK IS WORK, ISN’T IT?

FACT: 

Dante submits, that it is this type rhetoric that screws up science, and screws up the students of science, and then screws up people like Dante who make claims, and science  says no, or FRAUD, BUT HAS NOTHING TO PROVE IT WITH.

QUESTION #108:  DOESN’T ALL THAT HAS BEEN STATED SO FAR, AS FACT, LEAD ONE TO BELIEVE THAT SCIENCE COULD JUST BE WRONG, and DANTE RIGHT?  Not because he states it, BUT BECAUSE ALL THE OLD SCIENCE RHETORIC STATES IT!

FACTS: 

OBJECTS HAVE WORK-STORED-WITHIN!

THIS WAS FIRST - CALLED ENERGY CENTURIES AGO!

OBJECTS HAVE TO BE PUT IN MOTION, TO ALLOW THE ENERGY TO COME OUT!

THE ENERGY THAT COMES OUT HAS TO BE MECHANICAL ENERGY!

BUT WAIT, WHY CANNOT IT BE ANOTHER ENERGY?

NOW, THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT!