Another half baked idea.... or is it?

[13thHouR]

Sorry about the delay, been seriously busy the past couple of days.

Finally tracked down a new Oscilloscope and Function Generator, I can give some real time feed back on the other experiments.

Anyway to get back to your question, think back to the bucket of water.

Now imagine that you link 3 full buckets of water with tube near the bottom connecting them, and anything that overflows from one bucket is  pumped back into the other two buckets. Will the levels ever change permanently if the stone is removed from one bucket and placed in another?

So basically what this means is that no matter what you gain or lose in any specific scale, it has to come from somewhere  or go to somewhere. Even so called sub space of sci-fi is just another scale of existence. So your nice little message home to your parents whilst your are travelling around Alpha Centuri could very well end up being very odd looking shapes that appear in front of caveman on another time density scale 

OK the probability of that effect occurring in that point in space time on earth is very remote, but is is a good example of how density and time are interlinked. Also how you should consider the consequences in space time the next time you fart, maybe that last mouthful of beans could be enough to kick start the big bang   

All right so I am joking, but in that joke is genuine facts of how we take our normal interactions for granted and do not seem to comprehend that on one hand we are so insignificant but on another just how much our very existence alters the structure of the universe.

Put simply,space time always fills in the mistakes.

The generally considered figure of the mass of the finite universe is 10⁵³Kg of so this falls short of the actual amount but is a figure that we can work with. If a single object in a finite universe became 10⁵³Kg then it would be our finite universe.

However on a different scale universes what we measure as 10⁵³Kg could be photon or and entire Galaxy. However in relativity to those scale  universes (TDM states) they would be considerably less than  10⁵³Kg

[13thHouR]

If I properly understand your conjectures on on a new "multiverse", once energy / mass reaches some prededurmined point, be that our reletivistic zero, or the other end of the spectrum ( Speed of light?) the energy or mass in question ceases to exist in our luminal universe, and is now contained within the next "level" of the universe hierarchy if you will.

Assuming I have this correct, and taking into account your theories on reversability being of chief importance in the validation of such theories...

One could consider the avarage machine. If you were to take into account all energy losses, be it friction, light, heat, sound, in closed systems this machine, whatever it may be will halways have a COP of 1, no more no less. Energy put in = energy out (be it in various forms).

Now we take our avarage OU machine, and apperently we we have...all things considered...more energy out than put in. We put some energy in, but the addition of all energies out is more! Now, this is explained from your theory by saying that we have borrowed energy from one of the levels of universes either above us or below (or just above only?) us on the "energy scale". So far so good, this jives with current emprirical data. We are not creating energy...there is no system out of equilibrium, we just need to look at a bigger picture and see that the energy is not "free" not invented, or created, simply take from somewhere else.

But should it then not be possible to have an energy system that depleats or injects energy into another universe just beyond our "horizon"? With reversability, could we not then create a device which has a negative COP? Where if we were to put in some energy, the total energy out would be less?

Just a thought....but I it would be interesting to hear some responses, as this poses another question....would this device be usefull somehow?

P.S.

You gave an example of energy being injected from our horizon zone into a higher level and then re-entering our zone again (the car and light analogy). This makes perfect sense, but what if we put energy into the level below ours...will it be gone forever? will it return and have any impacts on our universe that are forseeable? What from that zone below us, can push that energy back into our zone?

By jove I think he's got it    (although light velocity is nearest zero point and ultra low velocity is the larger low density boundary of our finite universe)

Seriously this is the point, we still essentially have the same system where in this conjecture model, we understand that we still do not get something from nothing.

However because we cannot physically step beyond that Horizon without leaving interaction with where we where originally, then in all sense and purposes, like the fleet of frigates firing back at us over the horizon, to us this will be over unity, as we can only interact with one specific scale range at any one time. (That scale range of interaction can be composed of many scale ranges spanning different locations in space time, but again that is very steep learning curve, so for the moment we will stick to the simpler model of the linear scale TDM states)

In losing matter/energy via decompression to lower density scale, this is a similar reaction, however in this case the filling back in of the missing matter comes from normal lambda space around us, as in the displacement follows the easiest path which is an implosion of matter to fill the void in the higher density of our scale.

This would be like instantaneously removing the stone from the bottom of  the bucket of water and having its density lowered so it floats near the top. Basically the water rushes down to fill in where the stone was previously. Which if you plot scale density from the bottom of the water to the top, then again in our limited range it would be like we are on the side of the frigates firing all the shells away from us across the horizon. Air fills in where the shells where previously but as we know from TDM that is not where it stops this filling in spans  our relative universe and beyond.

Some of you make realise when I mentioned Lambda space. That in fact I am talking about Einstein's rather elusive aether.

by now you may be beginning to understand that the entire process is a bit more complex of filling in from TDM+ and TDM- states, but as I said for easier understanding it is better to keep it in singular linear terms for the moment.


To answer you other question about usage with a few furthers questions of my own, what benefits would there in be in losing mass from certain heavy isotopes without gaining energy? 

What would happen is you lost massive amounts of energy in the middle of a nuclear fission chain reaction (Atomic explosion). 


