#156E: "Laws" on energy? - English version (polska wersja ponizej w nastepnym wpisie)
Motto: ""By formulation of 'laws' which supposedly rule energy, but without earlier working out the 'definition' of energy, present human science pushes itself into a kind of "vicious-cycle" which closes for the humanity an access to unlimited sources of energy that are offered to us by attributes of natural programs called 'energy'."
Although it can shock us enormously, so-called "laws" which according to present science supposedly rule energy, are equally absurd like warnings of monks from early medieval times about the travelling to the edge of world and falling down from a cliff there directly to the "hell". After all, these laws were formulated before the science was able to earn the knowledge as to what actually this "energy" is. On the other hand, without knowing what energy actually is, the science had no either logical basis, nor required data, to discover the true laws that rule over energy. In turn erroneous assumption of scientists that the "laws", which the science formulated much earlier, still are supposedly correct, make it impossible for the science to determine what really "energy" is, and what laws really rule over this energy. In the result, in matters of energy the official human science pushed itself into the situation of a "dog that tries to bite its own tail", means in a kind of "vicious-cycle" which has no end. In this post, as well as in item #I1 of the totaliztic web page named "telekinetics.htm", I am going to justify the above finding.
A problem with medieval monks that provided e.g. staff for Inquisition, boiled down to issuing judgements and warning exclusively on the basis of their own imagination, instead on the basis of confirmed facts. For example, these monks had no even a slightest idea about the shape of Earth. However, they still issued definitive and authoritative judgements about trips to the edge of world. While not knowing the definition of the Earth which would, amongst others, inform about the true shape of our planet, these monks imagined that the world is flat like a pancake, while at edges it finishes with a cliff that leads straight to the "hell". So according to their claims, everyone who in medieval times would attempt to sail e.g. to present New Zealand or to Australia, at some stage of the trip would fall down from the edge of Earth and would land in the "hell". So in order to save such impudent travellers from the "hell", monks just in case burned them on stake immediately after they expressed the wish to go sailing for such a distant trip. However, the most shocking is that this strange medieval behaviour is copied exactly by present "modern" scientists in all matters relating to energy.
Let us consider how and why the claims of present human science about energy, copy exactly the behaviour of these medieval monks. Well, in spite that scientists still have NOT earned a definition that would explain what actually this "energy" is and how energy works, the science insisted long ago on the formulation of "laws", such as the "principle of energy conservation", or so-called "laws of thermodynamics". Thus, the only thing on which these "laws" were based, were believes and views - very similar to these ones which people from the early medieval times had about the shape of Earth. After all, without knowing the definition of energy that would explain exactly what this "energy" really is, the official science does NOT have any rational basis for the formulation of "laws" which would describe behaviours of that energy. This is because claiming how the energy behaves, when actually we do NOT know what this energy is, actually copies such medieval opinions of monks about what happens when someone goes into a trip to edges of world - announced in the situation when in fact no-one had a slightest idea what shape this world really takes.
In order to illustrate here how absurd are opinions of present science about attributes and behaviours of energy, let us consider an example of the definition of energy which the official science provides today. Although depending on the textbook which one uses, these definitions may utilise slightly different wordings, basically all of them are going to state something along the lines that "energy is an ability to complete work". In other words, present scientific definition of energy is a copy of medieval definition of the planet Earth, which stated something along lines that "the Earth is a place where godly creatures can live". Means none of these definitions teaches us about the attributes and work of whatever it describes. For example, in case of energy, the present official scientific definition still does NOT explain characteristics of energy nor allows to deduce how energy works. In turn, in case of the planet Earth, the medieval definition does NOT explain anything about the shape of Earth nor allows to deduce how one can travel safely across the Earth. Furthermore, none of these definitions allows to deduce anything about "laws" that rule over whatever is defined.
Of course, scientists can also attempt to define energy on the basis of "laws" which supposedly rule over the behaviour of it. For example, from the content of the "conservation of energy principle" it would appear that "energy" is a kind of "indestructible substance or liquid", and thus it fulfils the "law of balance" called the "principle of energy conservation". But the formulation of definition on the basis of "laws" which were formulated without having these definition, is logically wrong. It resembles the attempt to "lift ourselves by pulling our own hair". In other words, both the understanding of energy as an "indestructible liquid", and also the "principle of energy conservation" announced to supposedly be obeyed by this "indestructible liquid", are just a big nonsense. For me personally it is difficult to understand why rationally thinking scientists treat both these as sure truths. After all, these both represent just speculations and empty words which are based just on themselves - means on the same speculations and empty words, while they are NOT based on the reality that surrounds us.
