----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

again you miss the point

Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.

 In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post. That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably that information .

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,^[8][13] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.^[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 10¹⁷ kg (2×10¹⁷ lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 10¹³ kg (2×10¹³ lb).^[8] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.^[13] 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter. 

Kirk

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



>For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

Wow!  So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the energy release over Hiroshima!

Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Kalec

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)



Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: wayne

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.

For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

---

From: wayne <waynegage@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins famous equation E=mc2.
The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
>
> how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> Kirk
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wayne <waynegage@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>  
> It's called "the conservation of energy."
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99" <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> >
> > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> >
> > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> >
>

 

again you miss the point

Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.

 In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post. That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably that information .

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,^[8][13] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.^[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 10¹⁷ kg (2×10¹⁷ lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 10¹³ kg (2×10¹³ lb).^[8] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.^[13] 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter. 

Kirk

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



>For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

Wow!  So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the energy release over Hiroshima!

Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Kalec

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)



Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: wayne

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.

For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

---

From: wayne <waynegage@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins famous equation E=mc2.
The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
>
> how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> Kirk
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wayne <waynegage@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>  
> It's called "the conservation of energy."
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99" <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> >
> > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> >
> > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:29 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

show me the reference that matter is energy.

Since you seem confused about so many things perhaps you should start here---

 http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/2-matter.htm

  Everything in the universe is made up of essentially 2 things: matter and energy.  

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: wayne

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.

For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

---

From: wayne <waynegage@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins famous equation E=mc2.
The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
>
> how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> Kirk
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wayne <waynegage@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>  
> It's called "the conservation of energy."
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99" <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> >
> > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> >
> > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> >
>

 

Albert Einstein is perhaps the most famous scientist of this century. One of his most well-known accomplishments is the formula Despite its familiarity, many people don't really understand what it means. We hope this explanation will help!

One of Einstein's great insights was to realize that matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter. For example, consider a simple hydrogen atom, basically composed of a single proton. This subatomic particle has a mass of 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 001 672 kgThis is a tiny mass indeed. But in everyday quantities of matter there are a lot of atoms! For instance, in one kilogram of pure water, the mass of hydrogen atoms amounts to just slightly more than 111 grams, or 0.111 kg. Einstein's formula tells us the amount of energy this mass would be equivalent to, if it were all suddenly turned into energy. It says that to find the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light, this number being 300,000,000 meters per second (a very large number): = 0.111 x 300,000,000 x 300,000,000 = 10,000,000,000,000,000 Joules This is an incredible amount of energy! A Joule is not a large unit of energy ... one Joule is about the energy released when you drop a textbook to the floor. But the amount of energy in 30 grams of hydrogen atoms is equivalent to burning hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline!

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:29 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

show me the reference that matter is energy.

Since you seem confused about so many things perhaps you should start here---

 http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~acarpi/NSC/2-matter.htm

  Everything in the universe is made up of essentially 2 things: matter and energy.  

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: wayne

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.

For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

---

From: wayne <waynegage@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins famous equation E=mc2.
The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
>
> how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> Kirk
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wayne <waynegage@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>  
> It's called "the conservation of energy."
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99" <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> >
> > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> >
> > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a chemical reaction and fission.

either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time

goodbye.

 

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?

 

There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or ferments or putrefies ect ect,  releasing energy.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

again you miss the point

Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.

 In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post. That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably that information .

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,^[8][13] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.^[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 10¹⁷ kg (2×10¹⁷ lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 10¹³ kg (2×10¹³ lb).^[8] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.^[13] 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter. 

Kirk

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



>For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

Wow!  So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the energy release over Hiroshima!

Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Kalec

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)



Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: wayne

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.

For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

---

From: wayne <waynegage@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins famous equation E=mc2.
The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
>
> how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> Kirk
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wayne <waynegage@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>  
> It's called "the conservation of energy."
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99" <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> >
> > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> >
> > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:57 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

you missed the point

Wayne said "conservation of energy" in support of energy is neither created or destroyed.

When a nucleus fissions, it splits into several smaller fragments. These fragments, or fission products, are about equal to half the original mass.  Two or three neutrons are also emitted. The sum of the masses of these fragments is less than the original mass. This 'missing' mass (about 0.1 percent of the original mass) has been converted into energy according to Einstein's equation.

 

This is an obvious exception to the statement, neither created nor destroyed. Conservation of energy is Newtonian.

Kirk

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



>how does the atomic bomb fit into this?

_____________________

 

The same way as any chemical reaction. The energy, heat goes on add infinitum into the universe

spread throughout as an infinitesimal detections filling space in its vastness.  So does its light go on

forever.  That is why we can still see the light of distant stars extinct since light years ago. The reaction of

that star is stopped, but the star is not really dead since we still can see its light. And light is a real thing ,

it can be measured and detected as photons or waves or whatever. When we will no longer see it,

beings further in light years away will see it, and so on and so on, the light will always be there traveling in

an infinite circle forever. "A straight line projected out into infinity comes back upon itself" .. __Einstein__

ALL IS  !  and will always be, that which isn't will never be.

