90%+

[F6FLT]

If I'm not mistaken, the consensus view is that:
* electrons have both inertial and gravitational mass, and can only approach C in any given system.
* photons have inertial mass but no gravitational mass, and travel at C in a given system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/6567/active-gravitational-mass-of-the-electron

The links do not say that the photon has "no gravitational mass". It does. The fact that it is deflected by masses is proof of this. Mass and energy are equivalent.

If you imagine that science says otherwise, be more specific and point to an exact paragraph in academic science.

The apparent fallacy appears to be that inertial and gravitational mass are treated as equivalent, even though they have different properties.
...

This is not true. Would you be a genius above Einstein to assert the opposite of what is the basis of general relativity?

If your theory is correct, GPS will no longer be able to function, as it makes clock corrections according to GR. This is a pity. lol

No experiment has succeeded in invalidating the equivalence principle, and there have been some! It would be nice if you started there to prove Einstein's stupidity.

[Grumpy]

Non sequitur.

Are we more disillusioned than those scientist who work on fusion reactors?

Centraflow has built a working free energy device in less than 2 decades of research.

The first attempt to build a fusion reactor was in 1938:
Kantrowitz and Jacobs of the NACA Langley Research Center built a toroidal magnetic bottle and heat the plasma with a 150 W radio source. Hoping to heat the plasma to millions of degrees, the system fails and they are forced to abandon their Diffusion Inhibitor. This is the first attempt to make a working fusion reactor.

[F6FLT]

Are we more disillusioned than those scientist who work on fusion reactors?

It is a problem of technology, of development. The theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
There is no FE theory.

Centraflow has built a working free energy device in less than 2 decades of research.
...

And what is he waiting for to spread it around the world?
We don't need free energy in so-and-so's house. We need it everywhere.
This is another difference between the FE movement and academic science, the inability of the former to produce a technology.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason is that whoever thinks he sees OU is either mistaken or lying to us.

[Grumpy]

It is a problem of technology, of development. The theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
There is no FE theory.

And what is he waiting for to spread it around the world?
We don't need free energy in so-and-so's house. We need it everywhere.
This is another difference between the FE movement and academic science, the inability of the former to produce a technology.
I wouldn't be surprised if the reason is that whoever thinks he sees OU is either mistaken or lying to us.

Hopefully, barring technical difficulties, we will know soon, on both accounts.

I have an idea I want to try soon, based on several claims, but easy enough to try out.  If it works, I'll open-source it.

[Hakasays]

The links do not say that the photon has "no gravitational mass". It does. The fact that it is deflected by masses is proof of this. Mass and energy are equivalent.

I agree that is the most consistent explanation, but then why do papers and textbooks reference photons as massless particles and electrons as mass particles?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
https://www.science.org/content/article/incredible-shrinking-photon-mass
https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/Photonmasslimits.pdf
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-would-be-the-effects-of-light-having-mass/

Systems whose four-momentum is a null vector (for example, a single photon or many photons moving in exactly the same direction) have zero invariant mass and are referred to as massless.

The rest mass of the electron is 9.1093837015 × 10−31 kg

If your theory is correct, GPS will no longer be able to function, as it makes clock corrections according to GR. This is a pity. lol

This interpretation does nothing to invalidate SR, it just presents what seems to be an asymmetry in the system.  Photons being affected by mass but possessing no mass would represent a one-way action.

This is not my theory, I'm just reading what the books are saying and extrapolating potential ramifications from it.

[F6FLT]

...
This interpretation does nothing to invalidate SR, it just presents what seems to be an asymmetry in the system.  Photons being affected by mass but possessing no mass would
...

What don't you understand about the mass/energy equivalence?!

[F6FLT]

Hopefully, barring technical difficulties, we will know soon, on both accounts.
...

