by Ms Max on June 21st, 2006

Question

Help answer this question below.

If part of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which may or may not conform to present physics laws, why do scientists scoff at 'free energy' inventions that might be utilizing this 'dark' stuff?

Like
Report

Share:: Facebook; Twitter; Other

Answers. 8 helpful answers below.

by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 4th, 2009
dark matter/energy do not exist. rather than accept that their equasion for gravity might be flawed they invented this substance which has no detectable properties other than the gravatational effect which apears as a result of their flawed equasion. it supposedly makes up 30-90% (depending on who you ask) of the galaxy but is mysticaly absent from our solarsystem where we could study it. if you make an equasion to predict the water speed of a river based on the width of the river, it might work much of the time, however you are missing the depth which means your equasion is going to display a flaw.... this is the very kind of flaw they are inventing dark matter to compensate for
Comments
- Ha, awesome, I love that someone else suspects that dark matter is too convenient a solution. When the math doesn't work, inventing a concept to make it work is often a sign your math is overlooking something.
  
  Report
  
  by milkhoney on July 4th, 2009
- sweet.... not only logical and balsey enough enough to challenge scientific convention... but a female too.... I think I am in love :)
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 4th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by H on December 1st, 2007
We have no real concept of dark energy, let alone how it works or if it is even real yet. So anyone who purports a "free energy" device that utilizes it is talking nonsense.
Zero point energy generators are another popular one, saying that they take the ground state energy of a system and use that to generate electricity.
However, it's not possible.
The rules that govern the hydrogen atom, for example, is E n = -E0 / n^2 with the ground state as n=1. Especially with energy quantisation, if you remove a little bit of energy from the atom, where is it electron going to go? n=0? that's not possible.
Comments
- but the ZPM worked for stargate.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on November 2nd, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
1 comment | Post one | Permalink
by Joe-Speedy on June 21st, 2006
Dark matter is made of atoms, you just can't see them in a telescope because they are "DARK."
Dark energy is comprised of low energy wave forms that are also invisble (Dark) to our current instruments. Scientists scoff at "free Energy" inventions because they violate the laws of physics in one way or another, usually in the thermodynamics. In short, there is no such thing as "Free energy" and you can't make uses of "Non-Stuff, making your question "non-sense."
Comments
- I just watched a show on Science Channel about the Missing Universe and it said that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are NOT made of atoms. Is the Science Channel wrong? They had notable scientist on the show, who 1st discovered Dark Matter.
  
  Report
  
  by Ms Max on June 23rd, 2006
- Joe, go to Google video and type in "Most of our Universe is Missing". There you can watch the entire video (48 mins.) of the show by BBC I watched on Science Channel. It says DArk matter is not made of atoms!
  
  Report
  
  by Ms Max on June 23rd, 2006
- They aren't made of coventinal matter atoms, e.g. protons and neutrons and electrons.
  
  They are made of "matter" of some form, perhaps high energy-mass atoms, but not what we traditionally consider an atom
  
  Report
  
  by H on December 1st, 2007
- joe... does not dark matter also violate the laws? does not ALL matter give off some frequency of radiation?
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 4th, 2009
- No, most matter does not give off radiation unless it is going from a higher energy state to a lower energy state (or in the process of decaying). You may be getting confused by the idea that atoms can absorb certain EM wavelengths, and then re-radiate it as a different wavelength.
  
  But not all matter is atoms. For example, one of the current theories is that dark matter is composed of the super-symmetric partner of the photon... a still-theoretical particle called the "photino". Unlike its normal cousin, the massless photon, the photino has a large mass (possibly 1000 times that of a proton)
  
  Since the photino doesn't have any electrical charge (like the proton and electron), it wouldn't interact with EM radiation in any way, and thus invisible to telescopes (including radio telescopes).
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 4th, 2009
- you as we speak are giving off radiation. infrared, all warm matter emits it.
  so it is a particle of light that thinks it is a neutron?
  and why is this substance mysticaly nonexistent in our solarsystem?
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 4th, 2009
- I'm giving off IR because I am warm. If the matter is very cold... below the microwave background temperature... you won't be able to see it.
  