 

Steve

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: wayne

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 11:42 AM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

how does the atomic bomb fit into this?

Kirk

 

---

From: wayne <waynegage@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

It's called "the conservation of energy."

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99" <dude_abides_99@...> wrote:
>
> If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
>
> (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
>

 

evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a chemical reaction and fission.

either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time

goodbye.

 

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?

 

There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or ferments or putrefies ect ect,  releasing energy.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

again you miss the point

Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.

 In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post. That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably that information .

Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,^[8][13] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.^[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 10¹⁷ kg (2×10¹⁷ lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 10¹³ kg (2×10¹³ lb).^[8] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.^[13] 

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter. 

Kirk

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



>For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

Wow!  So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the energy release over Hiroshima!

Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Steve Kalec

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)



Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: wayne

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.

For the most part matter is quite immutable.

 

---

From: wayne <waynegage@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins famous equation E=mc2.
The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...> wrote:
>
> how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> Kirk
>  
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: wayne <waynegage@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>  
> It's called "the conservation of energy."
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99" <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> >
> > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> >
> > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> >
>

Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass is
converted.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kalec <skalec@...> wrote:
>
> Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter produces
energy.
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Kirk McLoren
>   To: Steve Kalec
>   Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
>   Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>
>
>
>   evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a chemical
reaction and fission.
>   either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
>   goodbye.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
>   To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
>   Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>
>
>   
>   Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
>
>   There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or ferments
or putrefies ect ect,  releasing energy.
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Kirk McLoren
>     To: Steve Kalec
>     Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>     Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
>     Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>     again you miss the point
>     Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
>      In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post. That
noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably that
information .
>
>
>     Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the
reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times as abundant as
silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is
calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may
contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb).[8] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges
from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil
due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3
parts per billion.[13]
>
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
>
>
>     Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
>
>
>     Kirk
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
>     To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>     Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
>     Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>
>
>     
>     >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>
>     Wow!  So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the energy
release over Hiroshima!
>     Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
>
>
>       ----- Original Message -----
>       From: Steve Kalec
>       To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>       Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
>       Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>       
>       Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
>         ----- Original Message -----
>         From: Kirk McLoren
>         To: wayne
>         Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>         Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
>         Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>         Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is energy,
in fact we make a distinction between the two.
>         For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>         From: wayne <waynegage@...>
>         To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>         Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
>         Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>
>
>
>         The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor
destroyed.
>         The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins
famous equation E=mc2.
>         The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
>
>         --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
>         >
>         > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
>         > Kirk
>         > Â
>         >
>         >
>         >
>         > ________________________________
>         > From: wayne <waynegage@>
>         > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>         > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
>         > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>         >
>         >
>         > Â
>         > It's called "the conservation of energy."
>         >
>         > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99"
<dude_abides_99@> wrote:
>         > >
>         > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How
so?
>         > >
>         > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with
consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we
live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
>         > >
>         >
>

The split light beam does not support your claim that conscience is energy.
Nothing you have written supports your lclaim.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kalec <skalec@...> wrote:
>
> Oh my silly me!  How could I ever think that consciousness is Light and Light
is conscious ??
> Gees have you never heard of the split light beam experiment ?   Wow ! Silly
silly silly me.
> In the beginning was Light ! All came from it. Then there was the big Bang.
What in slyness
> unleashed it.  NOTHING CANNOT CAUSE SOMETHING.
>
> Silly Me.
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: wayne
>   To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:47 PM
>   Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>   Here, learn what energy is, it is not conscience or consciousness. That's
just silly.
>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
>
>
>   --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote:
>   >
>   > >Are you into science or magic? Conscience is not energy.
>   > _____________________________________________
>   >
>   > Magic ??
>   >
>   >
>   > Sure, conscience and consciousness is energy.  It can cause a hole in your
stomach. It causes reactions of all sorts. But if energy is for you only what
you can measure or weigh, then you do not understand energy. At one time the
atom was the smallest particle known, now we know that the atom itself is made
up of other infinitesimal fundamental particles.
>   >
>   > As science progressed toward a better understanding of the material world,
the picture that emerged from the investigation of the smallest constituents of
matter was very puzzling. At the level of our senses the world seams to be real
and objects normally behave the way we expect them to. But when scientists tried
to understand what matter is made of, they made a strange discovery.
>   >
>   >      The smallest building block of matter is the atom, which itself is
made of fundamental particles. Those particles do not obey the classical laws of
physics, so a new set of laws had to be formulated and this is what we call
Quantum Mechanics. What this theory teaches us is that matter does not really
exist! Particles of matter are potentialities that become actuality only when we
observe them. In other words there is a direct link between our consciousness of
them and the manifestation of their existence.
>   >
>   >      Some particles pop out of nothing and immediately return to the
vacuum of space. This is why we call them virtual particles. Yet if they did not
"exist" there would be no exchange of energy in the universe. What  allows them
to exist and not exist, at the same time, is the haziness that permeates the
quantum world. There is even a mathematical law to express that haziness and it
is called the Uncertainty Principal. This principal puts a limit to what we can
know about the outside world. For example if we want to know where a particle
is, we will not be able to know it's momentum, or vice versa, if we want to know
it's momentum we won't be able to ascertain it's position. We have to make a
choice, because we can't know both at the same time.
>   >
>   >      This new insight about matter was developed at the beginning of the
twentieth century at approximately the same time Einstein came out with his
Theory of Relativity which demonstrated that space and time were not absolute
references but that space could expand or contract, and that time could slow
down or run faster. What both theories made us aware of is that our senses give
us the illusion of a "reality" and that an other "reality" can be devised by our
mind alone.
>   >
>   > Steve Kalec
>   >
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------------
>
>   To drop of the list, send email to:
>   free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Mr. J

