Universons

[tinu]

Hi all,

I?ve promised above in my reply to 13thHour to post some links of intriguing experiments that can, at least in principle, be explained using the theory of Mr. Poher. I was waiting for 13thHour to post his links but since he has not responded as of yet, I guess it is my turn.

Here it is:
http://amasci.com/freenrg/morton1.html - ?Morton effect?.

After reading the base page, please ?if interested in going further- take your time to check:
http://amasci.com/freenrg/mort2.txt - the e-mail list
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=2251b4e6.0108121250.1476a3a7%40posting.google.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Dmorton%2Bvdg%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dsci.physics.electromag ? the newsgroup discussions.

Especially in the group discussion there is an excellent post (among many others almost as good) that I will integrally cite bellow. It belongs to Mr. Jan Panteltje and it reads:

?I am still thinking about this.
If indeed the arc is essential and not the superconductor....
maybe he created a focus field when beam passed through the
round magnet behind the superconductor without him realizing it.
Something else came to mind:
WHAT if the electrons have sufficient energy to either 'disintegrate'
or perhaps make loose some exotic particle.
This particle would then travel in the same direction perhaps, and this
would explain the narrow (non diverging) beam.
Also do you realize how difficult it is at 150 m to find a spot of say
10 cm diameter, behind a brick wall, without visual contact?
Normally you could use a laser to align, but even one degree off in any
direction would cause a miss.
So, how did he do that?
Jus try with a laser to hit something 10 cm diameter 150 meter away!
Now do it with an IR laser and a photo detector only!
Anyways, if it is particles, then yes, I will not speculate about there speed.
My particle physics is non existent at best.
I know the electron was split (well I did dread), but ....
Here is a nice area for the amateur, do not listen to the establishment here!
But on the other hand why was this not observed / reported in linear electron
accelerators?
More questions then answers, good!
Do you really have a vd Graaf? Cool.
Regards
Jan?

Genial post! (Please try to understand it in the context of Universons? theory, now fully available but not developed in 2001)
Unfortunately, the experiments related to ?Morton effect? were discussed in 2001 and then it seems they were aborted.
Anyway, the subject is still of acute actuality, imho.

I will recap and summarize my best conclusions depending on your overall interest on the theory of Universons.
So far, I still have on my list of tuff questions the one above about effects in linear accelerators; if anyone is aware of some experimental results on that line, please let me know about them.

Interesting times indeed, don?t you think?

Many thanks for your attention,

Tinu

P.S. Thanks for your thoughtful comments, hoptoad. And welcome aboard!

[lcdvasrm]

I stumbled on that theory while searching for some ufo update on http://www.ufologie.net/indexf.htm
What a crazy time i have these days, especially after some days spent on the disclosure project.

Very strange post from 13thHour. What is the point trying to put down a weird theory by another weird theory and its weird arguments ?

I'd say money talks, bullshit walk. Booth sides.
At least, here that can be solved in a lab. No need for a EBE date.
Make an experiment run and hard facts will pay.

Is WO2007093699 the only patent ?
In addition, does Poher claims he can generate freely energy ?
Did he produce excess energy beyond doubt ?

Never heard of that theory in france.
But, is the Diclosure Project aware of that research ? Because they should (provided it works partically and clearly they require)

Reedited on October 3rd:
I've parsed many of the docs, and the global feeling is not very good.
Especially, the experiments and the arguments that state that there is no electromagnetic effect into play do not convince me at all.
He states that because the maxwell equations are linear, if a force had to appear due to EM effects, then it should be linear with the voltage applied according to these same maxwell equation.
I don't agree with that argument. Who said that EM makes it all ? I mean, a FET (transistor) follows the laws of EM (and Quantum) , and, it doesn't behave linearly.
In addition, i find amazing that he uses a loud speaker in order to detect a gravitational effect. And to finish all that, he works with 1MW impulsions.
It is obvious that with such strong impulsions, you take the risk of non linear effects of all sorts, whatever you can argue that 'there should be no non linearity with the chosen materials'
And also the risk of basic induction effects.
I will be more convinced if he does his future experiments with DC current, and please don't use any EM sensitive device when trying to detect Gravity variations, that's dumb stupid.
I understand that he has no budget, but that's worse than nothing.

[devilzangel]

I doubt many here (including me) will understand the mathematics of this theory; I have read (or more accurately tried to understand) the PDF files on C Poher's site. One would need a Bach. degree in physics to atleast begin to understand the equations.

conceptually though, i do grasp what he is saying.

One thing i would ask of C Poher is to propose or devise a practical method of using or manipulating this "phenomenon" for propulsion. He says applying a high current on the custom-made object causes this directional movement; but where will this "high current" come from???

C Poher has also been involved with UFO research, so i would have to assume that he is thinking in terms of antigravity technology when he talks about propulsion.

I will be keeping tabs on C Poher's research. Looks promising.

devilzangel
..

[lcdvasrm]

I doubt many here (including me) will understand the mathematics of this theory; I have read (or more accurately tried to understand) the PDF files on C Poher's site. One would need a Bach. degree in physics to atleast begin to understand the equations.

conceptually though, i do grasp what he is saying.