  Not all matter gives off IR.. it just happens that matter that's in temperatures around our body temperature gives off radiation in the IR spectrum, but much colder matter emits radiation in the microwave and radio bands, and much hotter matter emits visible light, UV, Xray, Gamma ray (in that order of increasing temperature)
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 4th, 2009
- and of all this mass, none of it is in hte process of compressing down causing it to heat up? none of its large masses are close enough to any stars to be warmed enough to emit? we can determine the chemical make up of nebulae using the hubble... yet nothing to indicate the existence of an unknown substance exists except the way inwhich galaxies rotate doesn't follow our mathematical models... MAYBE THE MODEL IS FLAWED!!!!!! it is on a scale which makes our SOLARSYSTEM seem like a grain of sand! maybe we missed a detail which does not matter within a solarsystem but makes a difference when measuring distances billions of times larger!
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 4th, 2009
- There is some evidence apart from the mass numbers being off. There is at least one case where there's been a collision of two galaxies, where apparently the dark matter has become separated from the normal matter by quite some distance. And we know where the dark matter is because it's causing stronger gravitational lensing than the normal matter is.
  
  As for the dark matter heating up, I think the speculation is that it does condense, but there are no reactions to further warm up the matter once it has condensed (for example, there are no nuclear reactions - fission or fusion), there's nothing to keep it from cooling off quite rapidly. At least that's my understanding.
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 5th, 2009
- the temperatures required to trigger nuclear fusion are huge and past the point of incandescence of VISIBLE LIGHT... and the way those temperatures are reached in newborn stars is through compression caused by gravity. if hydrogen being the least dense element known to man can compress to these temperatures when dealing wth an ammount as small as our own sun (which as far as stars go is really small) any exceptionaly masive matter would also compress to those temperatures
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 5th, 2009
- Yes, but it wouldn't necessarily fuse. Fusion happens among protons and neutrons, not necessarily among Dark matter particles. No one really knows what the particles are for sure, but there are some experiments in the planning for the LHC to try and produce these particles, including the photino. Unfortunately, there is no evidence yet, other than its elegant mathematics, that the super symmetric particles even exist.
  
  Also keep in mind that fusion actually *consumes* energy when fusing atoms that are equal to or heavier than iron. So fusion doesn't alway produce energy.
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 5th, 2009
- I did not say it must fuse... and yes I know that larger molecules don't like to fuse and that fission was much easier to accomplish.
  what I am saying is that you do not have to reach fusion to emit detectable ammounts of radiation. to trigger fusion you have to reach temperatures we could detect and those temperatures are reached by gravity driven compression. dark matter ellegedly has huge ammounds of mass and as such should self compress quite nicely generating detectable ammounts of heat.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 5th, 2009
- Ok, but my original point was that while the compression was occurring, yes, there'd be visible heat. But there wouldn't be anything to sustain that heat... no additional energy produced, so the matter would cool down quite quickly as the heat radiates into space. Eventually the temperature would drop to the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation level, and so become indistinguishable from the residual heat of the big bag. And since this dark matter stuff has been around for a very long time, perhaps since the formation of galaxies(though no one really knows), potentially it has had a very long time to get cold.
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 5th, 2009
- jsut as there are nebulea which have not finished compressing, there would also be dark matter which has not finished compressing. but were that not the case your statment would have shot a hole right through my argument. thank you for debating much better than most people.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 5th, 2009
- Nebulae are generally the result of previous stellar explosions, and such may not be the case for dark matter (since we don't really understand what it is and where it comes from). It may have already condensed a long time ago. On the other hand, I don't know what would keep it from forming black holes, and the current theory is that only 20% or so of the dark matter is black holes and other dark stellar objects like neutron stars (though I confess I don't know what the science is behind that percentage).
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 5th, 2009
- After I wrote the above, it occurred to me that photinos, even if they are "hot" may not emit any sort of EM radiation. This is because photinos do not carry any sort of electrical charge, unlike protons and electrons (and their anti-matter twins). So it's not clear to me that there would be any sort of Stephan-Boltzmann Law (aka black body) radiation from them.
  
