Do you believe aliens exist?

[Dave]

View attachment 1860510

Is that quote from wingnut or jetfighter?

 

[Lupus]

Is that quote from wingnut or jetfighter?

Nah think it was Zero Cool ;-P

 

[Mariner]

Oh those things that violate the laws of physics that we see on YouTube frequently


Gotcha

Yep, like the dead car batteries that are revived using Coca-Cola.

No.

Describe a free energy generator?

I'm not saying its an actual sun. Just that there was something temporarily in the sky once a upon a time described as a second sun.

If there was something big enough to be seen there temporarily, whoever saw it would never have survived the immense gravitational forces resulting in radiation chaos as well as affecting the weather and tectonic activity.

Why can we see the gravity affect of Planet X?
View attachment 1860444

Please supply the sources that the AI references. So don't edit them out.

I guess we will just have to wait for it to get closer so we can see it with our telescopes.

When will it be close enough to see? The Hubble and James Webb telescopes already see very distant galaxies and the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. Why is this huge Planet X close to Earth so elusive?

One of the moons of Nibiru collided with a planet there where the asteroid belt is now.

How do you know this happened?

These inventions were created in peoples garages. No funds needed. All inventors are dead now and tech confiscated.

Who invented these zero energy generators, and how do you know about them?

 

[wingnut771]

Yep, like the dead car batteries that are revived using Coca-Cola.



Describe a free energy generator?



If there was something big enough to be seen there temporarily, whoever saw it would never have survived the immense gravitational forces resulting in radiation chaos as well as affecting the weather and tectonic activity.



Please supply the sources that the AI references. So don't edit them out.



When will it be close enough to see? The Hubble and James Webb telescopes already see very distant galaxies and the black hole at the centre of our galaxy. Why is this huge Planet X close to Earth so elusive?



How do you know this happened?



Who invented these zero energy generators, and how do you know about them?

I said almost free.

Its like you dont read my posts.

I've posted the doccie numerous times.

Here's it again so you dont miss it:

 

[wizardofid]

@wingnut771
Look, I’m going to be honest—your notions are a bit out there lol. I wouldn’t say you’re gullible, just impressionable enough to ask questions, which is actually great. Your approach is unorthodox, and not all of it has a solid scientific basis—but exploring possibilities is fine, as long as you keep your feet on the ground too.


Honestly, it’s refreshing that this hasn’t turned into name-calling or flaring tempers. The focus should be on what we do know and can investigate, because chasing what we can’t know will just waste a lifetime.


Science is both abstract and logical. Focusing too much on one side can lead to bias and be counterproductive. In other words, don’t just dwell on “what ifs”—a healthy dose of “what is” has never hurt anyone.


Take aliens, for example. The idea of them is abstract because we don’t know for sure, but we can make relative assumptions based on logic, experience, and observation. That doesn’t make those assumptions automatically correct—variances are practically infinite.


Even in physics, our understanding has limits. For instance, nothing can travel faster than light—at least locally. But due to the expansion of the universe, galaxies can appear to recede faster than light at a distance. Locally, things follow normal rules, but at a distance, relativistic effects kick in. That’s just the weirdness of relativity for you.

Take everything with a healthy dose of salt and question everything within reason, an ancient text or drawing should be taken at face value, ones interpretation more often leads to bias. It should be used as a basis of study rather than conclusive proof. Bias can and will lead you down the rabbit hole of insanity.

But yeah go ahead, as you were.

 

[wizardofid]

I said almost free.

Its like you dont read my posts.

I've posted the doccie numerous times.

Here's it again so you dont miss it:
View attachment 1860522

Haha, yeah, the whole “create something from nothing” idea is basically a hard nope according to physics. Think of it like this: energy isn’t some magic cookie you can just bake out of thin air. The first law of thermodynamics basically says, “Energy can’t be created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another.” So if you’re hoping to whip up a universe in your garage, bad news.


