Kapanadze Cousin - DALLY FREE ENERGY

[Dog-One]

This observation applies only to particles with ½ fractional spin.  Particles with integer spin do not exhibit it.
The reason for the 720º cyclicity is two-dimensional rotation.

The cyclicity of one-dimensional rotation is 360º/cycle or 2π radians / 1D-rotation.
The cyclicity of two-dimensional rotation is 720º/cycle or 4π steradians / 2D-rotation.

Notice the difference between the radian and steradian.

This issue is further discussed here and here.

There is no need to invoke imaginary space or virtual space, which are both unreal.  The two documents above should make that obvious.

Got it.  I had limited myself to two dimensional rotation.  With three dimensional rotation, it becomes quite clear what is happening.  Thank you for that explanation.

...why not time?

Time is one of those concepts I still find myself on-the-fence about.  My reason stems from the writings of W.B. Smith referring to the "Tempic Field".
I do tend to think from a fixed point in space, you can actually have more or less time, just as though you are measuring some field, like electric or magnetic.  It's understood this concept is hard to swallow for most.  I prefer the concept because to me it eliminates several obstacles and lays at your feet a more workable means of dealing with entropy.  One facet it clearly allows for is the ability to loop time.  For instance, imagine a toroidal shaped conglomeration of fields (tempic, electric & magnetic).  Suppose such an object in vector motion has at its front, the exact same tempic field strength as it does at its trailing edge.  W.B. Smith referred to this as a tensor field or a packet of tensor energy.  Such an object would be very difficult to represent with a notion of linear time, but if time is actually an artifact of a tempic field, then the possibilities of this and other strange phenomena are not only possible, but quite likely to exist.

Matter is another example.  Energy constrained in time.  Meaning the tempic field is not linearly progressing.  Instead, it is looped.  Therefore energy is trapped.

That is an astute analysis, especially the part I highlighted in bold.

Notice that you choose the energy as the reference point for spin and other motions.
Many people choose that, the other choices for primary entities are:
- Matter,
- Aether,
- Charge field (as in the capacitor's displacement field), see here.
- Time.

I think that the last option forms the most elegant solution, because it is real and quantifiable and all-pervasive.
The ratio of space to time constitutes motion anyway you look at it - an observation which is lost on many despite the ubiquitous units which we commonly use to measure the magnitude of motion (speed) as e.g. km/h or mph.

In this way of thinking, matter, energy and antimatter are all derived from the concept of motion, which is nothing more than a ratio of space to time that we commonly understand as speed.  Through geometrical considerations the spatial aspect of motion can become wraped-up and solidified as matter, just like you guessed above (the links below describe exactly how). It all works the same regardless of size - from the subatomic to the astronomical scales.

Motion, in this context, is not about "something moving," but about a ratio of space to time that can be expressed as speed or energy—both of which cause change. Space and time are not separate concepts , they are always linked together as aspects of motion. You cannot have one without the other.  That's why, I call them reciprocal aspects of the same motion.

Further development of this analysis is here and here.

Spin I think is far more fundamental than time.  It's absolute, unlike time that is relative.  One half revolution is exact; noon is not.  Spin is something that stands on its own anywhere in the universe.  It doesn't need a reference.  It may in fact be the only concept that is truly absolute.  If one looks at how we measure a day, a month or a year of time, it becomes quite obvious the source for this measurement is actually spin.

So I ask then, what really is time?  Could the tempic field actually be the source for spin?  Did we in our elaborate science of trying to understand the world around us and under our feet add an unneeded complexity?  Did we develop time to help us deal with linear motion when it is quite possible linear motion does not really exist and instead all things are spin or simply a perturbation of the tempic field?  Ken Wheeler has stated there is no such thing as a straight line; all things are an arc.  I would tend to agree based on the cosmic observations our science is able to reveal.


If we delve into the concept of space, it is not clear to me space must initially start with nothing.  Again, Mr. Wheeler states space cannot be empty.  He goes so far to say space does not exist without some content.  This content could be Aether, it could be fields, it could be anything capable of occupying space.  From a purely mental perspective, space can be filled with anything you want, but it must be filled.  Space without content to me is a meaningless construct.  It's like zero--something you are quite aware of from RS2 Theory.  It simply doesn't work.

Then we have counterspace.  This is still a little obscure to me, but the math would tend to indicate something exists in balance to real space, real coordinates.  Imaginary numbers seem to fit this bill.  The roots of an equation are the roots, period.  If they happen to be imaginary, then we must conclude this is no accident.  My feeling is that counterspace is the correct concept to apply to these imaginary coordinates.  And like space, counterspace must also be filled with something.  If this something happens to be the same something that fills space, then nature has already built us a bridge across what could be a potential gap.  How to at will reach across this bridge may allude us for some time, though I think the potential for us to use our intelligence to cross this bridge exists.  If we can think it, then we can do it.  Our thought just has to fit the framework of reality.


M@

[Dog-One]

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwMos1y1Peo&nohtml5=False

My dear little grey alien,

This is more video evidence one can do just about anything with digital pixels.  If you take the video apart frame by frame, you can probably spot the PhotoShop'd evidence of manipulation.  Mplayer under Linux has a command line option to bust the whole video into individual image files.  You should give it a try and amend your post.

Or, you can wait for Void's response.  Whichever you prefer.

[Terbo]

Watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwMos1y1Peo&nohtml5=False

@AG -- See the construction details at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0-bK3s_6Nc&nohtml5=False
Not certain this device is legit.

[AlienGrey]

@AG -- See the construction details at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0-bK3s_6Nc&nohtml5=False
Not certain this device is legit.

Thanks but i did watch that bit, also Stephan has a build PDF on this but i have salvaged an old CH boiler fan for tests.

[AlienGrey]

Any idea what the schematic of a high frequency to 50Hz converter (pulse former) could look like, especially when it is connected with two wires only?

the device your talking of has 3 wires on the 2 i have seen.