What follows is a thick entanglement of multiple questions all of them hinging on the so-called scientific laws (lies) we allow ourselves to abuse each other with in the name of whatever (expediency; 'cuz we can get away with it; etc)?



How can the Conservation laws, and the thermodynamic laws of entropy, of physics and of engineering, be true for assessing systems of energy as if these systems were isolated when no system of energy has ever been found to be entirely isolated from its surroundings?

This fact is honestly confessed by the editors of the English language Wikipedian article entitled: "Isolated system" on behalf of all physicists and engineers far and near, of yesterday and today.

How can it be assumed that the Universe may be isolated? Since when is "may be isolated" sufficient evidence to premise the stability of a law and hold everyone accountable to that so-called law by imposing a risk of ridicule, slander and expatriation (or, excommunication) should anyone question it?

How can a system of energy be isolated if it is assumed to lose energy to its surroundings? Is this a contradiction? Please explain.

How can a definition be formulated of what constitutes a "perpetual motion machine" which takes nothing from its environment to power itself and, yet, be allowed to lose energy to its surroundings in the performance of its "work"? Is this a contradiction? Please explain.

How can physicists presume isolation of energy systems among themselves (for the purposes of analyzing systems of energy) and then claim that this presumption is an inviolate law which demands that all systems of energy be converted into isolated systems by disallowing their inventors from wanting these inventions to recycle or steal energy to make up for whatever input of energy these systems may lack?

When does the Patent Office of any country have the right to twist and contort logic into a fallacy? Is this an inherent property of governments to exercise eminent domain over its citizenry? Does this override the sovereignty of the individual? Or, the decency of the individual to avoid abuse?

How can an individual avoid abuse if, through peer pressure, the individual can't help but swim in a sea of abuse from birth until death?

How can there be any conspiracy to suppress free energy if the self-contradictions of physics and of engineering are blatantly exposed for everyone to see if we knew where to look to see this confession?

Yet, I suspect that we don't see what we don't want to recognize. We may look at something and just as quickly turn aside and deny what we've seen.