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:16 AM

Subject: [free_energy] Energy = Consciousness NOT Energy == Consciousness

Consciousness = Being aware of your surrounding, i.e. recognition.

You will only exert energy if you recognize something that is important to you.

That could be a tasty steak to a dog, or an "opposite sex" of an electron.

One must first observe the steak or feel that positive vibe.

However, until you "observed" you didn't exert. Hence there can be no
energy without consciousness.

- j-

 

Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass is converted.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kalec <skalec@...> wrote:
>
> Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter produces energy.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kirk McLoren
> To: Steve Kalec
> Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
> Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>
>
>
> evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a chemical reaction and fission.
> either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
> goodbye.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>
>
> 
> Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
>
> There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or ferments or putrefies ect ect, releasing energy.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kirk McLoren
> To: Steve Kalec
> Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
> again you miss the point
> Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
> In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post. That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably that information .
>
>
> Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2×1017 lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2×1013 lb).[8] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.[13]
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
>
>
> Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
>
>
> Kirk
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>
>
> 
> >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>
> Wow! So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the energy release over Hiroshima!
> Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Kalec
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
> 
> Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kirk McLoren
> To: wayne
> Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
> Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.
> For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> From: wayne <waynegage@...>
> To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
> Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>
>
>
> The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor destroyed.
> The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins famous equation E=mc2.
> The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> >
> > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> > Kirk
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: wayne <waynegage@>
> > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> >
> >
> > Â
> > It's called "the conservation of energy."
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "dude_abides_99" <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> > >
> > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> > >
> > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> > >
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: wayne

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:53 PM

Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

I should have said that E=mc2 is mass conversion to energy through a nuclear reaction. That is when mass is converted and mass is lost.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "wayne" <waynegage@...> wrote:
>
> Mass is not lost and this has been shown experimentally over and over. E=mc2 does not apply to chemical reactions. Burning wood is a chemical reaction.
>
> --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Marshall <mdudley@> wrote:
> >
> > You are wrong again!  Mass is lost.  The sum of the end products of the
> > combustion will be slightly less than the original products by the
> > formula E=MC^2.  It matters not if the binding energy is atomic or
> > chemical, it will express as an additional mass.  Just with chemical the
> > change is so slight it is very difficult to measure, but is there none
> > the less. I suggest you read some physics books which deal with
> > Einsteins formulas.
> >
> > On 6/20/2012 8:05 AM, wayne wrote:
> > >
> > > Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass
> > > is converted.
> > >
> > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter
> > > produces energy.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > > To: Steve Kalec
> > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a
> > > chemical reaction and fission.
> > > > either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
> > > > goodbye.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
> > > >
> > > > There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or
> > > ferments or putrefies ect ect, releasing energy.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > > To: Steve Kalec
> > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > again you miss the point
> > > > Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
> > > > In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post.
> > > That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably
> > > that information .
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending
> > > on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times
> > > as abundant as silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km
> > > (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2�---1017 lb) of
> > > uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2�---1013 lb).[8] The
> > > concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per
> > > million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of
> > > phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts
> > > per billion.[13]
> > > >
> > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kirk
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
> > > >
> > > > Wow! So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the
> > > energy release over Hiroshima!
> > > > Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Steve Kalec
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > > Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > > To: wayne
> > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is
> > > energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.
> > > > For the most part matter is quite immutable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
> > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor
> > > destroyed.
> > > > The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins
> > > famous equation E=mc2.
> > > > The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
> > > >
> > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> > > > > Kirk
> > > > > �,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ________________________________
> > > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
> > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > �,
> > > > > It's called "the conservation of energy."
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, "dude_abides_99"
> > > <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with
> > > consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at
> > > best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>




------------------------------------

To drop of the list, send email to:
free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    free_energy-digest@yahoogroups.com
    free_energy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

