Absurd perpetual motion machines are impossible!
There's no such thing as free energy!
Guess what? ENERGY CAN BE CREATED OUT OF NOTHING!
Deal with it, and get over it.
Thermodynamics doesn't violate the Big Bang though, because thermodynamics only applies to energy in a box, in a closed system. It doesn't disprove or disallow the creation of energy in an open system.
In related news, MIT has invented an electret that is shaped like a battery. They are calling it a battery that never ever runs out.
Bottom line: Resonance is the concept that takes a tiny spark and amplifies it to extraordinary amount of over-unity energy, showing energy creation rather than energy exchange. Tesla technology uses principles of resonance. The ONLY real example I can cite is this principle of resonance which creates a lot MORE energy than what goes into it. Note: I wrote "creates." I could say generates, instead of creates. I hope semantics aren't the only issue to discern the reality.
Jamie Buturff out of Sedona has demonstrated that a vortex coil can amplify the watts from an input, outputting much higher amps and volts by attuning the frequency of electricity to the Pythagorean perfect note scale of a major chord which allows for us to measure a concept of resonance-creation of energy.
ALSO, the QEG uses those same principles. I've been working indirectly with some people who have gotten results from it, whereas other prominent news groups are quick to call it a fraud. I would not use the word "fraud" merely because people are honestly wanting to invent the thing, and they believe that we can be using free energy. I would say "work in progress," but never call such a worthy thing down just to convince others that we can't fly to other stars.
We need a couple of things in order to fly to other stars. The principles of energy creation (beyond mere "over-unity"), and the principles of the universe being an open system are requirements to understand such physics.
For those who believe in the Big Bang theory, that shows energy was created, the energy of our universe. Nassam Haramein also discusses that as the universe grows and expands, black holes form to balance the equilibrium of gravity; and from around black holes, galaxies are created. It's really not such a difficult concept.
The very scientific concept of the Big Bang shows that the universe came into existence from not having to have previously existed. The universe of energy, the energy of our universe, the shape and form and substance of matter suddenly came into being. IF science accepts a Big Bang notion THEN science must conclude that the universe is not a closed system, otherwise where did it come from? But, metaphysics says that the universe must have come from within Existence, itself, not coming into existence from an outside force beyond Existence. Inner Creation; Creation Within. ... According to metaphysics, it is not a force acting outside itself that CAUSES its own Existence. Likewise, quantum noncausality shows that there is no cause and effect, that the causal planes of existence are different vibrations and frequencies of similar action. One side of the coin didn't cause the other side, to put it too ultra-simplistically.
Regarding the planetary motions and orbits: That is a form of perpetual motion, the oldest and most obvious. The harmonics of the spheres shows that planets orbit at certain harmonic distances from the sun, sticking to only those rings of sympathetic harmonics and resonance. The Earth has been here for billions of years, BUT the orbit MAY have shifted once or twice. Regardless though, planets occupy resonance frequencies of electrical and gravitational inertial harmonics. Their orbits don't decay thusly.
Bottom line: We can't travel to other star systems if the universe is a closed system, and if energy cannot be created.
The endless bickering of "right and wrong" is pointless to any advancement of true scientific development and discovery.
So many people are so concerned about proving this or that as a "fraud" or "hoax" to really get anywhere in any real research into NEW things.
And if I have to actually explain that to someone, that a real pursuit of development, advancement, and discovery requires an open mind, then it becomes just as pointless and useless as an argument over who is right and who is wrong.
If you build something that doesn't work the first time, but works on the 50th time, then are you proven right after all, or were you never proven wrong the first time? It's not about the ego, it's about the technology which either works to do what we want it to do, or works in different and unexpected ways -- both of which advance our development and discovery of the universe regardless.