1

Possible Duplicate:
Can you create energy out of nowhere?

Tom Bearden postulates that the vacuum is highly energy dense, and that it is that energy coming from the vacuum that actually is the source of all energy. It can also produce free energy given enough resources to finish some quriks with the prototypes that have been built since the 1930s. Additionally, he says that the field of Electrical Engineering has been purposefully crippled and has a patent on a prototype which generates this free energy from the vacuum.

This all comes from a single source and thus is not very worrying, except that the belic counterpart of all these theories has surfaced as what's known as "Longitudinal Waves Interferometers" that are being used in super secret "Scalar Wars", those weapons are purportedly capable of doing all sorts of damage, from mind control to triggering earthquakes remotely; the latest quake in Chile has been "predicted" by a fellow who, based on Bearden's ideas, says that it's been caused by secret weapons by the US government applying these principles.

Anyway, I want to know about the core of the idea that vacuum is energy filled and that that energy can be tapped into somehow. To what degree (if any) does the idea contradict current regular scientific knowledge? Is it even plausible?

marked as duplicate by Sklivvz Mar 25 '12 at 8:57

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • Whether "vacuum energy" is real is one question, whether it can be tapped into is another, and whether there are specific devices another. I think what you'll find, as with much of physics, is that while a term-of-art may be real ("vacuum energy", "virtual particles") and simple-sounding, the reality of is very complex. And the Laws of Thermodynamics are unlikely to be threatened. – Larry OBrien Mar 25 '12 at 2:53
  • I know that. My problem with this by far the soundest looking pseudoscientific site I've seen and my physics aren't good enough to follow the references and claims without extreme amounts of effort. So I'm hoping for somebody who knows more to easily refute this. – Vinko Vrsalovic Mar 25 '12 at 9:16
  • I've found this that addresses in part the issue: nuscam.com/pdf/case_study.pdf – Vinko Vrsalovic Mar 25 '12 at 9:21
  • @Sklivvz: The vacuum is not exactly nowhere, but okay. I wanted more specific counterclaims to Bearden's "work" than the first law, just because specific counterclaims look more valid to laymen. – Vinko Vrsalovic Mar 25 '12 at 9:38
  • @VinkoVrsalovic the factual answer is still the same, though. If you are interested in speculative/theoretical physics, you can ask the same question at Physics. – Sklivvz Mar 25 '12 at 9:44

Browse other questions tagged .