Make your own free website on Tripod.com

sitetitle.jpg

WHERE DOES ENERGY COME FROM ?
Home
YOUNG ORFFYREUS
HIS INSPIRING DREAM
HIS MAJOR WHEELS
THE WHEEL AT GERA ( 1712 )
THE WHEEL AT DRASCHWITZ (1714 )
WANDERING ORFFYREUS AND HIS ENEMIES
THE WHEEL AT MERSEBERG 1715 .
THE EXAMINATION AT MERSEBURGH
ORFFYREUS DESTROYS MESEBURGH WHEEL
COUNT KARL, LEIBNIZ AND ORFFYREUS
WHEEL AT THE WEISSENSTEIN ( 1717 )
KARL WATCHES THE SECRET
EXAMINATION OF WEISSENSTEIN WHEEL ( 1717 )
EYE WITNESSES OF WEISSENSTEIN WHEEL
DIALOGUES AT THE CASTLE OF WEISSENSTEIN
ORFFYREUS DESTROYES THE WHEEL
CONTRACT WITH CZAR : SILVER LINING
CONSPIRACY BY GARTNER AND MAID
1730 : COUNT KARL DIES
DEATH OF ORFFYREUS 1745
PERSONALITY OF ORFFYREUS
DRAWINGS OF ORFFYREUS WHEELS
ORFFYREUS' APOLOGIA POETICA
DAS TRIUMPHIRENDE PERPETUUM MOBILE ORFFYREANUM
MASCHINEN TRACTATE (TREATISE ON MACHINES)
QUALITY OF EVIDENCE : CONCLUSION
ORFFYREUS' TIMES
Collection of Clues about Bessler Wheel
FALSE SPECULATIONS AND WEIRD EXPLANATIONS
WHERE DOES ENERGY COME FROM ?
A TRIBUTE TO ORFFYREUS
FAVORITE LINKS TO PERPETUAL MOTION
BOOKS ON PERPETUAL MOTION
ARTICLES ON PERPETUAL MOTION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
MY RESUME
ORFFYREUS/ BESSLER DISCUSSION FORUM
CONTACT ME
Locations on Google Map

 
The Development of Law of Conservation is a Long Stride on Wrong Path.

The main aim of this website is to lead readers to the “realization” of truth that Orffyreus invented a gravity driven perpetual motion machine using a simple system of total eight weights in pairs (2x4) yoked together by some flexible mechanism that facilitates movement of weights towards centre and also away from the centre in each close cycle of their operation. Since in each cycle of operation, weight resumes their original position, work done by the machine is not at the expense of gravity or any other kind of force, therefore, Orffyreus Perpetual motion wheels demonstrate first kind of perpetual motion and violates first law of thermodynamics. The law of conservation of energy has its roots in Greek and some Roman materialistic philosophers*  who erroneously believed that “something cannot come out from nothing.  For those souls who cannot realize an inexhaustible ultimate principle in nature like “Brihma”, “Tao” or “Chi” out of which entire existence has sprung; it is also difficult to conceive that something can come out of no-thing.  Naturally, they cannot dare to go against first law of thermodynamics. In fact, since entire existence is a case of “Energy Creation”, we call it ‘creation’ also!"

 

While criticizing putative law of conservation of energy, once Deva Ramananda remarked:

 

"Undoubtedly, they have inherited this tradition from Greek philosophers who hated manual labour. In fact whole Greek philosophy is forerunner of science and it has contaminated to a great extent certain fundamental concepts, laws and theories of science. Law of conservation stands supreme among them. Of what utility these so called laws have if they fail to conform to truth? Why are they spoiling minds of younger generation? In fact, students need to be compensated for the mental exertion in learning these putative laws and for the loss of their zeal to invent perpetual motion machine in the same manner Euclid decided to give a coin to the slaves who would learn his theory. The story is told of Euclid that a youth who had come to him for instruction, after having learned the first proposition, asked: "But what am I to get out of this?" and Euclid for reply commanded a slave to give him a coin, since he needs must have a gain for all that he learned."

 

As far as question of “The idea of energy from nothing” is concerned, the answer requires a long debate and we cannot settle the question without indulging in philosophical and metaphysical speculations, however, please note that big bang theory and Alan Guth’s “Inflationary Universe” theory support the origin of the universe to be “Ex nihilio” (creation out of no-thing.) same fact is told by Bible and the most books of other religions. Our many ancient scriptures also tell in nut shell that universe came out of “Shunyata” (zero).