This is an unresolved mystery. And this does not support any of your arguments
about energy and consciousness.
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kalec <skalec@...> wrote:
>
>
> The Conscious Universe
>
>         In 1982 a very important event took place. At the University of Paris,
a research team led by physicist Alain Aspect performed the most important
experiments of the 20th century. Some scientists believe that his discovery may
change science as we know it. Aspect had discovered that under certain
circumstances, subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously
communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them.  It
doesn't matter if they are 10 feet apart or 10 million miles apart. Somehow each
particle always seems to know what the other is doing. This experiment has been
conducted very scientifically and is accepted as fact in the scientific
journals.
>
>                   The problem with this finding is that it violates Einstein's
long held theory that no communication can travel faster than the speed of
light. Since traveling faster than the speed of light alludes to the fact that
we should be able to break the time barrier, this has caused some physicists to
try to explain away Aspect's findings. Others have been inspired to offer even
greater explanations.
>
>            University of London physicist David Boehm  believes Aspect's
findings imply that objective reality does not exist, that though it appears
solid, the universe is in itself a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed
hologram.
>
>             To understand this, we have to first understand what a hologram
is. A hologram is a three-dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser.
They really are amazing to see, but what makes even more for amazement is that
if a hologram of let us say a rose, is cut in half and then illuminated by a
laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. 
If the halves are divided again, each piece of will  contain a smaller but
intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a
hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.
>
>
> A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves
to the long held scientific approach of taking  something apart and studying
their respective parts. If we try to take apart something constructed
holographically, we will not get the pieces of which it is made; we will only
get smaller wholes.
>
> Bohm believes the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact
with one another regardless of the distance separating them is, not because they
are sending some sort of  signal back and forth, but because their separateness
is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles
are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental
something.
>
>           According to Bohm, the apparent faster-than-light connection between
subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality
we are not privy to, And, he adds, we view objects such as subatomic particles
as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their
reality.
>
>         Such particles are not separate parts, but facets of a deeper and more
underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the
Hologram of our rose. He says that the apparent separateness of subatomic
particles is illusory, and it means that at a deeper level of reality all things
in the universe are infinitely interconnected. The electrons in a carbon atom in
the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every
salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the
sky. Everything interpenetrates everything.
>

----- Original Message -----

From: wayne

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:39 PM

Subject: Fw: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Why are you so resistant to learning real physics. The log is now paired with oxygen and nitrogen and other elements. If you could capture all the parts and remove what it reacted to you would find that no mass was converted to energy. If a jar of oxygen is placed with some carbon and ignited the jar weighs exactly the same after the burn as before the burn.  Please go back to high school and pay attention this time.
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kalec <skalec@...> wrote:
>
> Well Where is the log now ? Where did the heat come from.
> Heat that can drive a steam engine. So if mass did not
> dissapear, its Magic then! Perhaps the formula pertains only
> to neuclear power, but where did the energy come from in the log
> which is matter?
>
> Steve
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: wayne
>   To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:53 PM
>   Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>   I should have said that E=mc2 is mass conversion to energy through a nuclear reaction. That is when mass is converted and mass is lost.
>
>   --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "wayne" <waynegage@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Mass is not lost and this has been shown experimentally over and over. E=mc2 does not apply to chemical reactions. Burning wood is a chemical reaction.
>   >
>   > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Marshall <mdudley@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > You are wrong again!  Mass is lost.  The sum of the end products of the
>   > > combustion will be slightly less than the original products by the
>   > > formula E=MC^2.  It matters not if the binding energy is atomic or
>   > > chemical, it will express as an additional mass.  Just with chemical the
>   > > change is so slight it is very difficult to measure, but is there none
>   > > the less. I suggest you read some physics books which deal with
>   > > Einsteins formulas.
>   > >
>   > > On 6/20/2012 8:05 AM, wayne wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass
>   > > > is converted.
>   > > >
>   > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote:
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter
>   > > > produces energy.
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a
>   > > > chemical reaction and fission.
>   > > > > either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
>   > > > > goodbye.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
>   > > > >
>   > > > > There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or
>   > > > ferments or putrefies ect ect, releasing energy.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > again you miss the point
>   > > > > Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
>   > > > > In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post.
>   > > > That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably
>   > > > that information .
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending
>   > > > on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times
>   > > > as abundant as silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km
>   > > > (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2�---1017 lb) of
>   > > > uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2�---1013 lb).[8] The
>   > > > concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per
>   > > > million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of
>   > > > phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts
>   > > > per billion.[13]
>   > > > >
>   > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Kirk
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Wow! So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the
>   > > > energy release over Hiroshima!
>   > > > > Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: wayne
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is
>   > > > energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.
>   > > > > For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
>   > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor
>   > > > destroyed.
>   > > > > The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins
>   > > > famous equation E=mc2.
>   > > > > The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
>   > > > > > Kirk
>   > > > > > �,
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > ________________________________
>   > > > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
>   > > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
>   > > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > �,
>   > > > > > It's called "the conservation of energy."
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, "dude_abides_99"
>   > > > <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with
>   > > > consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at
>   > > > best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > >
>   >
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------------
>
>   To drop of the list, send email to:
>   free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links
>




------------------------------------

To drop of the list, send email to:
free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    free_energy-digest@yahoogroups.com
    free_energy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

"Photosynthesis ( /foʊtoʊˈsɪnθəsɪs/; from the Greek φώτο- [photo-], "light," and σύνθεσις [synthesis], "putting together", "composition") is a process used by plants and other organisms to capture the sun's energy to split off water's hydrogen from oxygen."

