I asked Grok this question: Will free energy tech obsolete accounting for Our energy added into a system? I received this reply:
Yes, genuinely functional "free energy" technology (in the sense of abundant, essentially zero-marginal-cost energy from the environment—like overunity devices, zero-point energy extraction, or any source that outputs far more usable energy than you have to put in) would fundamentally obsolete the current energy-accounting paradigm we use in thermodynamics, engineering, and economics. Here’s why and how it breaks the old rules:
1. Thermodynamics as we know it collapses at the practical level
The first and second laws aren’t technically violated if the device is legitimately pulling energy from an external reservoir we previously couldn’t access (e.g., zero-point field, atmospheric charge gradients, etc.), but for all practical purposes the old bookkeeping becomes meaningless:
◦ You no longer have to “pay” in fuel, heat waste, or entropy increase proportional to the work extracted.
◦ Efficiency can legitimately exceed 100 % in the old accounting (output > measured input), because the real input is coming from outside your closed-system diagram.
◦ Concepts like “energy return on energy invested” (EROEI) lose meaning when the energy invested approaches zero while output stays high.
2. Economic obsolescence of energy scarcity
All current pricing, metering, billing, and geopolitical power tied to energy extraction/distribution collapses. Electricity, transport fuels, heating, industrial process heat—everything trends toward a marginal cost of ~0. Accounting for “energy added into a system” stops being a limiting variable in production functions.
3. Engineering design changes completely
◦ Heat engines, power factors, grid balancing, storage losses—all the things we obsess over today become historical curiosities.
◦ Systems are designed around abundance, not conservation. You’d still have to manage waste heat from inefficiencies downstream, but the primary energy input is no longer the bottleneck.
4. The only remaining “cost” becomes capital, maintenance, and entropy elsewhere
Even with free energy, you’d still account for:
◦ Embodied energy in manufacturing the devices (until those factories also run on free energy).
◦ Materials scarcity (rare metals, etc.).
◦ Waste heat disposal (second-law effects don’t vanish; you just push them downstream).
But the core idea of having to carefully budget joules in vs. joules out at the primary conversion step? Gone.
In short: yes, real free-energy tech would make most of today’s energy-accounting frameworks as obsolete as food rationing becomes in a post-scarcity agricultural society. We’d still do thermodynamics, but it would feel more like “how do we get rid of all this excess heat?” rather than “where do we scrape together the next gigajoule?” (Of course, every claimed free-energy device so far has either been fraud, measurement error, or hidden conventional input. But if one ever actually works at scale, the above is what happens to the accounting.)
I had to laugh at the final parenthetical statement. Clearly it has been programmed to deny that such technologies have been developed, and if I did not know – as in know!!! – that We have technologies that draw on the energy in the aether, I might just shrug and move on. (See Electrogravitics – My Knowledge of Free Energy linked below.)
Another thing the ai misses is that when We draw on the aether, things cool down… It seems to think they will heat up.
And it seems to be unaware that with free energy and the tech They have to transmute elements, materials can be made easily.
Be that as it may, I would love to have You ask Your favorite ai the same question, “Will free energy tech obsolete accounting for Our energy added into a system?,” and report what You get. Because that’s likely the last time I will willingly engage ai. I loathe it for the pandering it is programmed with, the lies, the misdirection, and all that it blasts Us with.
Ask that question, and let Me know what Your ai says.
Electrogravitics – My Knowledge of Free Energy (article): @amaterasusolar/electrogravitics-my-knowledge-of-free-energy
Why Money is Not in Your Best Interest (article): @amaterasusolar/why-money-is-not-in-your-best-interest
What It Will Take to Get to Better (article): @amaterasusolar/what-it-will-take-to-get-to-better
Abolition of Money (article): @amaterasusolar/abolition-of-money
A Symbiosis of Humanity and Our Planet (article): @amaterasusolar/a-symbiosis-of-humanity-and-our-planet
The Waste Saved Without the Need for Money (article): @amaterasusolar/the-waste-saved-without-the-need-for-money
Is Gold the Next Fiat? (article): @amaterasusolar/is-gold-the-next-fiat
Signature:
Endia – A Short Story by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/260/endia
Quite the Opposite – A Short Story for Change – by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/72/quite-opposite-short-story-change
The Abundance Paradigm – A Novella by Amaterasu Solar
http://tapyoureit.boards.net/thread/242/abundance-paradigm-novella
My father taught Me never to believe anything. He told Me to place probabilities and adjust them as new data come along, asking the question, "Does that explain what I see?," when evaluating data. He was an aerospace engineer, and worked with T Townsend Brown (see My featured vid on Odysee or YouToilet). From a very early age I was concerned that the way I was told things worked, in terms of government and social affairs, did not explain what I saw. So the first few decades I worked to determine WHY this was.
I wound up in banking, seeing the flow of things in the headquarters of a major bank in Los Angeles. I became intimately familiar with the flow of money, and economics. I asked the question, "Why do We use money?"
When the web arrived, My research capabilities flourished, and I learned much that explained what I saw, but the only explanations I found for why We use money started with trade and barter, which are still money in a direct form, and did not answer the WHY. Then, I came upon the explanation that these were used because, with a finite amount of stuff, it was to ensure that We got Our "fair share" in a scarcity environment, in exchange for the work We added.
From this I realized the WHY. We were accounting for Our energy input into things. And that We needed to do this because the Human energy was scarce compared to what We needed to be produced (back then).
I also discovered that over half Our planet's wealth was "owned" by fewer than 100 Humans...
I was very interested in psychology, too. And studied it deeply, being fascinated by psychopathy, focusing on that aberration, learning that They had discovered a gene that manifested Individuals who were incapable of love, compassion, caring, and empathy for Others – primary psychopaths. Seeing that the wealth was so disproportionate, and that the families who "owned" it inbred, what would explain what I saw would be that They wanted to retain that psychopathic gene. Given that the wealth could feed, clothe, house ALL of Us (and give Us freedom) abundantly and many times over, and yet None set forth to care for Humanity, I had to give probability approaching 100% that They are psychopaths, as that explains perfectly what I see, and answers My quest for why the way I was told things worked did not explain what I saw.
And I asked... If I was a psychopath, with enough wealth to buy anything and anyOne I wanted to, and given that money = power (power over Others is something psychopaths seek), would I be motivated to create a false "reality" for the masses and thereby manipulate Them? I think You can figure out what answer I came up with. And would that explain what I see? Absolutely.
Now, given that money is merely the accounting token used to account for Our Human energy, it would follow that free energy would threaten fully the accounting for Our energy. If I was a psychopath, with enough money to buy sites like Wikipedia, the media, the education system, etc., would I do all I could to suppress and hide free energy?
And given I personally know that electrogravitics offers both gravity control and energy from the aether (the electromagnetic field that pervades the universe), and that it went into black projects, such efforts to hide and suppress would explain what I see completely.
So I am neither a "conspiracy theorist," nor am I a "conspiritard," but rather... I am a conspiracy analyst. And given this analysis, knowing that conspiracies are the NORM in history and that they didn't just stop some years back, I conclude that conspiracies abound. That explains perfectly what I see.
Love always.