  In any event, you might find these slides interesting:
  http://hep.ps.uci.edu/~jlf/research/presentations/0405aps.pdf
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 5th, 2009
- I believe in occams razor. out of all that complexity.... I find it far simpler that our gravity equasion is flawed and that there is a deminishing attribute to gravity which applies over vast distances.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 5th, 2009
- On the other hand, there's a famous quote, "For every problem, there's a simple solution. Unfortunately, it's usually wrong." :-)
  
  I don't think you are the only one questioning gravity on large scales. Time will tell, I hope!
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 5th, 2009
- probably not in our lifetimes.... even if science decides those on my side of the argument are right.... it is still unproven until we go somewhere those who stay with the dark matter theory claim there is some.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 5th, 2009
- When the LHC comes on line (starting ~September this year), we will know within 5 years (barring major shutdowns of the accelerator) whether any of the proposed Dark Matter particles (WIMPs mainly) actually exist in the Universe. And if they are created, they can measure the exact properties (mass, quantum numbers, etc.) to see if they match up with the mathematical theory, and then see if they have the properties that would allow them to explain the "missing mass".
  
  If the super symmetric or Kaluza Klein particles are not found at all, then yeah... some major re-thinking will be needed, and we will probably be as far from understanding as we ever have been.
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 5th, 2009
- I would say when one understands incorrectly they are further from understanding than when they realize they don't understand
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 5th, 2009
- If you have a model which fits the Universe well and make predictions about it that hold up under experiment and are therefore useful, it doesn't matter if it's really "correct" or not, does it? Newton's laws aren't correct, precisely, but they are useful under a wide variety of circumstances. So too with Einstein, Maxwell, etc.
  
  Report
  
  by yeroco on July 5th, 2009
- I've kinda skipped through some of the argument, but.
  
  1) TAPriceCTR you seem to be making the erroneous assumption that dark matter interacts in a way very analogous to regular matter
  
  2) The Standard Model is a ----------very successful model for particle physics so far - but it isn't quite perfect yet. As Yeroca says, there are things like WIMPs, neutralinos, that we need to consider. Hell, all the dark matter might be left-handed neutrinos, or right-handed neutrinos with too little energy to interact.
  
  Report
  
  by H on July 11th, 2009
- to address some of your other points
  
  1) There's no evidence dark amtter doesn't exist in our solar system. The sheer scale of trying to calculate its effect on our solar system would be neigh impossible - you have to look at it on a galactic scale. There's a collision of two clusters (i forget the name) which, when gravitationally mapped, gives VERY strong indication of dark matter.
  
  2) Experiments into large and small scale gravity are underway, but there are flaws with a MOND version of the universe (I dont remember what exactly as its been a while since I had to consider MOND), but I know that dark matter is far and away the leading candidate.
  
  Report
  
  by H on July 11th, 2009
- we can also infer its existence from the critical density of the universe - we seem to be so close to the critical density, but through observations we can see that 'regular' mass only accounts for like 15-25% (I forget the exact number) of the univers's composition, there has to be alot of stuff we AREN'T considering, such as dark energy (which makes up a huge proportion of what remains)
  
  Report
  
  by H on July 11th, 2009
- my argument is not a falacy. my claim is that our gravity equasions are flawed. based on that assumption, any "evidence" of dark matter which is purely based on gravity is invalid because our ability to calculate gravity correctly is in question. the difference between our arguments is that my assumption requires less of a streach. the claim that our equasion has a small error is far more likely than the claim that there are materials which violate everything we understand about matter.
  
  Report
  
  by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT on July 11th, 2009
- they dont violate ANYTHING we understand about matter..... we have regularly observed neutrinos which are, to certain extents, candidates for dark matter...
  
  and to assume an equation is invalid - one that has held up against rigorous prior testing - is a much larger stretch, than to assume that we don't know everything about particle physics - which we KNOW we don't.
  