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:48 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

can you say carbon dioxide? that wasn't in the pot, was it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis see if you can get your mind around this.

Your wooo wooo science isn't making it.

 

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

Oh for crying out loud.  I though the subject was that energy cannot be created or destroyed,

only converted and that matter = energy.  The fact is that the energy released from the log as heat

did decay the wood through combustion.

 

The fact is that plants and trees live mostly on luminous light.

This has been proven how a plants can grow enormous in a small amount of pot of earth.

Even if all the water from the plant was removed, the dehydrated plant's weight far outweighs the

amount of earth and minerals lost from the pot. This experiment has been done. So the light of the

sun has been converted into matter. When the plant or log is set on fire , it releases that light

as the fire of the sun.

 

There is more under the heavens than you have ever dared or can ever imagine.

Stick to your nuclear stuff and your mutable matters.

 

Steve

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: wayne

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:39 PM

Subject: Fw: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Why are you so resistant to learning real physics. The log is now paired with oxygen and nitrogen and other elements. If you could capture all the parts and remove what it reacted to you would find that no mass was converted to energy. If a jar of oxygen is placed with some carbon and ignited the jar weighs exactly the same after the burn as before the burn.  Please go back to high school and pay attention this time.
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kalec <skalec@...> wrote:
>
> Well Where is the log now ? Where did the heat come from.
> Heat that can drive a steam engine. So if mass did not
> dissapear, its Magic then! Perhaps the formula pertains only
> to neuclear power, but where did the energy come from in the log
> which is matter?
>
> Steve
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: wayne
>   To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:53 PM
>   Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>   I should have said that E=mc2 is mass conversion to energy through a nuclear reaction. That is when mass is converted and mass is lost.
>
>   --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "wayne" <waynegage@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Mass is not lost and this has been shown experimentally over and over. E=mc2 does not apply to chemical reactions. Burning wood is a chemical reaction.
>   >
>   > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Marshall <mdudley@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > You are wrong again!  Mass is lost.  The sum of the end products of the
>   > > combustion will be slightly less than the original products by the
>   > > formula E=MC^2.  It matters not if the binding energy is atomic or
>   > > chemical, it will express as an additional mass.  Just with chemical the
>   > > change is so slight it is very difficult to measure, but is there none
>   > > the less. I suggest you read some physics books which deal with
>   > > Einsteins formulas.
>   > >
>   > > On 6/20/2012 8:05 AM, wayne wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass
>   > > > is converted.
>   > > >
>   > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote:
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter
>   > > > produces energy.
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a
>   > > > chemical reaction and fission.
>   > > > > either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
>   > > > > goodbye.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
>   > > > >
>   > > > > There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or
>   > > > ferments or putrefies ect ect, releasing energy.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > again you miss the point
>   > > > > Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
>   > > > > In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post.
>   > > > That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably
>   > > > that information .
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending
>   > > > on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times
>   > > > as abundant as silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km
>   > > > (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2Ã---1017 lb) of
>   > > > uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2Ã---1013 lb).[8] The
>   > > > concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per
>   > > > million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of
>   > > > phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts
>   > > > per billion.[13]
>   > > > >
>   > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Kirk
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Wow! So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the
>   > > > energy release over Hiroshima!
>   > > > > Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: wayne
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is
>   > > > energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.
>   > > > > For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
>   > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor
>   > > > destroyed.
>   > > > > The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins
>   > > > famous equation E=mc2.
>   > > > > The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
>   > > > > > Kirk
>   > > > > > Ã,
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > ________________________________
>   > > > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
>   > > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
>   > > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Ã,
>   > > > > > It's called "the conservation of energy."
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, "dude_abides_99"
>   > > > <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with
>   > > > consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at
>   > > > best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > >
>   >
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------------
>
>   To drop of the list, send email to:
>   free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links
>




------------------------------------

To drop of the list, send email to:
free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    free_energy-digest@yahoogroups.com
    free_energy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 

Mass is not lost and this has been shown experimentally over and over. E=mc2 does not apply to chemical reactions. Burning wood is a chemical reaction.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Marshall <mdudley@...> wrote:
>
> You are wrong again! Mass is lost. The sum of the end products of the
> combustion will be slightly less than the original products by the
> formula E=MC^2. It matters not if the binding energy is atomic or
> chemical, it will express as an additional mass. Just with chemical the
> change is so slight it is very difficult to measure, but is there none
> the less. I suggest you read some physics books which deal with
> Einsteins formulas.
>
> On 6/20/2012 8:05 AM, wayne wrote:
> >
> > Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass
> > is converted.
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter
> > produces energy.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > To: Steve Kalec
> > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a
> > chemical reaction and fission.
> > > either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
> > > goodbye.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or
> > ferments or putrefies ect ect, releasing energy.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > To: Steve Kalec
> > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > > again you miss the point
> > > Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
> > > In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post.
> > That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably
> > that information .
> > >
> > >
> > > Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending
> > on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times
> > as abundant as silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km
> > (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2Ã---1017 lb) of
> > uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2Ã---1013 lb).[8] The
> > concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per
> > million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of
> > phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts
> > per billion.[13]
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
> > >
> > >
> > > Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
> > >
> > > Wow! So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the
> > energy release over Hiroshima!
> > > Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Steve Kalec
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > To: wayne
> > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > > Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is
> > energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.
> > > For the most part matter is quite immutable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
> > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor
> > destroyed.
> > > The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins
> > famous equation E=mc2.
> > > The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
> > >
> > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> > > > Kirk
> > > > Ã,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã,
> > > > It's called "the conservation of energy."
> > > >
> > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, "dude_abides_99"
> > <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> > > > >
> > > > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with
> > consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at
> > best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:14 AM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