On a smaller scale, how efficient would cooling of your PC be? Or how about an air portable air conditioner which does not require heat exchanger tube to be hanging out of your window.

There are as many practical uses for Under Unity as there are for Over unity.

[13thHouR]

No worries, all rambles welcome, TDM can be quite heavy going at the best of times.

The bucket example is not directly about the stone or issues of over unity, it's more to do with how water easily flows to fill in loss or gets displaced to compensate for gain. Something that most people can easily visualise.

However To alter the density of the stone only requires you to alter its resonant frequency. If you fool other matter into responding to oscillations at a different resonant frequency then the object will find another stable point to interact with, but I leave that area for Hutchinson to investigate. Of Which he was doing quite well from what I last seen.

I can understand your approach its more to do with the outcomes of the experiments and what benefit this has to mankind or just us in a our daily lives. Ultimately I guess that is all of our goals. Although a few do like the idea of fame and fortune too.

Making things more efficient or replacing them completely, each idea has it place and its specific target, it is important that  although we pool our resources on the most probable that we don't forget that there are as many ways of achieving our goal.

The more saturation of different devices we have. Then there is more probability that somebody has the materials or the skill available to repeat this for themselves.

In respect of magnets, look at those links I made to the flying frog experiments. This can be created with permanent magnets. We just have to learn to look at magnetism like any other physical force. It can be saturated and compressed.

Consider this:

"There is insufficient Uranium on our planet to create an Atomic Bomb".

Ernest Rutherford replying to H.G.Wells description of the Atomic explosions in his writings.

Was Ernest Rutherford wrong as we now have atomic weapons?

Well actually he was correct, it was only by some  very clever concentration of a standard explosive force by the guys on the Manhattan Project, that for a few nanoseconds we can make fissile material react as if it has become super heavy.  (increase it's physical and gravitaitonal density)  which to surrounding matter reacts like we have more fissile material per volume than exists on earth.

So we proved H.G.Wells to be correct, yet also  proved Rutherford to be so as well.

Just shows that TDM is not the only place where opposing arguments can be shown to be correct without violating either standpoint.

[Silvije]

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jun/in-no-time

what now?

s.

[13thHouR]

That changes nothing, just classical physics peering down telescope with the other eye closed and saying why can't I see the world next to me?

A lot of double talk about a relative  zero point that they seem to think is absolute. (not sure why they think that as physics tells them it is not)

Anyway as I said I leave the finite physics to the rest of the scientific community to argue about.

TDM in single increment uses all they define. So if they adapt the definition, TDM in it's very nature adapts with them.

btw Time is our construct, our description of a period of interaction. To have glass jar sitting on shelf and say "that is time". It is a rather silly concept, much as not being able to define duration near relative zero as being time, is the 'blatantly obvious being put into practice. I guess with not much else to do somebody has to waste "time" on this. 


I do find research like that fascinating, as the general scientific community make out the overunity research to be the realm of crackpots, yet time and time again we hear of the most ridiculous research in mainstream science that makes even the most obscure overunity designs seem like works of genius.

Like ?250,000 spent on finding out if buttered toast always falls on the floor butter side down, ok this was resolving issues of probability, but that could be done on a ?400 PC, 50 loafs of bread, a few Kg of butter and a ?40 test rig.

So where did the other ?249,500 go to?

The same goes for the research quote in that article, the cost of the equipment involved is astronomical.

Do you know what they are really proving?

That when there is nothing, there is nothing to define time.

It does not  take a ?multi million test rig to prove the blatantly obvious. If you have nothing there then there is no (a) to (b),

If there is no (a) to (b), there is nothing to define time with, it's simple as that.

OK beyond relative zero TDM gives us a scale related (a) to (b) and so on, but they are not using TDM, they are stopping at relative zero.

At least even the most obscure idea in over unity is trying to achieve a goal. That quoted research achieves, absolutely nothing, is nothing, yet it is not actually absolute nothing.  Me thinks its yet more double talk, about 'nothing' 


Anyway for the record, time does not cease to exist at around or at zero, its only the guys sitting in the smaller picture trying to define the large picture without actually setting any base rules for it. So their findings are meaningless constructs of narrow mindedness.

If they would only open their eyes they would see in the finite universe terms, Yes time ceases to exist at relative zero, but in the infinite possible scales of the universe it is a constant.

Einstein was correct in the finite terms, time is not a constant, but on infinite terms it is. The more accurate term is as Einstein said, time is relative.

I know that sounds like a contradiction, however its the combinations of two ranges of observation, one that it limited and one that is unlimited. So in turn the contradiction's that this creates in definitions. On or around the relative absolutes of the limited range one would normally switch to a larger range to give you more data to work with. Thus cancelling out these contradictions 

With blinkers on of a limited range of observation, relative zero becomes the absolute, so the duration of one pulse to the next is infinity. so it does have time but that time is infinity. However if you had that one pulse, it would not be even relative zero as its existence means you are more than zero.

Getting the point yet?

Relative or absolute zero, either way experiments in this area are pointless in the finite because the event of measurement makes it non zero and your results are wrong.

Again TDM can get around this by defining relative zero points as scale relative zero points, spanning for infinite negative to infinite positive scale voids, but you would have come full circle and would be defining the interactions of the universe again