In conclusion, you don't know anything about the system except what the author says, there is no third party reproduction, but you claim that it does have FE. Since your analysis is not supported by facts, it is a simple opinion to which I can therefore oppose mine: he thinks he has FE or is about to have FE but does not have it.

[Grumpy]

In conclusion, you don't know anything about the system except what the author says, there is no third party reproduction, but you claim that it does have FE. Since your analysis is not supported by facts, it is a simple opinion to which I can therefore oppose mine: he thinks he has FE or is about to have FE but does not have it.

I can say the same about fusion.  You say that the theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.

Since 1938 scientists have worked to harness fusion, and we don't have it.

It is a problem of technology, of development. The theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
There is no FE theory.

At the moment, but I choose to believe that Centraflow is correct and truthful.  You could have been part of the effort to replicate the device and prove or disprove his claims, but you have chosen not to participate.

It is only a matter of time before your home will be powered by fusion or a FE device.

Edit:
How Close Are We To Unlocking The 'Limitless' Energy Of Nuclear Fusion?
https://www.ief.org/news/how-close-are-we-to-unlocking-the-limitless-energy-of-nuclear-fusion

Since the concept of nuclear fusion was discovered in the 1930s, experiments have been ongoing, and today there are around 20 fusion reactors in the world, all striving to reach the extremely high temperatures needed for long enough make fusion happen.

In China, in January 2022, the EAST reactor broke the record for the longest sustained nuclear fusion with temperatures of 126 million degrees Fahrenheit - roughly five times hotter than the sun – sustained for 17 minutes.
China's EAST reactor is being used to test the technology for the ITER reactor in the south of France, with some estimates now forecasting it could begin working as soon as 2025.

The company (Tokamak Energy) has said that it is on track to produce commercial electricity from nuclear fusion by 2030.

The UK has also recently launched the STEP project (Spherical Tokamak for Electricity Production), aiming to develop a reactor that will connect to the national energy grid in the 2040s. 

Edit:
https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines
ITER is designed to produce a ten-fold return on energy (Q=10), or 500 MW of fusion power from 50 MW of input heating power. ITER will not capture the energy it produces as electricity, but—as first of all fusion experiments in history to produce net energy gain—it will prepare the way for the machine that can.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi5v4at5ez6AhXskokEHVN0CVwQFnoECAgQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FITER&usg=AOvVaw3I4Wjsq5aSjY05CkHe8kOO
The initial budget was close to €6 billion, but the total price of construction and operations is projected to be from €18 to €22 billion; other estimates place the total cost between $45 billion and $65 billion, though these figures are disputed by ITER.

Centraflow's device is less than $1k and the gain is in the 100's.

You call FE researchers "fools"...LOL!!!

[Hakasays]

What don't you understand about the mass/energy equivalence?!

I don't understand how mass-energy equivalence and massless photons both can coexist.  On the surface it seems contradictory.

The literature (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4369.msg101567#msg101567) states that the gravitational mass of an electron and an equivalent-energy photon are not equal to each-other.  So then what happens to the 'missing' gravitational mass when an electron is converted to a photon in a light bulb?

[F6FLT]

I can say the same about fusion.  You say that the theory is sound, it is sure that it will work.
Since 1938 scientists have worked to harness fusion, and we don't have it.

Lie or total ignorance of the subject. The fusion has already been realized, the experimental progress is regular, and the theory is indisputable, which is why we have this experimental progress, while we have nothing at all equivalent in free energy.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/228373/major-nuclear-fusion-milestone-reached-ignition/

At the moment, but I choose to believe that Centraflow is correct and truthful.  You could have been part of the effort to replicate the device and prove or disprove his claims, but you have chosen not to participate.

Not only do I not have to prove anything about what has been asserted without proof, but I can deny it without proof.
You still haven't understood the principle of the burden of proof.

Since no evidence or proof of concept has been provided by Centralflow, I have no more reason to be interested in it than I do in the hundreds of other OU claims that are floating around the Internet, which never come to fruition, and which Electroboom rightly mocks.

