Overunity is impossible! (and why you shouldn't care)

[Bessler007]

The theoretical model I'm looking at changes from kinetic to potential to kinetic to potential causing an imbalance of power.  I didn't think conservation of energy would be violated but if this model works I think it will be creating energy in the imbalance.

At a minimum it will prove that gravity is more than a conservative force; that inspite of the loss to entropy and friction the path a mass takes as it's falling in a gravitational field can have more power than is necessary to reposition it back from where it came.


Bessler007
mib HQ

[Localjoe]

Whoever started this thread must need to sleep sometime ;DMabey with some fishes sometime ... The glass is half full folks were all still alive and able to do work in a positive direction.

[FunkyJive]

My intent is merely to invite fellow OU researchers to adopt a more scientific approach.  I'll be the first to admit that our current scientific paradigm is somewhat limited and incomplete, but I don't see any use in disregarding it outright!  Build on science, don't tear it down.

In order to define something new, you must understand what is old, and then recognize the differences.

Hi Esotericman.

I understand and agree with your viewpoint - notably that OU researchers should adopt a more scientific approach. Equally, I would agree that neither traditional scientific thinking or the possibility of new scientific discovery should be discounted, though it would appear that the weight of opinion and certainties preserving traditional beliefs does little to discourage an equal and opposite reaction 

Nevertheless, we need balance and objectivity if we're ever going to move forward and avoid fueling even greater entrenchement of views, perhaps from some wayward OU experimenters claiming free energy when such claims can be easily disputed and discounted. Sceptics are an essential ingredient to new discovery, but only those that maintain balance and analytical objectivity.

My current views are such that science isn't necessarily wrong when you consider CoE in the conventional sense, though I believe that the formula is incomplete when there is a universal energy present in all matter that current science still struggles to explain with the same degree of credible evidence that they themselves would require as proof of over-unity. However, suggestible OU sceptics would deny acknowledgement of this, rejecting that something exists which they do not sufficiently well understand in order to draw their conclusions. I've seen and heard enough over some years to suggest that the facts do not always fit the science, so I try to remain open-minded but objective throughout.

The theoretical model I'm looking at changes from kinetic to potential to kinetic to potential causing an imbalance of power.  I didn't think conservation of energy would be violated but if this model works I think it will be creating energy in the imbalance.

Hi Bessler007

I can understand your thinking - particularly if the imbalance you refer to exists between the macro and micro models, with the two entities inter-related but evidently governed by dissimilar laws - i.e. the physical and time domains respectively 


FunkyJive

[gaby de wilde]

Overunity is defined as extracting more energy from a system than was input.  Obviously physics has a few issues with this concept- namely because it is impossible....

That's nonsense.  You are like a priest chanting your dogma mantra.

I won't go into why it is impossible, because everyone who has ever sat in on a physics class has already been taught why.

Oh but you do need to prove why if you make such claims.

We are not taking your word for anything.

"Been taught why" is nonsense.

It has nothing to do with the real world. Specially when you make it a divine truth it becomes religious dogma rather then science.

So you got duped in skool now you tell me what I shouldn't care about?

Sounds more like oil minioning to me.

You desperately want people to ignore the free energy topic.

That's what it looks like.

Believe it or not conventional laws of physics, while perhaps not yet entirely complete, are quite valid.

It's either valid or it's not complete. As the later is extremely obvious the first has to be wrong.

You are still free to make your dogmatic claims evident of course.

Here we have a website full of people who have been waiting for this exact and accurate description of yours.

http://einsteinhoax.com/

And as you naysayers have never produced any evidence with this dogma you most certainly do not earn the benefit of the doubt. Physics assumes things. If you cant make the assumption evident at all that places it far far far away from an absolute truth.

[FunkyJive]

Believe it or not conventional laws of physics, while perhaps not yet entirely complete, are quite valid.

It's either valid or it's not complete. As the later is extremely obvious the first has to be wrong.

I'd have to agree with Gaby De Wilde, as it's the validity of conventional laws of physics that is brought into question if even the mere possibility of over-unity is to be entertained, and this a true objective scientist would continue to accept until adequately proven or disproven.

The suggestible "scientist" expects us all to blindly accept the laws that they themselves subscribe to, instantly rebuking all notions of over-unity possibly arising from the very essence (i.e. attractive and repulsive forces) that bonds and unites all matter in the known universe. For this there are parallels with the flat earth theory of ages past, where the earth was flat simply because "it had to be", despite no-one ever having actually seen the end of the earth to draw such conclusions. It was easy to demonstrate - simply by pouring water on a near flat surface and comparing it to water poured over a ball, so to suggest that the world was round was utterly ludicrous as the seas would run away. Only by bravely challenging this widely-held "fact" and proving otherwise by Christopher Columbus' voyage of discovery was the rulebook re-written.

This of-course then led to the startling discovery of something called gravity - a shift in thinking within the scientific community that could no longer be ignored. Once gravity's effects were realised then the motions of planets could be understood - but only by its influence as gravity itself remains woefully misunderstood to this day. This in turn led on to the development of satellites to orbit the earth, a positive development that is reliant upon this mysterious gravitational force, and so still accepted as science fact that gravity is a real phenomenon.

However, the possibility of a discovery and proper scientific demonstration of over-unity will once again challenge science, though even entertaining the mere possibility is again met with ridicule from the advocates of traditional theory simply because it does not align with their long-established beliefs. They would continually expect everyone to subscribe to laws constrained by their own horizons, with even the most bizarre contrasting theories and conjecture to prove otherwise - again in support of their current limitations in knowledge and popular belief.

The proof once offered as to why the world was flat by the above example was not even remotely valid as there was a huge aspect (i.e. gravity), hitherto undiscovered, that was missing from the equation. By the same token, who could argue even the near-validity of modern science with such a universal absence in scientific understanding? It's simply that it fits the modern world as we understand it to be, and as with orbital satellites reliant on that mysterious gravitational force, why would we actually need to understand such phenomena if we could simply exploit it to positive advantage?


FunkyJive