 

I also personally believe that gravity is a “creative force” responsible for the entire evolution of the universe. In 1975, Stephen Hawking and Jacob Beckenstein produced an important work by finding a surprising connection between thermodynamical entropy, quantum mechanics, and general relativity, which has paved way for much inspired current work on quantum gravity. In the last decade of the twentieth century, new discoveries in the science of thermodynamics like that of the Amin Cycle, shows that entropy can be reduced by gravity. Gravity may be considered as the catalyst in reducing entropy. Any force which reduces entropy in nature can be called a “creative force.” It has been found that strong gravitational forces reduce entropy of matter in the universe. This is a profound and fundamental discovery but same was known to Vedic Rhisis thousands years back. It has far reaching implications, not just in the field of thermodynamics but also in various other fields of knowledge.

 

By very Newtonian definition, the force of gravity is the mutual attraction between masses of the two objects separated by a distance. At the moment two objects merge into one, force of gravity vanishes into nothingness. When they are separated, force of gravity gets created instantaneously out of nothing.   The oldest book Rg Veda mentions this fact in an archaic manner that when gravity was born, world divided into two. The meaning is that force of the gravity is instantaneously created out of nothing on the very moment one object divides into two. For example, in geological history of the earth, once moon had been the part of the earth.  At the moment, moon separated from the earth, force of gravity was created instantaneously between moon and earth just out of nothing. Since force of gravity is a mutual phenomenon, there is no point in telling about gravity field of a single object.

 

Under the influence of gravity, these planets have been spinning on their axis and revolving around the sun without apparent loss of any kind of power. Scientist considers the movement to be a result of “historical force” (when planets had separated from sun billions of years ago) which I consider to be wrong. I have no doubt that our planetary system is using a “current force” imparted by “planetary perpetual motion’ under mere influence of gravity.  I don’t think that gravity is being consumed or expended or extracted or harnessed in this entire process, hence, we can conclude that “all energy is from nothing”. Moreover, logically speaking, we would always remain confronted with “indefinite regress” in case we identify one or other source of energy responsible for running the entire celestial mechanics. If this phenomenon is run by gravity, then, where gravity has come from? If the gravity comes from matter or mass, then, where mass comes from? So, question will always remain “where does energy come from? In Orffyreus’ machine, while it is running, it is impossible to objectively establish that gravity is being expended since in each cycle of operation weights and entire mechanical system returns to its original state, therefore, it is fair to conclude that machine operates just under influence of gravity!

 

Eventually we have to admit about an ultimate reality, we may call it God or “Brihma”, “Parana” or “shakti” or “Tao” or “ether” which is no-thing (not a material source) yet source of everything. Semantics has no meaning here, realization is supreme.

 

*Parmenides (late 6th- early 5th century B C), Leucippus (500-440 B C), Empedocles (495-435 BC), Democritus of Abdera (460-370 B C), Aristotle (384- 322 BC), Epicurus (341-270 BC), Aristarchus of Samos (b c 320, -250),Hipparchus (190 -135 BC), Titus Lucretius (95-55 B C) and Diogene Laertius

THE FOLLY OF LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

 

Life is running stream, with the passage of time, slow but steady changes takes place, the belief and attitudes once held sacred are modified. Sometimes they are given up all together. Certain social norms and practices are regarded as absolutely essential. But after some years, there are found to be a hollow and given up. Same is true with science, its laws and theories.

 

Ramananda aptly remarks: “When a lie is repeatedly spoken, say 100 times by ordinary person, it might become truth but still others may doubt it and not follow it. When a lie is repeatedly spoken by great philosophers or great scientist, it becomes a law and others are bound to follow it. The same is true with law of conservation of energy as it has no experimental basis but is result of our blind reliance on authorities.” The law of conservation of energy is nothing but an irrefutable belief that ‘something cannot come from nothing’. It has grown up around so called impossibility of perpetual motion machine. This misconception must be dispelled – law of conservation of energy is not an established fact, but pure speculation.  Under its influence, scientists are unable to see the truth of perpetual motion; they have no desire and time to explore perpetual motion. Law of conservation of energy is a result of unfortunate agreement between those physicists who have been totally ignorant of perpetual motion and just by looking abortive attempts at perpetual motion, were misled to the conclusion that perpetual motion is impossible.  Law of conservation of energy is incorrect in all its forms and corollaries. The purpose of my talk is to point out the weakness of the law of conservation of energy and expose the myth that perpetual motion is impossible.