Then there’s the second law, which is basically the universe’s way of being extra annoying: entropy always goes up. You can’t make a perfectly ordered system for free—anytime you try, you end up paying somewhere else.


Even quantum physics, where particles randomly pop in and out of existence, isn’t breaking the rules. Those virtual particles still obey energy conservation in a sneaky way over tiny timescales. So yeah… the universe is stingy. Free energy? Not happening.


And just to crush the “almost free energy” myths while we’re at it—there’s no such thing. Energy is either conserved or it isn’t. You can’t get something for nothing, and you can’t get almost something for nothing either. It’s binary: one or the other. Anything claiming otherwise is either a misunderstanding or a scam.

 

[wingnut771]

@wingnut771
Look, I’m going to be honest—your notions are a bit out there lol. I wouldn’t say you’re gullible, just impressionable enough to ask questions, which is actually great. Your approach is unorthodox, and not all of it has a solid scientific basis—but exploring possibilities is fine, as long as you keep your feet on the ground too.


Honestly, it’s refreshing that this hasn’t turned into name-calling or flaring tempers. The focus should be on what we do know and can investigate, because chasing what we can’t know will just waste a lifetime.


Science is both abstract and logical. Focusing too much on one side can lead to bias and be counterproductive. In other words, don’t just dwell on “what ifs”—a healthy dose of “what is” has never hurt anyone.


Take aliens, for example. The idea of them is abstract because we don’t know for sure, but we can make relative assumptions based on logic, experience, and observation. That doesn’t make those assumptions automatically correct—variances are practically infinite.


Even in physics, our understanding has limits. For instance, nothing can travel faster than light—at least locally. But due to the expansion of the universe, galaxies can appear to recede faster than light at a distance. Locally, things follow normal rules, but at a distance, relativistic effects kick in. That’s just the weirdness of relativity for you.

Take everything with a healthy dose of salt and question everything within reason, an ancient text or drawing should be taken at face value, ones interpretation more often leads to bias. It should be used as a basis of study rather than conclusive proof. Bias can and will lead you down the rabbit hole of insanity.

But yeah go ahead, as you were.

but you refuse to even take the time to watch the things with an open mind i've posted labelling them conspiracies and washing your hands on the subject? Just because all the evidence it now gone (in a vault somewhere with Tesla's notes) doesn't change the fact that when someone makes a breakthrough, it gets squashed by the government, like all the inventions in the doccie, and the inventors die from some accident or "natural" causes.

Talking about physics, what is that thing called in quatum physics where 2 particles are linked and react together no matter the distance, so one particle can be in another galaxy and react at the same time to the one in this galaxy. Also, whats up with photons only reacting when being observed?

 

[wingnut771]

Haha, yeah, the whole “create something from nothing” idea is basically a hard nope according to physics. Think of it like this: energy isn’t some magic cookie you can just bake out of thin air. The first law of thermodynamics basically says, “Energy can’t be created or destroyed, just changed from one form to another.” So if you’re hoping to whip up a universe in your garage, bad news.


Then there’s the second law, which is basically the universe’s way of being extra annoying: entropy always goes up. You can’t make a perfectly ordered system for free—anytime you try, you end up paying somewhere else.


Even quantum physics, where particles randomly pop in and out of existence, isn’t breaking the rules. Those virtual particles still obey energy conservation in a sneaky way over tiny timescales. So yeah… the universe is stingy. Free energy? Not happening.


And just to crush the “almost free energy” myths while we’re at it—there’s no such thing. Energy is either conserved or it isn’t. You can’t get something for nothing, and you can’t get almost something for nothing either. It’s binary: one or the other. Anything claiming otherwise is either a misunderstanding or a scam.

Again, I said almost free, as in so damn cheap that it might aswell be like one of the devices only needs 5W to run but outputs kW. Or that car that ran on water that was analysed by a bunch of experts and they couldn't explain it, that guy is also dead now.

 

[wizardofid]

Again, I said almost free, as in so damn cheap that it might aswell be like one of the devices only needs 5W to run but outputs kW. Or that car that ran on water that was analysed by a bunch of experts and they couldn't explain it, that guy is also dead now.

