Universons

[wattsup]

@13thHouR

Sorry to say but you are flat wrong to assume this as a banal theory. You don't hold a theory between your index and thumb. Then get permission from upper government levels to go out and patent it, then show your theory lifting a weight and proving it to academia.  At one point or another, you have to agree it as being a fact.

Granted the web site is not Grand Central Station, this confirms the inventor is in total control over all the material and the way he shows it is typical of a very intelligent senior person not giving any importance to the look or presentation but more to the substance. Centered text, english and french on the same page, etc., just typical and normal. When they get someone with Web savvy in there, you'll see the changes quickly. But everything has to start somewhere. I am sure they run a tight ship at this early stage and I just hope they are ready soon for some substantial growth. Man, you can make a generator turn with this.

Also, granted Universons is a terrible name in every marketing sense, and the message is not yet clear, but you know what, ever since Tesla loved to call it "ether", I'd say call it what you will. As long as it has a name, has been identified and has been publicized, it's only a good thing. Nothing bad about it. I would have called it something like "Enites". One or Two syllables maximum, not four. Something that can be easilly and well said in all languages. Ouch.

Anyways, what you and I think is not important, but in 10-20 years from now, if no one comes up with a more appropriate appellation, it will be known as the most credible explanation of OU. So hey, I'm all for it. We're finally on the map. Now, when asked where is the Free Energy coming from, we can ask, "Have you heard of Universons?". This opens the formal door to OU. It does not mean other doors will not be open as well.

I'd say something else. Anyone with some brains and the availability would contact the inventor and humbly (not arrogantly) ask to be taught the finer principles so you can become their representative in your country. But do it quick cause someone else will do it if you don't. This is what I call a ground floor opportunity of universal proportions.

So whoever said this is history being written, I imagine they are right.

All the best.

wattsup

ADDED: As of this date, typing "universons" on Google and this thread would be #4.

[13thHouR]

Just my opinion of the documents he has published on his site. (yes I took the time to register and read through everything before commenting).

His invention does not actually prove his theory.  It does however re-enforce so called quantum tunnelling (I say so called as it is a bad description of this event, as quantum tunnelling is random process and experimentation shows that it is not.) and transfer of charge by non subluminal means.

I can setup many experiments that shows reactions predicted by TDM, but they still do not prove TDM. As it would take the ability to step outside of time to  be able to prove/disprove it.

Universons, is an interesting construct of thought, but in practice it is restricted to finite range physics. Everything beyond the event horizon within it is still guess work, as in no usable values.

So it has no more practical basis than string theory, Hawking's Magic Numbers etc.

Maybe you misunderstood what I meant, I guess I was rather abrupt in what I said.

It's a fundamental problem in classical physics that at the first event horizon, it all falls flat on it's face, as physics require finite measurements to work with. Which obviously causes a problem when all values go technically infinite at this state.

Although it was important for him to base his theory in classical physics, he has held on too tightly to those constraints, in doing so his ideas run into exactly the same problem of vague meaningless data. As a by product of this zero point issue.

Where OU is concerned, the laws of energy conservation are correct in any single finite state. Which basically means that OU only applies when you are interacting with two or more states. It's nothing more than simple displacement of matter.

The problem that arises here is that he has not defined anything beyond the relative zero point (event horizon), so although his Universons are as viable as any other finite range theory, they remain in want of better words, magical units that appear from nowhere as he has no way of showing where they came from.

Although this seems to be entirely acceptable as of late within theoretical physics, on a practical basis it is yet another issue of half the story.

As mentioned before String theory, Quantum Mechanics and even part of General Relativity fall into the same trap of predicting actions and subsequent reactions, buy have no real way of plotting out what is occurring whilst the matter is in this zero state.

Many of us are familiar with the term "Quantum Wave packet". Yet whilst energy is in this state, all values produced are practically meaningless.

Hence why I created TDM.

To finally resolve this issue and do away with meaningless garbage like "We cannot be sure where anything is so it can travel anywhere". OK so that is true comment in singular finite terms, but again useless on practical basis, as tunnelling is not random.

btw anybody can get backing of anybody else if you produce enough spiel, thart is more to do with being a good sale person, than being a good scientist.