[F6FLT]

I don't understand how mass-energy equivalence and massless photons both can coexist.  On the surface it seems contradictory.
The literature (https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=4369.msg101567#msg101567) states that the gravitational mass of an electron and an equivalent-energy photon are not equal to each-other.  So then what happens to the 'missing' gravitational mass when an electron is converted to a photon in a light bulb?

You say anything and give links to academic sites that do not confirm what you say at all. If I were to use your method to the extreme, I would tell you to go and see there why what you are saying is incorrect.

I asked you to be specific but you seem unable to express in your own words and with a minimum of formalized analysis why "it seems contradictory". If you try, not only might we be able to answer you, but you might even understand for yourself why it is not.

[Hakasays]

You say anything and give links to academic sites that do not confirm what you say at all. If I were to use your method to the extreme, I would tell you to go and see there why what you are saying is incorrect.

I asked you to be specific but you seem unable to express in your own words and with a minimum of formalized analysis why "it seems contradictory". If you try, not only might we be able to answer you, but you might even understand for yourself why it is not.

I check online and 4 different sources offer four different explanations.  When the experts can't agree with each-other, that's usually a good sign.
The overall theme among them seems to be that photons are not really particle per-se, but instead perturbations that have the abstract property that appears like a particle (like a smoke ring traveling through the air).

And since photons and electrons are directly convertible, it implies the photon-electron exchange is a longitudinal interface between conventional matter and space-time/aether/4d tensor density perturbation.

I'll start another thread for deeper analysis into potential 'loopholes' and not clutter this one any further.

[picowatt]

So then what happens to the 'missing' gravitational mass when an electron is converted to a photon in a light bulb?

Electrons are not converted into photons in a light bulb.  An ammeter will verify that the same number of electrons enter and exit the light bulb.

Photons are emitted as electrons return to lower orbits in excited atoms.

PW

[Hakasays]

Electrons are not converted into photons in a light bulb.  An ammeter will verify that the same number of electrons enter and exit the light bulb.

Photons are emitted as electrons return to lower orbits in excited atoms.

PW

Makes sense.  Thermionic emission would be a different story, though.

The interesting story about photons is that because they propagate at the same speed as gravity, the gravitational field they would possess would be semi-directional.  The photons would be 'invisible' when moving directly towards or away from a particular object.

[F6FLT]

...
The interesting story about photons is that because they propagate at the same speed as gravity, the gravitational field they would possess would be semi-directional.  The photons would be 'invisible' when moving directly towards or away from a particular object.

This is not the case, that is why the frequency of photons change when they approach or move away from a mass. Their potential energy increases or decreases, which is reflected proportionally by their frequency variation (because E = h.ν).

[Hakasays]

This is not the case, that is why the frequency of photons change when they approach or move away from a mass. Their potential energy increases or decreases, which is reflected proportionally by their frequency variation (because E = h.ν).

The 'sonic boom' highlights why the gravitational mass of a photon would have to be somewhat directional if it exists, because the wave cannot travel faster than its displacement in space.
So we end up with a situation where a photon's mass is dependant on the angle it is being observed from.

[F6FLT]

I can say the same about fusion.
...

You can say anything, like comparing atomic fusion with the hypothetical free energy of Centralflow.
The worst thing is that when fusion works and we are still waiting for Centralflow's free energy, you will still believe in it.
When faith replaces reason and reasonable doubt, there is nothing left to discuss, everything is arbitrary.

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

You can say anything, like comparing atomic fusion with the hypothetical free energy of Centralflow.
The worst thing is that when fusion works and we are still waiting for Centralflow's free energy, you will still believe in it.
When faith replaces reason and reasonable doubt, there is nothing left to discuss, everything is arbitrary.

It's debatable and nothing is ever as cut and dry as many like to make it out to be.

