OU from orbital physics, and some spooky stuff

[e2matrix]

Found in another post:http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/sci.physics/2006-04/msg00164.html

My first guess would be their bearings are breaking in and getting smoother although you would expect scientists would have looked at that (or not ). 

[FatBird]

Radical Ryan,

Can you please give us an EXAMPLE of how we can use your information
to make an OVERUNITY device.

.

[schuler]

Hi FatBird,
The idea is Half Baked.

The fist step is cheating gravity with a gyroscope. Please see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8 .

The second step is elevating the object to a higher altitude so you get gravitational potential energy. At this point, you convert back to energy (from gyroscopic energy) and stop the spinning.

The third step is converting (somehow) the gravitational potential energy into energy.

Repeat the process ad infinitum.

Hope it helps.

[sparks]

   This should be pretty easy to prove.  Just put a gyro suspended by a string to a scale.  Weigh the gyro not antimated then spin it up and weigh it again.

[Radical Ryan]

I was reminded of this post from an e-mail reply.  5 months later I have to say yikes!  That sure was unnecessarily wordy (my post).   

Although experimentation is necessary to advance science and to test hypothesis, I would like to add this:  Who carries the burden of experimental proof when there is logical consistency that is being disputed?  For example, if a guy starts going around saying 1+1 equals both 2 and 3, and he happens to be believed by lots of people, who should ask who for proof?  Should we have to proof to him that he is logically inconsistent by showing him over and over again that 1+1 equals 2 and NOT 3?  Or should we ask him to show US how it is that he thinks 1+1 has two different answers? 

When it comes to finding a logical inconsistency in the previous conclusions of science, I feel that the burden of experimentation follows different rules than it does in the case of testing a hypothesis.   The hypothesis THAT two conclusions conflict cannot be resolved at the same level of reasoning that lead to the conflict.  Sometimes two things that are actually in conflict can seem true independently, but when examined together provide evidence that something is wrong with the method with which we found the supposed truth.  It can be shown in plain language that two other plain language statements conflict, without first proving that one is true and one is false.  If I say I both DID AND DIDN'T do something, for example, you know that I am in conflict with myself.  You don't have to find out through expermentation WHETHER I did or did not before you can show I could not have possibly both done and not-done it.  No experiment is necessary to discover an expressed logical inconsistency, except a simple mental check for logic (if you could call that an experiment). 

The conflict that I'm referring to is that 1) velocity determines orbital ellipse, 2) gyroscopic behavior derives from the motion of individual particles, 3) all objects fall at the same rate regardless of the instantaneous motions of the particles of which they are composed.  These can't possibly all be true at the same time in the same universe. 

Whether you heat, spin, or otherwise give kinetic energy to the individual particles within an object, you MUST change that object's orbital trajectory.  That's just plain logical derivation, straight from Kepler's laws of orbit.  The burden of experimenation, then, I think, lies on the scientific establisment, to show WHY an object's orbital behavior is a function of its sum-of-particles velocity, and NOT a function of the behavior of its individual particles.  (while somehow reconciling this with the fact that gyroscopes depend on the behavior of individual particles even while the gyroscope as a sum is "not in motion" and how the universe somehow allows individual particle motion to give rise to gyroscopic behavior, but inhibits that SAME velocity from effecting orbit.  i.e., prove to us that there are two kinds of velocity, one that is used to determine orbit and one that is used to govern the gyroscope.)

I'm just an amateur with no funds, no degree in physics, and no materials.  I CAN'T do experiments.  But when it comes to finding (what I believe are) logical inconsistencies in the scientific establishment, I'M NOT REQUIRED to show them anything.  They are required to show how I'm wrong, that it's not important, that it just doesn't matter, or that it's a closed-loop where you have to gain entry before anything you say that's in conflict with them could possibly be right.  Otherwise, I think I'm scientifically valid in continuing to believe that physics is currently an internally inconsistent science that does NOT PROHIBIT free energy, because of this inconsistency.  They have some things to clear up, not me.

Thanks for reading.  Unfortunately I have not been able to get youtube.  China blocked it.  If I get a VPN I'll definitely watch.  I'm reading the Newton-FailsF-ma.pdf