That set aside, it's good to see people are still prepared to challenge mainstream thought about reactions and he should be commended for trying to be a pioneer, even if he is replicating existing experiments and using different names for it.

What he calls a great discovery, classical physics calls anomalies that should be avoided. Yes I know that is crazy, but unless you shout loud enough that tend to be the scientific view point these days.

I agree with Universon's being a terrible marketing name. You really do have a bit of  P.T.Barnham these days to get an theory taken seriously. The problem being Universon's does sound like alchemy rather than science, which is a hurdle he could have done without.

Where is the free energy coming from?

Now the difference here is I can explain the entire process,

Emission of high energy Pulse and back EMF results in the electrons being concentrated in the target material, when this reaches saturation point, the sum of the resistant acting upon them will cause there relative density to increase.



Thus defining which scale range of the universe they now interact with.

The pseudo superluminal velocity involved.



Yes I know I don't need the parenthesis's force of habit from C++ programming 

and the energy involved.  In ergs:



Basically as the result of this compression (increase in density, which is proportionate to the initial volume and velocity versus the resistance of the target)

As I mentioned before the particles or wave packets now interact as subliminal matter within a specified sclae range of the universe. (Beyond our relative zero).

Some of this is explained here http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,2816.0.html

Because of this gain of matter. that scale range expands proportionately.  Ejecting enough low density matter from it scale, which although still two high density to interact with out scale range, In the interim we have followed the normal curvature of space time and now can interact with these as for an example electromagnetic energy.

If compression factor is 2 or more states, then the resultant space time soliton, will have the accumulated effect of returning 2 or more times the input energy. Also within certain constraints you make displacement shift it returned relative density range of interaction. So to use it appears to be transmitted from a point A to a point B via non subluminal means (FTL).

Not a single part of classical physics needs to be altered to do this.

As I keep saying, in finite physics there are defined rules. Which are an uphill challenge to disprove. However in ultra high energy/beyond and event horizon, there is no right or wrong. Just the probable and less probable. In conjecture like TDM you give classical physics Tangable values to work with, so you have a more probable scenario. In conjecture like Universons, which I do not relish in saying, there are no tangible values once it hits zero point.

Although interestingly, much as with the rest of classical physics, TDM can cure this problem for Universon's, but it does then beg the question, if it needs TDM to cross zero point. What does universon's actually offer on it's own, other than the finite part of the description?

Also is this finite range part of the description so different from existing theories as to warrant it being called a theory in it's own right?

That is where we get into a grey area....

btw my apologies for pushing TDM in this reply. however it is currently the only viable conjecture for anything beyond zero point so I was left with no other alternative but to use it as the reply warranted definition of this area of study.

[tinu]

Hi 13thHouR,

I can see you being upset, talking about so many different things in one post.

First, let?s talk about theories. You mentioned some: strings, universons and implicit quantum mechanics. What is a theory? One can find its definition in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory as well as many other web pages. I?ve noticed that you avoid using TDM in conjunction with ?theory?. Therefore, noticing it, I will not ask what TDM is, because it would be outside of the purpose of this thread. Anyway, the simple fact TDM is not a theory (as of yet) is suffice to make any comparison with Universons theory futile. Because the last one is clearly a well conceived scientific theory.

Then, I?d like to call off your statement that ?It (his invention, Universons theory) does however re-enforce so called quantum tunneling?. I don?t know what your background is but clearly you are way off the base here as quantum tunneling has absolutely nothing to do neither with the theory Mr. Poher presents nor with his experiments. One can read about quantum tunneling at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunneling but the example given there is misleading: ?Quantum tunneling is the quantum-mechanical effect of transitioning through a classically-forbidden energy state. The classical analogy is for a car on a roller coaster to make it up and over a hill which it does not have enough kinetic energy to surmount.? The classical analogy does not work (it is purely imaginary) because if one computes the probability of a very small ball to ?quantum-tunnel? even through a very thin wall of 1-2mm, our universe is way too young for this to happen. Therefore, speaking about quantum-tunneling for a part of energy of about 15 Joules through a distance of many centimeters (even meters) makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

?I can setup many experiments that shows reactions predicted by TDM??
Please do so. I?ll be very interested in following your posts and the evolution of TDM to theory and to experiments. But please do it in a dedicated thread. This is not the right place.

