Questions to sceptics

Well, there might be a lot of questions regarding a so called "free energy". My latest opinion on the subject is there is actually no free energy in terms of energy coming out of nothing. Rather I say there are options, possibilities, principles to access enormous stored energy with a new, not yet discovered principle.

For example, nuclear energy, released with a bomb, has probably one of the highest ration of energy stored on per volume unit. We do not employ ANY energy storing or energy production device, which would come even close to that ratio in normal usage scenarios. Most of the time we use more "light" principles, relatively safe chemical principles to store energy, and mechanical energy conversions to retrieve energy. We do not power our vehicle with a nuclear reactor (...except if we go to the Mars).

This means that if we cut off ONLY ONE discovery in our history, the nuclear reaction principle, we'd still have 95% of all energy sources we use daily!
Now, isn't it possible that there is AT LEAST ONE more principle of extracting enormous energy out of the atom, except of nuclear reaction? Can we be sure that nuclear reaction is the final, last discovery of most per volume effective energy extraction?
I think not!

Sceptics

Most SCIENTISTS commented on my energy transition theories with known facts, like these, which I will question one by one:

KNOWN FACT 1
Magnetism is a static force, does not have the distance variable, so if we know ENERGY is force needed, multiplied by distance travelled, means, that magnetism itself does not have any energy.

Yes, that's true. BUT if we dig deeper, we define magnetism as a structured orientation of electrons lining up in the same direction within the whole structure of a material. Normally, electrons are not oriented structurally, or better, they are "paired" and nullified in regards to magnetic force, so the whole material does not exhibit magnetism as a whole. When we disrupt this "pairing" with strong magnetic influence from outside, some of materials are showing the ability, to both, leave structure of atoms in the material stable, while orientating the majority of electrons in the same direction, thus posing as permanent magnets.
Ok, now let's get deeper, into nucleus and electrons orbiting them. My counter-fact is the quantum mechanics definition of electrons, orbiting the nucleus core of atoms, were quantum mechanics simply quit explaining the force, which propels electrons to orbit around atom core all the time, and rather defined the rotation as a PROPERTY.
This means, that today's quantum mechanics does NOT have an explanation of the force, which keeps up electrons "alive", rotating around atom core all the time. Also Quantum mechanics does not have an explanation of SOURCE of eV voltage in electrons - it cannot be in domain of gravity, because it is present regardless of gravity force.
So sceptics, explain me where is all this energy coming from? My theory about layers of energies in different dimensions would explain this phenomena.

KNOWN FACT 2
Magnetism like a gravity cannot be used as a SOURCE of energy, but can only help extracting other energies, like potential or kinetic energy into electricity, for example.

True, but again - not the whole truth.
Fro example, hydroelectric power plant is converting the potential energy of the water into electricity. Water in a higher level is influenced by gravity, faling down to lower level, rotating turbines on the way down and thus generating electricity. No water = no energy. But also no gravity = no energy. And to not forget, no potential difference in water levels = no energy.
So here we find water being just a MEDIUM to enable work to be done, so in thory we could use sand and also dense air instead of water, or stones falling down could also rotate turbine, right? Also metallic balls would do the same job in space, if instead of gravity we'd have magnetic floor, right? So we narrow it down to potential difference.
Since gravity is vertical in our Earth, potential difference in our case means difference in height of media. but what if we'd have gravity force in circle, not vertical? Ok, let's give up on gravity, because we are still in quest of gravity particle (Boson-particle, strings maybe?) and let's use magnetic force instead - we know magnetic force particle, right?
What if we'd organise magnetic material structure in a circular way? Would it null-out, or would it close in the infinite loop? Why must the force always be straight? Which PARTICLE defines that property?