 

He further says: “The alleged impossibility to design a perpetual motion machine and rejection of perpetual motion inventor has resulted in so many absurd conclusions and finally, the establishment of false laws of conservation of energy. Undoubtedly, energy which reins our whole world requires lot of intelligence as well as meditation to understand its basic laws and nature. And when man, most intelligent animal, attempted to understand it with his earlier confused notions, knowledge regarding working of the universe began to grow but all in vain. For a long time man’s intelligence could never break through the web of errors in center of which alleged impossibility of perpetual motion machine always rested and then, a number of false  notions concerning force, vis viva, momentum, energy gradually centered around  perpetual motion.” During the time, when development of law of conservation of energy went on and later with its adherents blindly following it, we find for a moment partial eclipse of human intelligence, man rejecting perpetual motion and ridiculing perpetual motionist for nearly 300 years.  Deva Ramananda says, “Further progress of the world is impossible if charge that perpetual motion is impossible not refuted and perpetual motion not invented.”

 

Scientist’s attempt to explain a large number of phenomena on the basis of the law of conservation of energy has no rationale basis. In Deva Ramananda’s opinion, law of conservation of energy has distorted the noble idea of perpetual motion that has great potential - theoretical as well as practical. The law of conservation of energy has hindered the progress of perpetual motion inventor, and by impeding perpetual motion, it has ultimately deprived the world from huge early benefits of perpetual motion. As alchemy gave birth to chemistry, many perpetual motionists suppose that man’s attempts to construct a perpetual motion machine brought many inventions, led to discovery of many principles which ultimately contributed to development of mechanics. Deva Rammanada also observes, “As chemistry owes its birth and development to alchemy, mechanics owes its birth to perpetual motion which is forgotten today.”

 

 

The conservation principle is a descendant of a famous idea – you cannot get something from nothing that is dominant in doctrines of Greek materialistic philosophers. This idea which hardened into law of conservation of energy by erroneous rejection of perpetual motion with rise of thermodynamics is no more than a symptom of weak imagination, superstition, and confusion among the scientists. Evidences from particle physics and cosmology have suggested many violations of law of conservation of energy. In these cases, there is no real explanation and whatever the explanation sought, motive behind it has been to save the law from violation. We know that some of the today’s nuclear particles have been originally postulated for the purpose of balancing the mass- energy ledger in nuclear transformation. There is no direct experimental proof of law of conservation of energy. It is based on a dangerous extrapolation. Cosmology deals with total universe. Cosmological experience has not been incorporated to check the truth of principle of conservation of energy by examining the cosmological data.  There is problem of reconciliation. We have various cosmological models, we need to ask about the truth of these models and need to test the explanatory power of these models. What is the role for these models if they leave room for too much speculation? With knowledge of perpetual motion, one can realize that there can be no explanation better than the one provided by perpetual motion.  Law of conservation of energy is neither Holy Grail of certainty nor objective truth. One must be aware of the falsity of the law of conservation of energy, both as a proof of impossibility of perpetual motion, as a guiding principle to interpret natural phenomena and as a means to describe correct picture of the world. Mass and energy have been taken for granted as constant in the universe without knowing that universe is finite or infinite, without constructing a perpetual motion machine, without making excursions in the remote regions of the space. The most fundamental question in cosmology is, 'Where did the matter we see around us originate in the first place?' Perpetual motion provides a better answer to the riddle as it easily demonstrates ‘creation of energy from nothing’.

 