Yeah, that “almost free” part is where things start to fall apart. There’s no “almost” when it comes to energy balance — it’s either you get out more than you put in (which breaks thermodynamics), or you don’t (which is what happens every single time).


Take the 2022 nuclear fusion experiment for example — the one where they made a huge deal about “energy breakeven.” Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the catch: they technically got more energy out of the fuel than what was put directly into the laser chamber. Cool milestone, but the entire system — the lasers, the capacitors, the cooling, the control systems — still consumed way more energy overall than what came out. So it’s still a net loss when you look at the whole picture.


That’s how it always goes with these “almost free” or “mystery” devices. Once you count everything — input power, conversion losses, inefficiencies — it never adds up. The math and physics are pretty unforgiving that way.


And yeah, that “car that ran on water” story’s been around forever. Every time someone digs into it, it either turns out to be mismeasured, misunderstood, or outright fake. Water’s already a “spent” form of hydrogen and oxygen — it’s the result of combustion, not the fuel. Splitting it back into usable hydrogen takes more energy than you’ll ever get back by burning it again.


So no matter how “cheap” or “almost free” it sounds, the laws of thermodynamics still hand out the bill at the end

 

[wingnut771]

Yeah, that “almost free” part is where things start to fall apart. There’s no “almost” when it comes to energy balance — it’s either you get out more than you put in (which breaks thermodynamics), or you don’t (which is what happens every single time).


Take the 2022 nuclear fusion experiment for example — the one where they made a huge deal about “energy breakeven.” Sounds amazing, right? But here’s the catch: they technically got more energy out of the fuel than what was put directly into the laser chamber. Cool milestone, but the entire system — the lasers, the capacitors, the cooling, the control systems — still consumed way more energy overall than what came out. So it’s still a net loss when you look at the whole picture.


That’s how it always goes with these “almost free” or “mystery” devices. Once you count everything — input power, conversion losses, inefficiencies — it never adds up. The math and physics are pretty unforgiving that way.


And yeah, that “car that ran on water” story’s been around forever. Every time someone digs into it, it either turns out to be mismeasured, misunderstood, or outright fake. Water’s already a “spent” form of hydrogen and oxygen — it’s the result of combustion, not the fuel. Splitting it back into usable hydrogen takes more energy than you’ll ever get back by burning it again.


So no matter how “cheap” or “almost free” it sounds, the laws of thermodynamics still hand out the bill at the end

What about zero point energy?

 

[Lupus]

I said almost free.

Its like you dont read my posts.

I've posted the doccie numerous times.

Here's it again so you dont miss it:
View attachment 1860522

Well at least it's not the Chariot of the Gods .

 

[Lupus]

What about zero point energy?

Right now, science fiction.

 

[wingnut771]

Right now, science fiction.

but maybe einstein was wrong, how do ufos defy the laws of physics and make 90 degree turns?

Again, devices were confiscated by the government because the science threatens national security after seeking a patent.

 

[wizardofid]

but you refuse to even take the time to watch the things with an open mind i've posted labelling them conspiracies and washing your hands on the subject? Just because all the evidence it now gone (in a vault somewhere with Tesla's notes) doesn't change the fact that when someone makes a breakthrough, it gets squashed by the government, like all the inventions in the doccie, and the inventors die from some accident or "natural" causes.

Talking about physics, what is that thing called in quatum physics where 2 particles are linked and react together no matter the distance, so one particle can be in another galaxy and react at the same time to the one in this galaxy. Also, whats up with photons only reacting when being observed?

I get where you’re coming from, and yeah, “The Lost Century” is an interesting watch. But the issue isn’t about refusing to look at things — it’s about separating what sounds convincing from what’s actually backed by repeatable, verifiable results. That’s the key difference between science and pseudoscience.