?So it has no more practical basis than string theory, Hawking's Magic Numbers etc.?
This is a guess and has no real basis. In fact, it is already dismissed by the current state:
1. There are on-going lab-scale experiments based on the theoretical predictions. In the absence of Universons theory, those experiments can not be interpreted.
2. There are also developments of the existing theories based on the initial postulates, those developments being in a good agreement with various already observed facts (i.e. anomalous acceleration).

Much of the remaining post deals with ?a fundamental problem in classical physics that at the first event horizon, it all falls flat on it's face, as physics require finite measurements to work with.?
There are several fundamental issues with physics but is it really the place to discuss them here?
I don?t recall Mr. Poher claims he solved any of those issues. Universon?s theory is developed based on some existing theories and consequently it will suffer from the same issues as the physics and mathematics it uses. But as long as it is capable of predicting various facts and of allowing the development of new applications, it has an existence and a meaningful one.

Then you move the full emphasis on TDM.
I could not follow what TDM is because only several posts exist on TDM and they are not presented in a logical and orderly fashion. No offense, but you are very difficult to follow.
Anyway, I don?t think that Universons theory competes with TDM and I consequently guessed that your desire was maybe focused on to promote your ideas. This is fine and understable as long as you do not throw with mud where you have no real reason to do so. I will follow your posts on TDM, but please do it in a proper place.


I have one question though about your statement that ?he is replicating existing experiments and using different names for it.? Hope you can provide a short and comprehensive answer. This sounds like a serious accusation and I will not buy it neither let it pass as something un-important you slipped among your paragraphs. Similar experiments exist (I will provide a link after you?ll post your answer) but they were totally empirically conducted and/or discovered.

Finally, I fully agree that Universons is a terrible marketing name.
Maybe they will be called ?nivs?, ?nives? or something.
History will tell.

Tx,
Tinu

[energielibre]

Hi, everybody

EnergieLibre, I owe this to you.
Can you tell us more about the subject?

No, I'm a newbie in all free energy stuff. I find the website of M.Poher because he was involved in space aeronautics and Ufo stuff.

Are you somehow in contact with Mr. Poher?

No, even if i want to contact him i think i can't really understand all the process.

Can you keep us updated on the evolution in France?

I will try within the limits of my knowledge.

Please tell us more about you and about the subject, if possible.

About me: nothing very interesting for the subject. I just have some curiosity if  you, good fellows of overunity.com, can explain for all non-physics and newbies if this UNIVERSONS-THING can have an explanation.

I'm not probably the first one who come on the overunity board with lot of dreams about free energy philosophy and then understand how complex are the subjects.

I benefit from it to thank the creators and administrators for this
site.

@Tinu and all
Thanks for the explanations you provide 

Oh, and sorry for my english.

EL

[tinu]

Hi all,

Note about the direct link to experimental results http://www.s178783976.onlinehome.fr/site_invention_demo/generalites_demo_gb/annonce_resultats_gb.php?wxcv=587:
?This free direct access will be closed on September 09, 2007.?
This is just to be sure that everyone interested is able to check the videos.

One another important issue, I fully agree with:

I'd say something else. Anyone with some brains and the availability would contact the inventor and humbly (not arrogantly) ask to be taught the finer principles so you can become their representative in your country. But do it quick cause someone else will do it if you don't. This is what I call a ground floor opportunity of universal proportions.

Regarding the above, I?ve tried to contact Mr. Poher. Apparently the mail form on the page is not working and I couldn?t find an e-mail address.

Does anyone know how to contact Mr. Poher?
I personally would prefer e-mail but if not possible, then fax of phone would be just as good.

Many thanks,
Tinu