Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

[NickZ]

   You're not up for sale???  Oh!  well, that's good. Since you are already being funded. And, to what end?
   Why are you disrupting ALL the threads, and SHOWING nothing, then?
   Trying to be the most popular, with nothing to show for it?  Good luck...
 
   You are the one saying that YOU have a free energy device.  So, please prove it.
  But, you want us to build it, first. With no diagrams, no schematics, nor fotos, videos, etz... of YOUR actual working free energy device.
   So,  "sh!t, or get off the pot".   
                                          No offense.

  EDIT:  You've already mentioned that any device you say that you have, has nothing to do with what this thread is about.
The Dally, TK, Akula, Ruslan devices.  So, why are you here, Son ?  Or, did you drop out of school to study Instigation.

[Dog-One]

You mean like giving a magnet a spin, or twirl. Then put a coil next to it... or the other way around.

Talking about Spin Connection Resonance, or ECE Theory.  Also, W.B. Smith, three fields:  Electric, Magnetic & Tempic, the field fabric.  The spin of the Tempic field determines if you have mass (centripetal) or energy (centrifugal), convergent/divergent, similar to what Ken Wheeler was talking about.

[NickZ]

  Dog-One:
  So, how does that relate to the operating principle of a solid state (non-moving) device such as the ones we are discussing here now? Or does it?

[verpies]

Would I be here stating such, if I didn't?

Yes, because you could be using words with unintended meanings

Do you think this is a joke

No, words are not as precise form of expression as e.g. computer code

Why not ask: Does Tesla really mean that?

Because he is dead and I am interested in your views.

"Earth magnetic resonance", etz...  and the cause of those these resonant frequencies. Among other vortexial frequencies.

You lost me.  Is that an answer to my two remaining questions?

If matter is made by "fields" does it also mean that matter is composed of these "fields" ?
If "yes", then what is the difference between "fields", that constitute matter and "fields", that are outside of matter ?

Try to understand what I mean, don't let words get in the way. 

I'm trying and it would help in our communication if we answered our questions directly.

You know where I'm coming from.

Actually, I don't.
I have bits and pieces of your model.  For example that atoms (matter) consist of fields and these fields are also between atoms.

But, need proof to believe it. 

I do not need a proof yet, just a logically consistent reasoning, even if you have not defined what a "field" is yet.

For example if there is no qualitative difference between the substance of atoms and substance between atoms*, then why do you object so much to obtainig energy from the substance of atoms and not to obtaining energy from the same substance between atoms?

* Coming from the RS2 theory, I would not even disagree with this statement.

[verpies]

Their spin!

...and I'd have to agree to that
As a great simplification matter is: spun up space...and antimatter is: spun up time.  Their ratio constitutes motion.  It's all in that link I posted.

So now you probably can understand why I object to the notion of Aether as a substance that fills space, when space and matter are simply relations between different motions (some spun up, some not)  and force "fields" are their temporal counterparts.