The development of the law of conservation of energy that rejects perpetual motion is a long stride on wrong path. Consequences of disapproval of perpetual motion in science are going to be formidable. Breakthrough of perpetual motion, I assume, would throw the mass of scientific facts, rigorously, laboriously ascertained by experiment and observations into a state of hopeless scientific confusion.  Law of conservation of energy has been built up, brick by brick and a stone by stone, cemented by the blood and sweat of successive generations of scientist - who did all the labor. Mighty are the struggles; everlasting the efforts but the greater part of these, we know, are in vain. By the normal removal of one of these stones or a few bricks, we fear, whole edifice will collapse, because great men of science did not labor on actual construction of perpetual motion machine, solution of  which is not a so difficult as it has been supposed. Long ages of sophistication on sophistication, and mathematical abstraction seem to have contributed its share to make up the law of conservation of energy. And yet there is nothing that is new, and that by the reader of judgment is straight away felt to be so. In some cases, just by ridiculing perpetual motion scientist aspired to a high position than that was actually deserved. His pride and vanity found expression in rejection of perpetual motion in an illogical manner.   Nothing can be more ridiculous, than the important and emphatic air with which scientists enunciated the law of conservation of energy on the basis of their most trifling observations without even trying to invent a perpetual motion machine that actually requires life time that some of genuine inventors really devoted.  We are surprised to see that even the mightiest genius failed to focus on problem of perpetual motion. Instead, conducting a sincere and faithful enquiry on perpetual motion, by their gullibility, they became victim of spreading rumours that perpetual motion was impossible. Their followers still cling to law of conservation of energy with all passion and interpret their observations and experimental findings faithfully in accord with the law. They make what strikes them as a profound observation; and, when fairly analyzed, it turns out to be nothing. It would not be an exaggeration to say that they are devotees of law of conservation of energy. Such devotion is rarely visibly even in religious fields where there are occasions, some times, when  even disciples may cast their doubts on  teaching of their master. This sort of scientific fanaticism is a great hindrance to the progress of science. Law of conservation of energy is now like a rut in which science has fallen. Science must be dragged out of the rut in which it has become wedged.

 

 

The development of law of conservation of energy has a long history containing all kinds of things: heated arguments, misleading experiments, controversies, quarrels and conspiracies. Deva Ramananda has been sympathetic to those perpetual motion inventors who after a life time struggle invented perpetual motion machine but they were defrauded by those scientists who probably wanted to rise to a higher status by their putative works that contributed to establishment of law of conservation of energy. For this reason Ramananda considers law of conservation of energy as a fraud. He remarks: “Uncovering any monumental fraud of mankind now seems trivial compared to what it will take to expose the 300 years of fraud, incompetence, and flagrant lying that have been going in name of one of the most powerful laws of science i.e. the   law of conservation of energy which reject perpetual motion behind a veil of scientific credentials, and expertise.”

 

In his article “Dynamis vs. Energeia” (A Sketch), published in October, 2002, Jonathan Tennenbaum remarks:

 “The common origins of the “energy” doctrine and utopian geopolitics go much farther back than the launching of the modern energy cult itself, by Helmholtz, Kelvin et al. From the standpoint of economics, the energy doctrine represented nothing but a rewarming, under “scientific” guise, of old feudalist, and specifically physiocratic, doctrines of supposedly fixed “natural resources,” ignoring the function of the human mind in discovering and realizing new physical principles.

 

…..On one level, the fallacy of the “First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics” is simply this: These laws have never been demonstrated to be properties of the real Universe, but only properties of certain closed mathematical-deductive systems, which ignorant or malicious physicists claim to represent the real Universe, but which manifestly do not. On this level, the fraud is identical to that of so-called economists, who claim to be able to deduce theorems about the real economy, from supposed self-evident properties of “money.”

 

SCHILLER INSTITUTE,

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/educ/pedagogy/dynamis_energ_jbt.html

 

This ill-founded law that has hindered the development of the perpetual motion is totally unscientific. It has taken its birth from false observations and misguided experiments. The law states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; the fact is that we have diverse forms of the energy in the universe that perpetually interacts with each other without obeying the law in such a manner that the whole is greater than sum of its parts. The essence of ancient wisdom is that world is triune in all its manifestations and reality is three fold. There are interactions in nature in which energy is created, there are interactions in which energy is conserved, and there are interactions in which energy is dissipated and eventually get destroyed. Each point in space is an infinite store of forces of all degree of intensity, so as to supply us indefinite amount of energy by perpetual motion mechanism. Not only this, but also logic of perpetual motionist who attempts to construct an over-balancing wheel is simple:

 

Force can cause motion

Weight is a force

Therefore, weight can cause motion.

Weight last forever

Therefore, motion will last forever.

Hence, the perpetual motion.

 

Law of conservation of energy is an outcome of scientific consensus among physicist who remained   naive and ignorant of perpetual motion and failed to understand truth and philosophy of perpetual motion. They also failed to judge works of genuine perpetual motionist in their lives.  The consensus that perpetual motion is impossible stem from physicist habit to depend on knowledge of authorities, convenience to condemn it without reason, because in stating the reverse that perpetual motion is possible they are at once confronted with complexity of all kinds, practical as well theoretical problems. It was a better and safer way for the physicist to have chosen simple path, a convenient course that was agreed upon though it rested on false and erroneous assumptions.