One thing i would ask of C Poher is to propose or devise a practical method of using or manipulating this "phenomenon" for propulsion. He says applying a high current on the custom-made object causes this directional movement; but where will this "high current" come from???
...

devilzangel
..

Actually, the initial arguments (relativity does not take part of them, except for corrections) are very basic, indeed of the level of Bach degree, no more. Which is either the mark of pure genius or ...
I spend hours trying to follow rigorously the basic principle, and then his explanation of gravity.
But he doesn't use an inertial referential, worse, he mixes in his descriptions more than one referential.
So by applying what I learned at school, my predictions of what really happens are often exactly the contrary of what he says !

He says is system is OverUnity : one impulsion of unversons could accelerate all the objects in line on a high distance. Whatever their number. So potentially ,large cinetic energy.
He then says that by just recovering the cinetic energy generated, and tranforming it into electricity (sort of dynamo for example)  the loop could be close.
One would just need a starter for the first impulsion ...
I am gonna compute his crackpot index.

[13thHouR]

Sorry peeps, I have been so busy lately that I did not get a chance to reply to all comments on TDM.

I am a little wary about doing this as I do not want to dominate the universon's thread with a different topic.

However i was asked to reply.

What is a theory, well we already have had the Wiki Definition here, but one thing that has been over looked and it is the basic reason why I refer to high energy physics as Conjecture, We exist in a low energy subluminal state. Thus until such time that we actually travel via non subluminal means. Then this area of physics will never be a Theory.

Thus an entire area of Universon's is incorrectly referred to as a Theory. When in fact it is conjecture.

This does not make universon's wrong, but it does knock the credibility of those who would call it a Theory.

Why is TDM more probable?

Quite simply, because it does not require you to rewrite the laws of physics, and to disprove it would require you to through out all the known laws of physics as well as being able to already travel via non subluminal means.

Well in the latter case we already do, but relative velocity seems to be a steep learning curve for a lot of peeps. So i wont jump that far ahead yet.

If anybody has any serious questions about TDM.  (not just silly remarks) then please feel free to ask them. (just try not to dominate this thread with the questions).

I do have question for the chap saying that Universon's is a theory.

Other than finite classical physics. What is the purpose of Universons since it has nothing to define any matter state beyond relative zero point with any tangible data?

I am sorry if that rains upon your parade, as it clear this is long thought out piece of conjecture, but even conjecture has to be viable. Universons does not (in high energy physics terms) offer anything more than Hawkings Magic Numbers.

As I said before, the question is,  does Universons offer anything new in classical physics terms? I honestly believe this is where is is stronger and may well be more viable.

Where as TDM gives scalable increments of measurement which can expand or contract to infinite possible dimensions and still be fully reversible. Any given TDM state (scale universe) offers full finite level physics. Be it our current TDM state 0 or even TDM state 9,999,999. btw TDM state 9,999,999 is 9,999,998 times smaller than the smallest definable state in our finite universe. It has a relative scale velocity of 0 to C, but when compared to us its pseudo superluminal velocities are 9,999,998C  to 9,999,999C.

Can Universons give such precise velocity values to states of the universe are is nearly 10 Million times smaller than our relative zero point/event horizon?

Well quite simply it cannot, because without TDM, nothing is definable with any workable values beyond our relative zero point. As that is the fundamental weakness of classical physics. Unless you address this issue then any conjecture meaningless names, numbers and fantasy.


Simple fact TDM returns relative and pseudo superluminal velocities for any possible scale range within a possible infinite space time continuum. Although if would take an infinity to plot them all.

It can show relative interactions, via classical physics terms, and the resulting cascades that occur through out space time from any interaction/reaction in those scale ranges (TDM states)


TDM is one of those annoyance of physics conjecture. by its very nature it defies the self supporting rule that would normally be the reason to condemn it. As to do so is to also say all our defined physics is wrong. To reiterate the basic principle of TDM.

TDM uses the known finite universe as defined by classical physics, as a base standard for a scale value that can be used to span an infinite space time continuum. A glorified tape measure of scale. One that gives tangible values beyond relative zero point. That can be compared, reversed and used in a productive manner to predict interactions anywhere in an infinite universe.

Thus to disprove it, is to disprove all that is defined by classical physics.

Now do you understand the conundrum?




As an example of its practical applications. I used TDM to show that the desired kick in the so called TPU's is in fact multiple Soliton waves, that quantum tunnel, thus do not lose their potential energy to the physical resistance of wire, a type of room temperature superconductivity if your prefer that term. However if repeated at the correct interval, this kick can be increased exponentially, To create the apparent output of energy which exceeds that of the input. In reality it is just matter being displaced from another scale range of space time  that the unit is catching up with on its own travel along the curvature of our relative space time.

However since we believe we only exist in a single scale range (TDM state) it appears as a gain in energy. Much like a warship firing shells at you from the other side of the horizon, you cannot see or directly interact with the ship so it appears to come from no where.

You may  notice I said  "we believe we only exist in a single scale range". This is a correct statement, but again that is a very steep learning curve, I will come back to that as peeps learn more about TDM.

As I sure only few of you will understand how we can both be finite and exist infinite states at the same time. As our human brains are not normally wired to think both in the box and outside the box at the same time. Which is also why some people have problems with understanding TDM.

Everything we define is in the box. TDM is the box and infinite possible scale versions of that box.