The nonsense of scientific "laws" related to energy, and formulated in the situation when the science does NOT know the correct definition which would explain what this "energy" actually is, is well illustrated by the definition of energy formulated by the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (described comprehensively on the totaliztic web page named "dipolar_gravity.htm"). (Notice that so-far the Concept of Dipolar Gravity is NOT recognised by the official human science.) This definition states that "energy is a kind of most elementary natural program that resides in the counter-matter and that describes the behaviour of matter in every situation to which this matter can be subjected". The more comprehensive description of this definition is contained in publications which explain the Concept of Dipolar Gravity - for example in item #E2 from the totaliztic web page "dipolar_gravity.htm" - about the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, or from subsections H4.1 (see "C1" in there) and H9.2 in volume 4 of monograph [1/5] (to download it free of charge visit the totaliztic web page named "text_1_5.htm"). The difference between the definitions to-date disseminated by the official science, and the above definition of energy formulated by the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (which is still ignored by the official human science), is enormous. After all, the Concept of Dipolar Gravity explains to us exactly what actually this energy is. In this way the Concept of Dipolar Gravity provides us with scientific foundations for rational deducing attributes and behaviours of energy. As it turns out, energy actually is a "natural program" and thus it displays all attributes of a "program" - not attributes of an "indestructible substance or liquid" that so-far were given to it by "laws of science".
Of course, differences between behaviours of a "natural program", and behaviours of an "indestructible substance or liquid", are huge. For example, into a program can be imprinted an algorithm of such a behaviour that the "principle of energy conservation" is fulfilled in the majority of cases. But due to the complexity of this program, which must correspond to already learned algorithms of complex behaviours of energy, it will inevitably have both, some intentionally introduced sections, as well as algorithmic paradoxes, which are going to allow that this "principle of energy conservation" in special circumstances is going to be replaced by a completely different principle - sometimes even by an exactly opposite one. In turn this hypothetic "indestructible substance or liquid" that results from "laws of science" to-date, always must fulfil the "principle of energy conservation". In other words, because of defining "laws" that rule over energy, before the "energy" itself was defined, the official human science put itself into a kind of misleading "vicious-cycle". This vicious-cycle closes the science from the capability to notice and to seek non-typical capabilities which true attributes and true behaviours of energy offer to people.
(Continued on other blogs of totalizm, e.g. on blogs:
Let us summarise here the main point that the above findings try to make. Namely, the appropriate use of "natural programs", which presently we call "energy", promises an easy access of humanity to unlimited resources of free energy. The exploitation of this free energy would NOT cause any damage to the natural environment. All that people need to do to harvest these unlimited energy resources is to initiate a mass industrial production of so-called "free energy devices" which have over 100% energy efficiency, and which work similarly as the so-called "perpetual motion" devices described in past. There are already working prototypes of such "free energy devices" - described on the totaliztic web page "free_energy.htm". Furthermore, theoretical findings of the "theory of everything" called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (described on the web page "dipolar_gravity.htm") prove that these free energy devices truly can be build. Unfortunately, the humanity has a "philosophical problem" with undertaking the building and industrial production of devices which accomplish over 100% energy efficiency, and thus which in past used to be called "perpetual motion". (For more details regarding present philosophies of people see the totaliztic web pages named "totalizm.htm" and "parasitism.htm".) Namely, as this is explained above, the official human science placed itself into the situation of as a "dog which tries to bite its own tail". This is because it postulated "laws" which supposedly rule over energy, while the science still does NOT know what this energy really is. Furthermore, presently the science uses these baseless (supposed) "laws" to define attributes of energy and behaviours of energy. In this way the science closes the circulation of empty speculations putting itself into a "vicious-cycle" which disallows it to learn what energy truly is. This "vicious-cycle" stops the science from attempts to develop correct "laws" that would described the true behaviour of energy. In addition to the above, present science is atheistic. This in turn places in front of its adepts an additional "philosophical obstacle" which in the real universe does NOT exist nor work. Namely, the atheism makes impossible for scientists to understand, that the universe created by God (see the totaliztic web page named "god_proof.htm"), was intentionally designed so intelligently, that "everything that can be invented can also be completed" - as more comprehensively it is explained in item #I2 of the web page "telekinetics.htm".
The explanations presented above are adopted from item #I1 of the totaliztic web page "telekinetics.htm", update of 12 July 2008, or later. The latest update of this web page should be available from all web sites of totalizm (if these sites were NOT sabotaged lately), e.g. from web sites:
With the totaliztic salute,