 

Since time immemorial, the human mind has expressed itself through religion, philosophy, and science. Comparatively, science is of recent origin and to see roots of law of conservation of energy in it, it is interesting to study the main concepts of religion and philosophy, which have seeds of law of conservation of energy. Element of permanence finds its full expression in the concept of God and soul. It is unfortunate that this element has gone into the making of the structure of law of conservation of energy. Like it, many other theories of science present theoretical thought as something subjective and account for the physicist’s habit of using some system of concept and certain mathematical construction by their desire to reach mutual understanding. In fact, the absolute conservation of energy is an assumption in conflict with evidence. Law of conservation of energy reflects high degree of conventionalism in it, and subjectivity as it implies negation of facts of nature which is self propelled and self governed with myriads of perpetual motion patterns in it. Why motion of planets around the sun is not halted, why does earth continue to rotate on its axis? Why distant galaxies are receding from us? Why electrons move perpetually around the nucleus? Why does life exist? These are few questions which has troubled all thinking man since time immemorial. Men of genius have attempted to find right answer or they have pretended to answer them depending on their wisdom. Undoubtedly, perpetual motionist is a real hero who has answered these questions by inventing a perpetual motion machine. 

 

By suppressing zeal of a perpetual motion inventor, law of conservation of energy has done an incredible damage. This is one of the devil's traps. Scientists who denied perpetual motion have fallen into it, and also their blind followers who are unable to realize truth of perpetual motion continue to fall in devil’s trap even today. The problem is that scientists often refuse to believe what they do not understand    or what is not to their liking, simply because of their own prejudice, pride and vanity.  They consider perpetual motion as meaningless, however, according to Deva Ramananda the perpetual motion can always be considered more valuable than the law of conservation of energy for three reasons:  

    

1.     Firstly, because the perpetual motion bears a nobler   fruit, that of unlimited energy, whereas doctrine of conservation of energy bears no such fruits. Many perpetual motionists consider the doctrine of conservation only as some propaganda in the name of a law or theory to safeguard vested interest in energy sector as Jonathan Tennenbaum remarked.  

 

2.     Just as the real thing is more important than it’s prefiguration as the body surpasses the shadow, so   the perpetual motion is greater than the conservation doctrine, which does no more than prefigure impossibility of perpetual motion.  Perpetual motion is certainly better than the law of conservation of energy as health is better than a disease, sufficiency better than poverty; shelter better than being kidnapped and ease of mind better than racking anxiety.

 

 

3.     Because our perpetual motion is the direct expression of the Nature. The law of conservation of energy adds nothing to our information, and yields no fresh springs of action like perpetual motion. 

 

It is indeed strange to note that whole edifice of science rests on a weak foundation of the law of conservation of energy which in turn rest on false notion of non existence of perpetual motion. Many rightly believe that the discovery of perpetual motion would cause a threat to the very fabric of science, or at least to law of conservation of energy which is one of the most fundamental laws of physics according to them. We wonder why the laws of constancy are so highly prized. There is no end to eulogizing law of conservation of energy. For example, Dampier has remarked: “Because of its practical use, and for its own intrinsic interest, the principle of conservation of energy may be regarded as one of the great achievement of the human mind.”

 

Dampier hardly knows that Perpetual motion is the most appropriate experiment to know the energy and its ultimate nature, but it is unfortunate that for more than 200 years, false ideas, concepts and experiment which led finally to the establishment of law of conservation of energy reined unchallenged. Scientist erroneously believe that law of conservation of energy is necessary truth, true for angels as well as for man, true even for god Himself but that  has never been admitted by perpetual motionist. . To wonder whether these so-called truths could be falsified, to wonder whether there is a world of idea out side them, is an effort of extraordinary daring. Perpetual motionists easily discover in the nature many patterns of perpetual motion that scientist’s incredulity has prevented to them from seeing. Perpetual motions abound in nature, of the electrons in vibration and rotation of galaxies and revolutions of planets around the sun.  Moreover, to translate this mechanism into the creation of a machine, which creates energy out of nothing, is indeed a wonderful an exhilarating achievement of the human mind.  

