Strategy Ruminations

[11:11]

a strong strategy,
is to tell society,
that the device is using an "alternative" power source.

such as gravity,
the earths magnetic field,
ambient energy that is everywhere in a galaxy,
or whatever power source that allows atoms to function.


they don't have to understand the device.
they just have to be told enough of an explantion,
that they tolerate the devices existance.
so they go back to peacefully grazing on grass.

instead of sinking into a glandular temper tantrum,
and verbally throwing their psychological defications.

[Omnibus]

No way. To talk about using "alternative" energy source, let alone pronouncing gravity and such as energy source is as wrong a strategy as there can be. Remember, gravity is not an energy source and also remember, the claim that your device is tapping in some unknown energy source (zpe, energy from the vacuum etc.) has no scientific basis. Anything scientifically concerning OU, proven beyond a doubt so far, is obtaining of excess energy through saving from the input or by proper assistance by other conservative fields.

In a theoretical sense the greatest obtacle which stands in the way of progress in science let alone reason and integrity is summarized by the wacko statement made by Dirac in Scientific American, 208, 45-53 (1963): "... it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit the experiment".

The situation is completely hopeless. Because of understanding such as the one promoted by Dirac now anything goes in physics and it is overwhelmed by complete insanity of a particular kind, epitome of which are the string theories, cosmology and the like. That very particular insanity is promoted to the heavens jealously cutting out quality research in areas such as OU that can bring real progress to science and society.

Fighting that is extremely difficult, as mandatory as it is, and, like I said, that fight can only meet with success by demonstrating a self-sustaining mechanical device (not even electrical). Nothing short of that. This is a war and there's no mercy.

[e2matrix]

Omnibus,  A bit off topic but having seen you are not overly big on string theory (sarcastic) could you possibly state a brief summary of what's wrong with string theory or what theory is a better replacement for it?   I have no attachment to string theory but just curious what is wrong with it or what is better in your opinion. 

[Omnibus]

The problem with the string theory is that it is based on the theory of relativity (don't confuse theory of relativity with Einstein's "theory" of relativity which is a complete nonsense worthy of no mention whatsoever). The theory of relativity is based on Lorentz transformations which, although mathematically consistent, unfortunately have no physical meaning whatsoever. Remove Lorentz transformations, there will be no string theories and no cosmology. Leave them in, you'll get beautiful equations which physics has no use for. In addition, the "physical" conclusions which one reaches by using these non-physical equations are astoundingly ridiculous, such as the claim for many universes (maybe that makes string theories and such so attractive to crackpots who filled to the brim Barnes and Noble the other day in NYC and will spend their hard earned money on such crap as the book that was plugged in there). This whole mess theoretical physics is in these days (as a result of the systematic confusion for over a century) is due to the damage of good students of Einstein, with thinking messed up by him, such as Dirac, as I cited earlier. That culture of institutionalized nonsense has to be fought vehemently no matter how hoeless such battle may appear today.

[11:11]

No way. To talk about using "alternative" energy source, let alone pronouncing gravity and such as energy source is as wrong a strategy as there can be. Remember, gravity is not an energy source and also remember, the claim that your device is tapping in some unknown energy source (zpe, energy from the vacuum etc.) has no scientific basis. Anything scientifically concerning OU, proven beyond a doubt so far, is obtaining of excess energy through saving from the input or by proper assistance by other conservative fields.

In a theoretical sense the greatest obtacle which stands in the way of progress in science let alone reason and integrity is summarized by the wacko statement made by Dirac in Scientific American, 208, 45-53 (1963): "... it is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit the experiment".

The situation is completely hopeless. Because of understanding such as the one promoted by Dirac now anything goes in physics and it is overwhelmed by complete insanity of a particular kind, epitome of which are the string theories, cosmology and the like. That very particular insanity is promoted to the heavens jealously cutting out quality research in areas such as OU that can bring real progress to science and society.

Fighting that is extremely difficult, as mandatory as it is, and, like I said, that fight can only meet with success by demonstrating a self-sustaining mechanical device (not even electrical). Nothing short of that. This is a war and there's no mercy.

i can point out many things,
that are "wrong",
with your above post.



1:
you have the wrong attitude,
if you want to accomplish something gainful.

you have the right attitude,
if you want to stew in the vile juice of defeat.



the right attitude,
is the single most important thing,
that a person can.

the second most important thing,
is not even half as large,
as the right attitude.

yet the right attitude,
is also the thing,
which a person has the most control over.



2:
you need to be less unconstructively argumentative,
if you wish to avoid needlessly alienating people.

(i do not care if i alienate you, as you have already alienated me.
so i am scott free to talk.)



3:
calling it an "alternative energy source",
is a concept,
this is as close to the truth,
as the average grass grazing excrement-thrower,
is going to understand or accept.


the concept is usually at least 2/3 of the truth, anyway.
where 100% of the relevant details,
are usually no greater than 1/3.

that is right.
a complete idiot,
who has a strong understanding of general concepts,
usually comes much closer to the truth,
than a a common-sense-free fool,
who has a strong understanding of the truth.

that is why the idiot population has come to rule the society.
because the idiot population is usually poor on details, but strong on general concepts.

they were able to generalize the truth well enough to survive, more often than the detail-strong fools were able to survive.

but not well enough,
to avoid 7 cartloads,
of moronic dramatic problems,
that are mostly preventable.



the gravity of this planet,
CAN be used by a device,
to reduce a devices electrical requirements.

so the device produces greater than 100% electrical output.

if that is not "directly" an "energy source",
than it is the effective equivalent,
of an "energy source".



remember that the important part,
is not to accurately describe the process.

but to present the process,
in a way that people,
who have little free time,
little interest,
and little attention span,
can hear about,
without rejecting.



4:
Dirac pointed out an unconstructive,
less than practical behavior,
that he observed in other people

a large number of other people,
had already chosen to enact the behavior.

dirac was just declaring that their **** stinks.


dirac just pointed out what they decided to do.
he didn't "make" it popular.

because their behavior,
had already been popular folly,
for centuries.



there has never been a time in recorded history,
where a majority of humans,
prefered the ugly yet complete truth,
over what they felt to be beautiful or pleasant.

partly because the average wage slave,
doesn't love to think often enough or hard enough,
to become more than 25% familiar,
with the whole truth.

and havn't developed the problem solving skills,
to be capable of doing more,
than sweeping a problem under the rug,
a majority of the time.



someone either needs to increase the number,
of intellectually responsible humans in the population....

or they need to make important discoveries,
understandable enough to idiots,
to increase awareness of the inventions.

there is a far better chance in hell of the second happening,
than of the first happening.


because the first would likely require genetic engineering to accomplish.

but the second could mostly be done,
using a combination of understanding,
knowledge,
low-depreciation idea-simplification,
and social charm.



5:
my interest in communicating,
in your general direction,
has been exceeded.

good-bye.