you are so incorrect you aren't even wrong.

obfuscation is your stock in trade.

Apparently even you realize you haven't a leg to stand on and so bow out.

Agreed, this is an absolute waste of time. You aren't interested in facts.

 

---

From: Steve Kalec <Skalec@...>
To: Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@...>
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:46 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)



>So according to you a lightbulb converts mass to energy?

 

NO! it converts energy to mass.

 

Yes of course this Sun energy produces photosynthesis, its the process

of how the sun's energy makes a plant grow.

 

A light bulb also gives off Light Energy, just as the Sun's energy is light.

I said in an earlier post that a plant lives mostly on light.

So whats the big deal here from you. I am not wrong.

Make a plant live in darkness and you will have proved me wrong.

 

My body grew because of the splitting of cells through chromosomes,

but I needed to take in food for that to happen. So what do I live

on? Do I live on Chromosomes or food? If you get my analogy. Yes a plant

grows through photosynthesis, but what does it take in for

this to happen if not Light. The energy of Light is transformed

to mass through photosynthesis producing more plant matter.

 

I know you can't see as I see, and I am not claiming to be a scientist.

I will not irritate you any more. I shall let you have the last word

in your next post however discriminatory it may be.

 

I have respect for you and I did not intend to provoke you

and you should take me lightly.  I just see differently.

I believe all is energy, and energy is alive and all life has energy

and consciousness. Anything that obeys certain laws

has consciousness and I will even say, memory.

I know I am not alone in this, some of the greatest

scientists have said the same. 

 

So yours is the last word.

I will not reply to this thread anymore.

 

All Best,

Steve

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:24 AM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

So according to you a lightbulb converts mass to energy? or an LED? Their light enables photosynthesis in case you didn't know and no fission or fusion is involved.

If you understood a tenth of what you think you understand you would be formidable.

I am sure you could join an introductory physics class at the local Jr College and learn that high school physics you so obviously missed.

Do you really think your pseudoscience carries any weight?

Why do you argue your idiocy instead of asking for educational links?

Whom are you trying to impress? Yourself perhaps? You have impressed me. You have impressed me with how little you understand.

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 



From the very link you sent...

 

"Photosynthesis ( /foʊtoʊˈsɪnθəsɪs/; from the Greek φώτο- [photo-], "light," and σύνθεσις [synthesis], "putting together", "composition") is a process used by plants and other organisms to capture the sun's energy to split off water's hydrogen from oxygen."

 

Without the Sun there is no photosynthesis and no plant growth.     

 

I rest my case !

Woooooooo! Woo!

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Kirk McLoren

To: Steve Kalec

Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 10:48 PM

Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

can you say carbon dioxide? that wasn't in the pot, was it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis see if you can get your mind around this.

Your wooo wooo science isn't making it.

 

---

From: Steve Kalec <skalec@...>
To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

Oh for crying out loud.  I though the subject was that energy cannot be created or destroyed,

only converted and that matter = energy.  The fact is that the energy released from the log as heat

did decay the wood through combustion.

 

The fact is that plants and trees live mostly on luminous light.

This has been proven how a plants can grow enormous in a small amount of pot of earth.

Even if all the water from the plant was removed, the dehydrated plant's weight far outweighs the

amount of earth and minerals lost from the pot. This experiment has been done. So the light of the

sun has been converted into matter. When the plant or log is set on fire , it releases that light

as the fire of the sun.

 

There is more under the heavens than you have ever dared or can ever imagine.

Stick to your nuclear stuff and your mutable matters.