Yes I believe Centraflow has something however I don't know because I have no first hand proof. By the same token I believe in fusion and the possibility of cold fusion however again I have no first hand proof. In both cases I would have to see all the data and demonstrable proof for my belief to become stronger. As such a belief is more a matter of acceptance and the degree to which we think something may be possible, not a be all end all as many imply.

I also have another belief that only a person who doesn't understand the conservation of energy would claim something has violated it. The assertion that the COE must have been violated by a FE device just because the source of energy is uncertain is absurd. It's really no different than the countless other uncertainties we find in science and physics. Where did the energy come from?, the only honest answer is we don't know but we do know it must have come from somewhere. This is true because logically we cannot define "nothing" as an absence of everything then claim something came said nothing.

So when we hear anyone claim any device "must have violated the COE" we can be pretty sure they don't fully understand the COE.

AC

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
It's debatable and nothing is ever as cut and dry as many like to make it out to be.
Yes I believe Centraflow has something however...

Everything is "debatable". The problem is that we are not in religion, we have to get out of the beliefs to have operational results. When we debate, we must know how to conclude, to draw lessons, to keep what is in conformity with reality and to throw away the illusions.

The question is not to have a "cut and dry" opinion on the possible FE of Centralflow, because the claim is unfalsifiable in the sense of Poppers. It is impossible since we have no access to the device, nor to the measurements made, nor to the measurement protocol, nor to the verification of its implementation, nor to any means of duplicating it.

To deny his device as I do according to the words of Euclid "What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof", is not to present a clear-cut opinion, it is to present an opinion as unfounded as the one that claims without providing proof, that there would be FE in his device. The only major difference is that the burden of proof lies solely with the author of the first claim.
Until we understand this, we have not understood the words of Euclid.

The assertion that the COE must have been violated by a FE device just because the source of energy is uncertain is absurd...

I don't understand this position. If there is apparently OU, then the conservation of energy is apparently flawed, so either the laws of physics that predicted it are wrong, or there is a source of energy at work that is not identified. What would be a third possibility?

[Allcanadian]

F6FLT

Everything is "debatable". The problem is that we are not in religion, we have to get out of the beliefs to have operational results. When we debate, we must know how to conclude, to draw lessons, to keep what is in conformity with reality and to throw away the illusions.

Ah, so you want conclusions and conformity?...why?.
For tens of thousands of years countless people just like you wanted the same thing which was never realized and never will be. Thus your asking the wrong questions and the impossible which may explain your dilemma...

The question is not to have a "cut and dry" opinion on the possible FE of Centralflow, because the claim is unfalsifiable in the sense of Poppers. It is impossible since we have no access to the device, nor to the measurements made, nor to the measurement protocol, nor to the verification of its implementation, nor to any means of duplicating it.

I have known Mike for years and may or may not have worked with him on some projects in the past which led me to believe he is a man of integrity and purpose. On the other hand, I don't know you from a hole in the ground...

To deny his device as I do according to the words of Euclid "What is asserted without proof can be denied without proof", is not to present a clear-cut opinion, it is to present an opinion as unfounded as the one that claims without providing proof, that there would be FE in his device. The only major difference is that the burden of proof lies solely with the author of the first claim.
Until we understand this, we have not understood the words of Euclid.

Indeed but I'm not Euclid, I'm a Scorpio, really enjoy beer, fishing and farming, I really love electricity and the more exotic the effects are the more I like it.

AC

[F6FLT]

F6FLT
Ah, so you want conclusions and conformity?...why?.
...

Why? Because I want free energy products that work, not stories about free energy, not stories about people who supposedly have it, not science fiction, not illusions but devices like all the devices I use here at home, products of science and engineering.

That said, I don't prevent anyone from being interested in the fantasies around their free energy utopia, nor from being satisfied with them. On the other hand I don't understand why I find them here, I thought we were doing technical research related to the physical sciences, not research on myths related to the human sciences.