  Report
  
  by H on July 12th, 2009
- your argument isnt a fallacy, but your lack of understanding of physics is the underlying issue
  
  Report
  
  by H on July 12th, 2009
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
28 comments | Post one | Permalink
by Im Alec has abandoned this account on December 1st, 2007
The Law of Conservation of Energy, which bans "Free Energy" and perpetual motion machine, is ultimately derivable from one of the fundamental hypotheses of physical science: that the laws of science, whatever they may be, are invariant both in time (an experiment run with identical equipment would produce the same result as it does now a billion years ago or a billion years in the future) and space (the experiment would produce the same result if conducted on the most distant galaxy we can see). *If* this hypothesis is true, there can be no sources of "Free Energy".

Of course, this is a hypothesis, not a fact. But it is one that physicists cling to. If the laws of physics change arbitrarily, then they have nothing to research. All you can say is that her, and now, this result happened. But it might never happen again, or it might never happen in another place. You are back to basic witchcraft - say the right spell and what you want *might* happen.

Now, it happens to be the case that, assuming this hypothesis, physicists have been able to predict the behaviour of the Universe remarkably well. So if you want to hang on to science as we know it, then there is no Free Energy. If you are happy to chuck out science as we knoe it, then anything can happen. You may get free Energy - but watch out for the Great Green Arkleseisure.
Comments
- As far as sticking to science or chucking it, it's Science itself that keeps changing the rules. The latest from a physicist at Harvard University is about an "unparticle". Something which has no mass but isn't energy either. Here's the link: http://www.physorg.com/news100753984.html
  
  Report
  
  by Ms Max on December 2nd, 2007
- Hang on - that is not Science with a capital S, that is one scientist's hypothesis about what *might* emerge at very high energies. As he says, he is just "having fun". There is, as he admits, no evidence whatsoever for this hypothesis. Such evidence might possibly emerge from the LHC, in which case he is ready for it. But at this point, this is simply an intellectual workout.
  
  Report
  
  by Im Alec has abandoned this account on December 3rd, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
2 comments | Post one | Permalink
by 777 on October 14th, 2007
It is feasible just search (stardrive generator) on google and look up the company from Archer enterprises it will tell you all about an over unity device they are constructing.
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by Terance McKenna on October 26th, 2009
it won't be till 12/21/12 they will know how to use the matter thus ripping the time space continuum and thus time travel will be unleased
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink
by rajsanand on June 21st, 2006
Because free energy would mean an end for many of the major energy companies.
There is a saying that goes
"the world is ruled by old men and oil companies"
The fact is that free energy is very real and the theories exist.
well we all know that cars can run on water but still nobody wants to make them even thought the first prototype was build as far back as 1987
These are one of the things "they dont want you to know about"
Comments
- Horse Hockey Pucks! There is no conspiracy theory in the physics community. The Truth is OUT THERE.
  
  Report
  
  by Joe-Speedy on June 21st, 2006
- If you really believe this, why aren't you doing something about it? Gotta agree with Joe-Speedy...Horse Hockey Pucks!
  
  Report
  
  by ptrask on June 22nd, 2006
- I was asking a science question, not a political one! If Dark Energy & Dark Matter are NOT made of atoms (Science Channel),hence NOT necessarily in violation of laws applying to atoms & visible universe, then why isn't 'free energy' feasible?
  
  Report
  
  by Ms Max on June 23rd, 2006
- It's impossible for a car to run on water. Maybe you're thinking of cars that produce water as their exhaust.
  
  Report
  
  by KevinW42 on October 14th, 2007
- KevinW42 please do some research before commenting. There has already been a prototype created in UK in 1995 of a car running on water.
  Jeez people are just so ignorant.
  Ptrast your question is why I am I not doing anything about it.
  Well it is because of #$$#$# like you. I just say what is the problem and you want to run me to the ground just imagine if I did something about it, you people might burn me alive.
  