 

Steve

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: wayne

To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:39 PM

Subject: Fw: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

Why are you so resistant to learning real physics. The log is now paired with oxygen and nitrogen and other elements. If you could capture all the parts and remove what it reacted to you would find that no mass was converted to energy. If a jar of oxygen is placed with some carbon and ignited the jar weighs exactly the same after the burn as before the burn.  Please go back to high school and pay attention this time.
--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kalec <skalec@...> wrote:
>
> Well Where is the log now ? Where did the heat come from.
> Heat that can drive a steam engine. So if mass did not
> dissapear, its Magic then! Perhaps the formula pertains only
> to neuclear power, but where did the energy come from in the log
> which is matter?
>
> Steve
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: wayne
>   To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 12:53 PM
>   Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>
>
>   I should have said that E=mc2 is mass conversion to energy through a nuclear reaction. That is when mass is converted and mass is lost.
>
>   --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, "wayne" <waynegage@> wrote:
>   >
>   > Mass is not lost and this has been shown experimentally over and over. E=mc2 does not apply to chemical reactions. Burning wood is a chemical reaction.
>   >
>   > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Marshall <mdudley@> wrote:
>   > >
>   > > You are wrong again!  Mass is lost.  The sum of the end products of the
>   > > combustion will be slightly less than the original products by the
>   > > formula E=MC^2.  It matters not if the binding energy is atomic or
>   > > chemical, it will express as an additional mass.  Just with chemical the
>   > > change is so slight it is very difficult to measure, but is there none
>   > > the less. I suggest you read some physics books which deal with
>   > > Einsteins formulas.
>   > >
>   > > On 6/20/2012 8:05 AM, wayne wrote:
>   > > >
>   > > > Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass
>   > > > is converted.
>   > > >
>   > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote:
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter
>   > > > produces energy.
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a
>   > > > chemical reaction and fission.
>   > > > > either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
>   > > > > goodbye.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
>   > > > >
>   > > > > There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or
>   > > > ferments or putrefies ect ect, releasing energy.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > again you miss the point
>   > > > > Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
>   > > > > In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post.
>   > > > That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably
>   > > > that information .
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending
>   > > > on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times
>   > > > as abundant as silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km
>   > > > (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2Ã---1017 lb) of
>   > > > uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2Ã---1013 lb).[8] The
>   > > > concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per
>   > > > million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of
>   > > > phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts
>   > > > per billion.[13]
>   > > > >
>   > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Kirk
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Wow! So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the
>   > > > energy release over Hiroshima!
>   > > > > Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Steve Kalec
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > 
>   > > > > Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
>   > > > > ----- Original Message -----
>   > > > > From: Kirk McLoren
>   > > > > To: wayne
>   > > > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
>   > > > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is
>   > > > energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.
>   > > > > For the most part matter is quite immutable.
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------
>   > > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
>   > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
>   > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > > > The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor
>   > > > destroyed.
>   > > > > The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins
>   > > > famous equation E=mc2.
>   > > > > The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
>   > > > >
>   > > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
>   > > > > > Kirk
>   > > > > > Ã,
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > ________________________________
>   > > > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
>   > > > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
>   > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
>   > > > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > Ã,
>   > > > > > It's called "the conservation of energy."
>   > > > > >
>   > > > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
>   > > > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, "dude_abides_99"
>   > > > <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with
>   > > > consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at
>   > > > best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
>   > > > > > >
>   > > > > >
>   > > > >
>   > > >
>   > > >
>   > >
>   >
>
>
>
>
>   ------------------------------------
>
>   To drop of the list, send email to:
>   free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links
>




------------------------------------

To drop of the list, send email to:
free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    free_energy-digest@yahoogroups.com
    free_energy-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    free_energy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

 

More bullshit peddled as though there was genuine thought behind it.

You missed the next post

 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

First, you must make sure that your students do not confuse "chemical reactions" with "nuclear reactions". It is only in nuclear reactions that there is a mass discrepancy and where a measurable mass is converted to energy and vice-versa. You need to clarify that bonds are not objects, they do not have mass, and that exothermic/endothermic chemical reactions are the result of the difference in the bond energies of bonds broken and bonds formed, not mass conversion. 

Secondly, it is useful to do the calculations in class. If you want consensus, ask your students to define a lower limit of what they would consider a measurable mass loss (a milligram? a thousandth of a milligram?) within a normal lab setting. And then do the calculation on how much energy that would provide if in fact that energy was completely converted to energy. Then show what that energy loss would mean in terms of powering a light bulb (or a city!). 

Greg (Roberto Gregorius) 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

just because an exothermic reaction is accompanied with some infrared photons it is not fission or fusion.

What is this struggle with reality you indulge in? Where is the benefit? Do you get a chubby pretending a candle is sentient?

Sure, I know, it breathes, it eats, yada yada. The whichness of the why. The wonderfulness of contemplation.

The mass you are belaboring over is so small it is deduced as it cant be measured. And it is plain vanilla photon emission. Whoop de do.

Read some real physics books and not essays by the Swami. Try Feynman, he is a good read.

Kirk

---

From: Marshall <mdudley@...>
To: free_energygroup <free_energy@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)

 

You might want to inform the government scientists of that who work for the department of energy and Argonne Lab they are wrong.  The example they give is not burning wood, but burning methane, but the equations and principles is the same.  They say it does although the amount of change is very small, as is predicted by E=MC^2.

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03641.htm

The short answer by Craig:

*** In an exothermic chemical reaction is mass converted to energy according to E=MC^2

Yes.