Science isn’t scared of weird or revolutionary ideas — it just demands proof that can be reproduced. If something truly worked (like a free-energy device or anti-gravity tech), you wouldn’t be able to hide it forever. Thousands of independent labs, universities, and engineers all over the world would be racing to replicate it — and they’d succeed if it were real. That never happens. What does happen is claims without hard data, or experiments that only work under “special conditions” no one else can verify.


That’s why spending too much time chasing conspiracy-based “suppressed tech” is kind of a dead end. It’s better to focus on actual experiments that push the boundaries of what’s provable, like the 2022 fusion breakeven test — yeah, it didn’t produce net power overall, but it did advance real understanding and tech that can be built on. That’s time and effort that actually moves science forward, not sideways.


Now, about your physics question — the “thing where two particles are linked” is called quantum entanglement. When two particles are entangled, measuring one affects the state of the other instantly, no matter the distance. It’s super weird, but it doesn’t allow faster-than-light communication or free energy — it just shows how deeply connected quantum systems can be.


And the “photons reacting when observed” bit is the observer effect, tied to the double-slit experiment. It’s not about human consciousness magically changing reality — it’s about how measurement itself (the interaction between the photon and the measuring device) collapses the wave function. Basically, the act of detecting forces the photon to “pick” a path.


So yeah — it’s always cool to stay curious and open-minded, but being open-minded doesn’t mean turning off the filter for evidence. Otherwise, you end up chasing ghosts while the real breakthroughs pass by unnoticed.

zero point energy

Good question — zero-point energy is one of those things that sounds like sci-fi magic, but it’s actually a real concept in quantum physics… just not in the “limitless free power” way it’s often portrayed.

Even in a perfect vacuum — no matter, no radiation, absolute zero temperature — quantum mechanics says there’s still a bit of jitter left in the energy fields. That’s zero-point energy: the lowest possible energy state something can have.

That energy is real, but it’s not accessible in any practical way. It’s like the energy inside an atom’s bonds — you can’t just stick a probe into the vacuum and “scoop” it out. Every time someone’s claimed to have found a way to extract free power from the vacuum, it’s turned out to be math errors, misread instruments, or plain old wishful thinking.

To put it in perspective, even though the vacuum technically contains huge amounts of zero-point energy, it’s locked in by the same quantum rules that make atoms stable in the first place. Trying to pull that energy out would be like trying to drain gravity or suck the color out of light — it’s baked into the fabric of the universe.

So yeah, zero-point energy is a fascinating theoretical thing, but it’s not the “infinite power source” YouTube inventors and conspiracy docs make it out to be. Time’s way better spent on stuff that actually produces measurable, scalable results — like fusion tech, advanced solar, or new battery chemistry — rather than chasing what’s effectively the quantum version of perpetual motion.

 

[Lupus]

but maybe einstein was wrong, how do ufos defy the laws of physics and make 90 degree turns?

Again, devices were confiscated by the government because the science threatens national security after seeking a patent.

Right now even that is more science fiction, we've not really proven ufos exist and no X-Files is not a documentary. Fox Mulder isn't real, though it would be awesome if he was.
In my younger days I might've gone into that government confiscated things and such for national security, but the older I get, the more I think the governments worldwide are probably the thickest people I've seen and cannot see them hiding anything. Maybe some military brass with brains is keeping even the governments in the dark who knows.

 

[Moosedrool]

Right now even that is more science fiction, we've not really proven ufos exist and no X-Files is not a documentary. Fox Mulder isn't real, though it would be awesome if he was.
In my younger days I might've gone into that government confiscated things and such for national security, but the older I get, the more I think the governments worldwide are probably the thickest people I've seen and cannot see them hiding anything. Maybe some military brass with brains is keeping even the governments in the dark who knows.

UFOs definitely exist for basically everyone.

If you don’t know what it is and it is flying it’s a ufo.

 

[wingnut771]

I get where you’re coming from, and yeah, “The Lost Century” is an interesting watch. But the issue isn’t about refusing to look at things — it’s about separating what sounds convincing from what’s actually backed by repeatable, verifiable results. That’s the key difference between science and pseudoscience.