  Report
  
  by rajsanand on October 15th, 2007
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fuel_cell
  "the validity of the design is controversial"
  "Meyer's claims about the Water Fuel Cell and the car that it powered were found to be fraudulent by an Ohio court in 1996."
  
  Report
  
  by KevinW42 on October 15th, 2007
- I am not talking about Meyer's. Do you believe the Omni Science Magazine. Well this is where I read about it.
  Watch the movie "who killed the electric car". You will know what I am talking about.
  http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/08/23/019622.html
  Check out cars running on water here.
  If you do a google you will see that no one is allowed to research.
  If you know your science in theory a water power car is very simple. Of course practically I do admit is is very difficult. But I am sure if the amount of research that had gone into automobiles had gone into water powered cars we would have had one by now.
  I got an idea to run a car on water in 7th grade when I first learnt about spliting water in oxygen and hydorgen by passing electricity.
  I am sure people have had this idea 100's of years back since they discovered this process.
  I dont know what you are trying to achieve by denying the truth that oil companies will never allow any research on free energy even if it is a hoax.
  
  Report
  
  by rajsanand on October 15th, 2007
- If you split water into hydrogen and oxygen, then burn it it creates heat energy which can be used to power the car and water to be recycled as fuel right? Wrong. This is called perpetual motion. There have been thousands of proposed ideas for perpetual motion and none of them worked. A water powered car is as plausible as an electric car powered by electricity made by a generator powered by the movement of the car.
  
  Report
  
  by KevinW42 on October 15th, 2007
- Yes you are right. I am only talking about water powered car. Not a one that recycles the water produced in the exhaust. Perpetual motions doesn't work because of a basic law of physics.
  If you dig around you will see that perpetual motion will work in combination with technologies like superconductivity and anti-gravity.(in theory as we still havent mastered super-conductivity and anti-gravity technologies we are years away from it just because of the choke-hold on any technology that is cheap and not oil dependent)
  My point which all of you "stomped upon" is the fact that you can never expect any technology to come out that is "free". Whether it is a practical or not.
  Comon forget free energy wouldnt you love a car that can run on water. you just filled water in it everyday and ran it. Forget about free energy. "They" wont even allow that so dont even bother about free energy.
  
  Report
  
  by rajsanand on October 15th, 2007
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
9 comments | Post one | Permalink
by The Eskimo on December 1st, 2007
have a little faith, planes can really fly either according to thrust verus gravity and the weight of the plane but they do ! stand one vertical and try and get a 747 off the ground ! laws of thermodynamics !

perpetual motion did not need to break the laws, simply use 2 laws together to create a new daynamis, just as we did with areodynamics.

Times up

www.surhpzup.com
Comments
Add a comment...
- Like
- Report
No comments. Post one | Permalink

Question

If part of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which may or may not conform to present physics laws, why do scientists scoff at 'free energy' inventions that might be utilizing this 'dark' stuff?

Answers. 8 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

May dark energy / matter be created when life as we know it dies?

If light contains dark matter/energy, could a gravitional effect on dark matter/energy be causing the bending [not "nothing," i.e. space]?

What evidence is there for dark matter and dark energy?

What is the difference between dark matter, and dark energy? . ( are they the same thing?)

Does dark matter? wait...i meant, does dark dark matter matter? no...does dark matter matter? hmm...does dark dark matter matter? that seems to matter too. Geesh. Now im not sure what my question is. Can anybody shed some light on this?

Professionally Researched

Is dark matter an energy source?

Is the night sky dark in an homogeneous universe?

Is there neutral hydrogen in dark matter?

Are Cellas dark chocolate covered cherries dairy free?

Can dark brown sugar be used for dark muscovado sugar?

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Question

If part of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which may or may not conform to present physics laws, why do scientists scoff at 'free energy' inventions that might be utilizing this 'dark' stuff?

Answers. 8 helpful answers below.

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

Answerbag.com Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!

Answerbag.com
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!