A longer answer by Vince

The reaction CH4 + O2---> CO2+2H2O has a heat of reaction -890 kJ. This is equivalent to a loss in mass of ~ 10^-11 kg. So it is not "significantly measurable. The factor of c^2 in Einstein's equation E=mc^2 is a large lever -- a very small loss in mass results in a very large liberation of energy. Only in nuclear reactions and/or matter -- anti-matter is the mass change large enough to be conveniently measured. And this conservation of mass-energy has been confirmed millions of times (provided of course all factors such as the generation of neutrinos) are taken into account. In the case of endothermic reactions the addition of energy in the form of radiation is an addition of a minuscule amount of the equivalent amount of mass. There are two other "complications" that need to be recognized. First, it is assumed that the reaction vessel is not moving at speeds approaching the speed of light, for then relativistic corrections to the mass would have to be taken into account. Second, it is assumed that the time and energy scale of the observations, delta time and delta energy, is not of the order of Plank's constant: h=6.6x10^-34 J*sec. That is the lower limit of precision that time and energy can be measured as a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: dt*dE ~ h. At smaller scales the conservation laws do not apply. You might add another question (hypothetical). If mass and/or energy is lost/gained in a chemical reaction, which particles lose/gain the energy? I do not know the answer to that question. Only in nuclear and high energy "reactions" are the changes large enough to be accessible experimentally. The citations below give you some details (probably more than you want).

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03534.htm

http://www2.yk.psu.edu/~jhb3/cotw06.htm

Treptow, Richard S. J. Chem. Educ. 2005 82 1636

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Vince Calder

On 6/20/2012 12:51 PM, wayne wrote:

 

Mass is not lost and this has been shown experimentally over and over. E=mc2 does not apply to chemical reactions. Burning wood is a chemical reaction.

--- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com, Marshall <mdudley@...> wrote:
>
> You are wrong again! Mass is lost. The sum of the end products of the
> combustion will be slightly less than the original products by the
> formula E=MC^2. It matters not if the binding energy is atomic or
> chemical, it will express as an additional mass. Just with chemical the
> change is so slight it is very difficult to measure, but is there none
> the less. I suggest you read some physics books which deal with
> Einsteins formulas.
>
> On 6/20/2012 8:05 AM, wayne wrote:
> >
> > Burning wood is not mass energy conversion. No mass is lost. No mass
> > is converted.
> >
> > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Steve Kalec <skalec@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Fission or reaction it doesn't matter. The truth is all matter
> > produces energy.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > To: Steve Kalec
> > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:32 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > evidently you are incapable of perceiving the difference between a
> > chemical reaction and fission.
> > > either you are an idiot or a troll and either one is a waste of time
> > > goodbye.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:25 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > Well then is log immutable when I set it on fire ?
> > >
> > > There is no such thing as immutable matter it all decays, rots, or
> > ferments or putrefies ect ect, releasing energy.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > To: Steve Kalec
> > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:20 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > > again you miss the point
> > > Most matter is immutable. Uranium is not most matter.
> > > In fact I referenced the A bomb as the exception.in a previous post.
> > That noise you took to be a jet whooshing over your head was probably
> > that information .
> > >
> > >
> > > Uranium's average concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending
> > on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[8][13] or about 40 times
> > as abundant as silver.[10] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km
> > (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 1017 kg (2Ã---1017 lb) of
> > uranium while the oceans may contain 1013 kg (2Ã---1013 lb).[8] The
> > concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per
> > million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of
> > phosphate fertilizers), and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts
> > per billion.[13]
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium
> > >
> > >
> > > Just so you are sure uranium isn't most matter.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: Steve Kalec <skalec@>
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 1:04 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > >For the most part matter is quite immutable.
> > >
> > > Wow! So the matter mass of the immutable uranium did not cause the
> > energy release over Hiroshima!
> > > Wow! I am learning facinating stuff here.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Steve Kalec
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 3:53 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > > Holy Mackerel , we are rewriting physics on this forum.
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Kirk McLoren
> > > To: wayne
> > > Cc: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 2:21 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > > Wayne I don't think a lot of people would agree that matter is
> > energy, in fact we make a distinction between the two.
> > > For the most part matter is quite immutable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
> > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 9:55 AM
> > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The conservation of energy states that energy is neither created nor
> > destroyed.
> > > The atomic bomb is the conversion of mass to energy via Einsteins
> > famous equation E=mc2.
> > > The is not a creation of energy the is the conversion of energy.
> > >
> > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, Kirk McLoren <kirkmcloren@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > how does the atomic bomb fit into this?
> > > > Kirk
> > > > Ã,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________
> > > > From: wayne <waynegage@>
> > > > To: free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:40 AM
> > > > Subject: [free_energy] Re: Energy (cont'd)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ã,
> > > > It's called "the conservation of energy."
> > > >
> > > > --- In free_energy@yahoogroups.com
> > <mailto:free_energy%40yahoogroups.com>, "dude_abides_99"
> > <dude_abides_99@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > If energy cannot be created or destroyed, is it a constant? How so?
> > > > >
> > > > > (Sidebar: And certainly, this has nothing to do with
> > consciousness, which is only epiphenomenally connected to energy, at
> > best. Do we live, or do we die? Who knows? You can't change it.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>