Partnered Output Coils - Free Energy

[EMJunkie]

Who said they use orbital calculations ?. Have you worked at NASA?. You are confusing planet positions with orbital calculations.
Take a tennis ball in one hand(the sun),and take a golf ball in the other hand(the earth). Now,while walking across the backyard (space)hold the tennis ball(our sun) up in the air,and then take the golf ball(our earth),and rotate that around the tennis ball while you are walking across the back yard. Then draw the path the golf ball took--do you come up with an orbital path,or do you come up with a helical path?.

The fact is,you cannot orbit a moving body,and our sun is moving through space. The only path the earth and other planets take in relation to the sun is  a helical path. Space craft trajectories are based around planet position to the sun,gravitational forces,ETC,-not around there orbital path in relation to the sun.

Watch the video below,and then you'll be full bottles on our path through our galaxy 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws

Its been recently shown that the Value of PI is not correct, this means that NASA Would miss nearly every trajectory they ever calculated if they were using Orbital Calculations using the incorrect Value of PI!

So, someone has been duped, we are all being led astray, thoughts and inceptions being misguided! You are not who you thought you were and we are all living a lie... That is if you believe all you are told without questioning it!!!

Ref: The Great Pi Conspiracy

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

Re: our "Study of the Dynamo":

I thought this would be interesting to share: Invention of the Dynamo

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[EMJunkie]

What beautiful Machinery!!!

   Chris Sykes
       hyiq.org

[TinselKoala]

Who said they use orbital calculations ?. Have you worked at NASA?. You are confusing planet positions with orbital calculations.
Take a tennis ball in one hand(the sun),and take a golf ball in the other hand(the earth). Now,while walking across the backyard (space)hold the tennis ball(our sun) up in the air,and then take the golf ball(our earth),and rotate that around the tennis ball while you are walking across the back yard. Then draw the path the golf ball took--do you come up with an orbital path,or do you come up with a helical path?.

The fact is,you cannot orbit a moving body,and our sun is moving through space. The only path the earth and other planets take in relation to the sun is  a helical path. Space craft trajectories are based around planet position to the sun,gravitational forces,ETC,-not around there orbital path in relation to the sun.

Watch the video below,and then you'll be full bottles on our path through our galaxy 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws

No, I'm not the one who is confused. Planet positions are indeed calculated from orbital dynamics. No, I don't work at NASA but I know people who do and am in frequent contact with some of them. In fact I got started in this field while working _for_ a senior scientist at NASA Ames. And I'm an amateur astronomer, with a telescope mount that can find and track objects in the sky based on _orbital dynamics_.
Yes, it is perfectly clear that if you adopt some reference frame that is somehow stationary with respect to the entire solar system's movement through galactic space, the paths of the planets, etc. will describe a helix _as seen from that arbitrary stationary reference point_. So what? You are just confusing _yourself_ if you think that that means that planets and satellites etc. aren't orbiting. If you want, you can choose a reference frame that seems utterly motionless, like Ptolemy or Copernicus did, and make up all kinds of epicycles that then describe the observed motions, just like your helix does from your chosen arbitrary reference frame outside the solar system. Sometimes I think you just enjoy doing the wind-up, even though there are myriad demonstrations all around you that show that you are actually wrong, and the real scientists who deal in such matters every day with success would just laugh at you.  There are literally thousands of satellites up there that are placed in orbits around the Earth by people who understand orbital dynamics and who would just shake their heads and laugh at your misconceptions. "Not even wrong" is the phrase that applies here, since you are right about your helixes but are wrong that that idea is particularly useful or that it supplants the conventional idea of orbits. You are choosing to focus on one arbitrary reference frame that is less useful and more complicated than the reference frame that is more commonly used, and is more useful, for actual things like navigation of spacecraft, descriptions of planetary positions and so on. And I think you are doing it just for the sake of argument, since you surely know the facts of the matter.
Like this claim that pi has some other value than 3.14159.... etc. It's just a silly windup, unsupported by actual data from the real world and refuted by devices and systems that are in daily use all around you. Like the internet itself, and the computer you are using to read this post, and the machines that built the tiny components within it for examples.

[tinman]

And I'm an amateur astronomer, with a telescope mount that can find and track objects in the sky based on _orbital dynamics_.

As am i. I too have a go to/ tracking scope(4 inch),and a dob 10 inch.

No, I'm not the one who is confused. Planet positions are indeed calculated from orbital dynamics. No, I don't work at NASA but I know people who do and am in frequent contact with some of them. In fact I got started in this field while working _for_ a senior scientist at NASA Ames. 
Yes, it is perfectly clear that if you adopt some reference frame that is somehow stationary with respect to the entire solar system's movement through galactic space, the paths of the planets, etc. will describe a helix _as seen from that arbitrary stationary reference point_. So what?

So what
If you want to know the motion of celestial objects through space,then the correct view point is from a fixed point in space-not aboard one of those celestial objects that is moving along with the rest of them. Being an amateur astronomer,this is something i thought you would know.

Sometimes I think you just enjoy doing the wind-up, even though there are myriad demonstrations all around you that show that you are actually wrong, and the real scientists who deal in such matters every day with success would just laugh at you.

There is no proof what so ever that shows that i am wrong when i say the earth dose not orbit the sun. What there is,is proof in the very science you love,that says i am correct. The fact remains-you !!cannot!! orbit a moving body,where as that orbit is taught and shown that the earth will rotate around our sun,complete 1 orbit per year,and end up back where it started. The same applies to the moon in relation to the earth.

There are literally thousands of satellites up there that are placed in orbits around the Earth by people who understand orbital dynamics and who would just shake their heads and laugh at your misconceptions.

And how are they misconceptions TK. Are you really saying that we just complete a full circle around the sun every year,and we end up right back where we started from?. The only misconception here is what we are taught in school about the orbits of the planets around the sun. Do you really think that the path of those satellites is an orbital path around the earth?. Are you one that would try and measure(say by radar gun) the speed a ball is traveling while in a vehicle that is traveling down the road-from within the vehicle it self? Those that understand orbital dynamics do nothing more than just measure the speed the vehicle is traveling to obtain the speed the ball is traveling. I guess sometimes they just dont get it right,where many times we see satellites falling into a decaying orbit,and come crashing back down to earth,or shooting off into the neva neva.

   "Not even wrong" is the phrase that applies here, since you are right about your helixes but are wrong that that idea is particularly useful or that it supplants the conventional idea of orbits. You are choosing to focus on one arbitrary reference frame that is less useful and more complicated than the reference frame that is more commonly used, and is more useful, for actual things like navigation of spacecraft, descriptions of planetary positions and so on. And I think you are doing it just for the sake of argument, since you surely know the facts of the matter.

So we should just stick to the-!!near enough is good enough! ,rather than use what we know to be true. 

Like this claim that pi has some other value than 3.14159.... etc. It's just a silly windup, unsupported by actual data from the real world and refuted by devices and systems that are in daily use all around you. Like the internet itself, and the computer you are using to read this post, and the machines that built the tiny components within it for examples.

Sounds much like the magnetic force syndrome to me. We know how to use magnetic fields so as they work how we want them to work in all our electronic product's,so why the hell do we need to know what the magnetic force actually is. This is a !go no where! attitude TK,and leeds you up a circular garden path,where you really end up going back to where you started-->oh look,and orbit lol.