 

Unfortunately, scientist considers the law of conservation of energy as a divine law while truth is that it is just part of that human knowledge which cannot be claimed to be perfect. All men’s knowledge is uncertain, inexact, and partial. Let us see what scientists have done, how they have managed to perpetuate their subjective element from one generation to another. We have seen how without doing any experiment Helmholtz proclaimed that perpetual motion machine was impossible. He sat himself against perpetual motion inventors because they were strangest to him. Perpetual motionist considers Edward Somerset and Orffyreus’ inventions as one of the most remarkable achievements in the mechanical history of man. Evidence is more compelling in case of Orffyreus. But Helmholtz failed even to take notice of Orffyreus and feats of other genuine perpetual motionist around him in his own country. He was prejudiced against them because perpetual motion was beyond his imagination, and he knew nothing about those inventors who had actually invented perpetual motion machine. He utterly failed to understand perpetual motionists and their mission. Like others, he was disposed to criticize the invention as futile. He was a victim of vulgar prejudice. Like Helmholtz, when other scientists saw each time perpetual motion was unsuccessful, they began to regard that perpetual was impossible and law of conservation was true. Weinberg writes:

 

“In his judgments physicists get so much help from subjective and often vague law of conservation of energy that it might be expected that perpetual motion will remain an impossibility forever out of which law itself has evolved. Can law of conservation of energy give us any guidance toward a final theory?

 

We must be fully aware of the dangerous nature of comparisons which have often done so much mischief in science, by being extended beyond their proper limits. Of course, it is true that entire equality between two things can never be demonstrated. Indeed, if it could be demonstrated, then, there would be an end of that particular relation which gives rise to a comparison. Law of conservation of energy has come from misguided experiment, it has expanded into a convention, agreed scheme of energy now so defined that total energy must, by definition, remains constant.

 

 

Law of conservation of energy is a Big Blunder

 

If a boy interested in perpetual motion machine were to refuse to accept law of conservation of energy, he would probably be ridiculed and punished in classroom. Science exhibits a number of errors and fallacies about perpetual motion. Even they put perpetual motion in the same category with alchemy, But all these charges against perpetual motion are baseless. It is customary for the advocates of law of conservation of energy to place their faith in conservation of energy. They have no right to allege perpetual motion when none among them has ever tried to construct a perpetual motion machine. First, none of the scientist with whom we are familiar actually attempted to construct a perpetual motion machine. None of them is friend of a perpetual motionist, except Leibniz.

 

The most astounding thing about all of this is that the greatest threat to our science  has turned out not to be the maverick who challenges well established traditions in science but rather the white-coated scientists in camouflage squandering billions of taxpayers’ dollars annually and their sycophants in the scientific world. Ultimately, the law of conservation of energy blunder is not really about law of conservation of energy, nor even about energy and power.  The law of conservation of energy blunder is more about the health of our science. I wonder how this blunder could have occurred or still perpetuates in science where continuous discourse and debate of all important issues is vigorous and healthy, where criticism flourishes and critics are cherished as treasures. The only way we can free us from the clutch of law of conservation of energy and bring an end to the pseudoscience is to have an open international discourse and debate on all aspects of perpetual motion with a working perpetual motion machine in front of us.

 

The law of conservation of energy blunder seems to be a political and sociological phenomenon in which scientists of western developed nations and all followers of developing nations   share a measure of responsibility. The law of conservation of energy is a big blunder in the history of science, it has taught us that a healthy science demands that its students keep a skeptical, even suspicious, eye on its institutions in order to prevent them from becoming the autonomous, authoritarian regimes they are now. The blunder shows us that we need to review science and its methods. It is the need of time to rethink and restructure our institutions of government, science, academe, journalism, and media who seldom recognize talents of inventors like perpetual motion inventors. We must restructure the peer review processes of scientific publishing and funding so that they do not promote and protect any particular dogma or fashion of thought or exclude competing ideas. A robust and mean investigative journalism must be revived, rewarded, and cherished.

 

 

The present energy crisis is so serious in its consequences that civilization on itself may be ruined. Perpetual motion is our best method of creating energy out of nothing. It is a self moving and self-sustaining system. The deep study of perpetual motion leads to a system of philosophy that applies logic and empirical methods to test theories of nature against the observable data. By the knowledge we derive from perpetual motion, our faculties are enlarged and our minds get exalted.  The ultimate knowledge of perpetual motion leads to the realization of the Supreme Being and His wisdom, power, goodness, and immutability. Perpetual motion has all potential to unify religion and science.

blknex88.gif
home.gif
blkbac.gif

                                      Copyright 2005 Dr. Ramesh Menaria all rights reserved.