Science isn’t scared of weird or revolutionary ideas — it just demands proof that can be reproduced. If something truly worked (like a free-energy device or anti-gravity tech), you wouldn’t be able to hide it forever. Thousands of independent labs, universities, and engineers all over the world would be racing to replicate it — and they’d succeed if it were real. That never happens. What does happen is claims without hard data, or experiments that only work under “special conditions” no one else can verify.


That’s why spending too much time chasing conspiracy-based “suppressed tech” is kind of a dead end. It’s better to focus on actual experiments that push the boundaries of what’s provable, like the 2022 fusion breakeven test — yeah, it didn’t produce net power overall, but it did advance real understanding and tech that can be built on. That’s time and effort that actually moves science forward, not sideways.


Now, about your physics question — the “thing where two particles are linked” is called quantum entanglement. When two particles are entangled, measuring one affects the state of the other instantly, no matter the distance. It’s super weird, but it doesn’t allow faster-than-light communication or free energy — it just shows how deeply connected quantum systems can be.


And the “photons reacting when observed” bit is the observer effect, tied to the double-slit experiment. It’s not about human consciousness magically changing reality — it’s about how measurement itself (the interaction between the photon and the measuring device) collapses the wave function. Basically, the act of detecting forces the photon to “pick” a path.


So yeah — it’s always cool to stay curious and open-minded, but being open-minded doesn’t mean turning off the filter for evidence. Otherwise, you end up chasing ghosts while the real breakthroughs pass by unnoticed.

zero point energy

Good question — zero-point energy is one of those things that sounds like sci-fi magic, but it’s actually a real concept in quantum physics… just not in the “limitless free power” way it’s often portrayed.

Even in a perfect vacuum — no matter, no radiation, absolute zero temperature — quantum mechanics says there’s still a bit of jitter left in the energy fields. That’s zero-point energy: the lowest possible energy state something can have.

That energy is real, but it’s not accessible in any practical way. It’s like the energy inside an atom’s bonds — you can’t just stick a probe into the vacuum and “scoop” it out. Every time someone’s claimed to have found a way to extract free power from the vacuum, it’s turned out to be math errors, misread instruments, or plain old wishful thinking.

To put it in perspective, even though the vacuum technically contains huge amounts of zero-point energy, it’s locked in by the same quantum rules that make atoms stable in the first place. Trying to pull that energy out would be like trying to drain gravity or suck the color out of light — it’s baked into the fabric of the universe.

So yeah, zero-point energy is a fascinating theoretical thing, but it’s not the “infinite power source” YouTube inventors and conspiracy docs make it out to be. Time’s way better spent on stuff that actually produces measurable, scalable results — like fusion tech, advanced solar, or new battery chemistry — rather than chasing what’s effectively the quantum version of perpetual motion.

Every time something is invented in the lost century, the inventor gets greedy and see's themselves getting rich so goes straight to the patent office. That's were the trouble starts with men in black arriving at your house and then die in a car accident the next week or something. Every single inventor. There were iirc at least 6 inventors that went nowhere because the guy died in strange circumstances afterwards and the tech stolen and locked away.

 

[wingnut771]

Right now even that is more science fiction, we've not really proven ufos exist and no X-Files is not a documentary. Fox Mulder isn't real, though it would be awesome if he was.
In my younger days I might've gone into that government confiscated things and such for national security, but the older I get, the more I think the governments worldwide are probably the thickest people I've seen and cannot see them hiding anything. Maybe some military brass with brains is keeping even the governments in the dark who knows.

What about that dome of the rock ufo that was filmed from many different angles?

 

[Lupus]

UFOs definitely exist for basically everyone.

If you don’t know what it is and it is flying it’s a ufo.

Foo Fighters back in WW2

 

[Lupus]

What about that dome of the rock ufo that was filmed from many different angles?

I guess it was an UFO, as it wasn't identified. But still in the early days of phone cameras so still looks like it's a light recorded on a potato.