My question for detractors of overunity

[The Eskimo Quinn]

If you don't comprehend that there is work going on, you have 1 no concept of science or energy, and 2, the Einstein remark is moot, i defeated Einstein 4 years ago when i published.

POC2 =POC2 not E

PO being the mass - Photon Particle

Theoretical science has rules, and these rules include that each component of the theory must be real or accepted, if a componenet is generic, EG the mass, then the theory must apply to all mass, if the generic is gravity, it must apply to all gravity and so on. Albert's theory was flawed as he used a generic term in mass, which was hilariously the greatest argument for him was particle speed in an accelerator.

This being formed when the average laymen would say that no ship could travel at such speeds to ever achieve this, nor any object , molecule or particle. The proponents such as yourself for Einstein used a particle accelerator to prove a small component of speed, although nowhere near light speed squared, as the proof he was correct.

I used PO as the mass to prove him wrong, as at C2, PO remains PO and does not become E, being as PO is a particle of light.

So spare me the relative universe remarks, and if you were not some skeptic trying to debunk the work of people on the site (with very little knowledge of science) you would know in the very least the pounds per square inch pressure from the gravitational pull against the upper magnet, the pounds per square inch for the magnet is measured in labs every day.

As for no energy without movement? Wow you really have no concept of science, gee energy from chemicval heat? ever heard of a peltier??? they use Peltiers in reverse to get power from the temperature differential with not one moving part, or solar???

For an intellectual battle, you appear to have arrived unarmed

[hansvonlieven]

As for no energy without movement? Wow you really have no concept of science, gee energy from chemicval heat? ever heard of a peltier??? they use Peltiers in reverse to get power from the temperature differential with not one moving part, or solar???

Incorrect. Heat = molecular hysteresis = movement

Only because there is no gross mechanical movement does not mean movement is not there. The same is true of Peltier and Solar.

Movement everywhere, hence energy.

Hans von Lieven

[PolyMatrix]

In response to no energy without movement?

I sometimes wonder if physicists really understand what theyÃ,  are saying.

1) How do we measure time? By remembering that there was a previous state and counting the number of times an event occurs. (Show me another way of calculating time)

2) Why complicate the notion of energy by giving it many different types when all you are doing is recording the amount of distance travelled by all the objects affected by an objects movement. This is surely what is meant by the phrase "Energy is the ability to do work". Has 'Heat' become defined as something different other than increased vibration activity? Is vibration nothing more than measuring the distance travelled on a wobbly path? (yes I know I am not mentioning a load of other factors that happen with vibration, I am just focusing on simplifying the basic fundamentals of the meaning of theories and how that meaning is obtained)

3) Theoretical science has rules. So this type of science 'assumes' it knows all the rules or can only work within the rules that have been observed.

4) Yes light does have problems concerning mass or no mass, though I am curious how the Michelson-Morley experiment is explained along with light having mass. As this experiment is also backed up by the light from binary stars.

5) Peltiers and 'no moving parts': By no moving parts I take it that you are referring to mechanical movement but still consider the effect to work as molecules are being affected by the transference of 'the excitement' referred to as heat into an electromagnetic 'push'.

Please do try and remove yourself from all the facts you have learned for a moment and consider the real meaning of the concepts in what I am actually writing rather than letting your trained mind quickly come to conclusions based on your own word associations and interests in this subject.

Simple example: Brownian motion in a jar that cannot lose heat or photons and is not influenced by any nearby gravity or magnetic influences. Then by CoE that Brownian motion will continue for all time as also suggested by NewtonÃ,’s laws. Another way of saying CoE would be that the total amount of 'movement' within a system over a period of 'time' remains the same for each similar period of time. Effectively CoE is perpetual motion within a closed system since the only way we can measure energy is by movement. So while the movement can be transferred from atom to atom as they 'bump' into one another the total amount of movement is neither lost or gained. Since things can be 'bumped' around in a circular fashion on a universal scale energy is 'free' if you claim CoE must be maintained.

In addition to this how about applying Pressure, Volume, Temprature law on a universal scale. The universe is expanding is it not? How can that not affect all the molecules contained within the universe?

Still if you must keep the things you have learned in separate boxes then it is not surprising that you do not care to take the time to comprehend how everything you say is true, is exactly the same as I have said in these posts only I am stating it in such a simple way it seems to be outside your ability to comprehend that it is the same.


[Edit - What is it that Occam's Razor says?]

[The Eskimo Quinn]

Hans, he said.

In other words Eskimo in order to harness energy not only must one object be moving relative to another but they must also transfer some of their source of movement to another object

That was a mechanical statement, and the secondary part of the statement about transfer is more what you are referring to.

I do not subscribe to bu11sh!t science myself, and resent the use of molecular movement as a description of movement, that is for clowns to be pedantic.

For those who don't understand the argument: molecular movement occurs in all objects in electrons every second of life whether creating or transferring energy or not, and the movement of electrons in the atoms of a wooden fuck1ng chair are not measurable.

[Bessler007]

. . .
Your ability to remain focused on facts is admirable. I however tend to look at things in an associative way and so see a relationship between my origional question and ZPE.
. . .


PolyMatrix,

I think this is the single biggest problem among FE/OU seekers today and it's very counterproductive.  When you say, "I however tend to look ..." what I suspect is you'd like to induce your ADD method of a look at reality into me.  That's not happening.

Your self-styled Socrates sophistry of rhetoric is evident from your claim, "So effectively this means to my way of thinking that I know nothing." then you want to expound on the nature of reality from your perspective.  You punctuate your high opinion of yourself with this comment, "I sometimes wonder if physicists really understand what they  are saying."  Aren't  you the arrogant one?

If you think physicists have some misunderstanding of reality why don't you clearly state what that misunderstanding is?  Publish your ideas.  In the meantime physicists are the ones that have developed the language of mathematics that allow us to analyze reality and additionally have mapped vast areas of it (reality).

You further describe yourself by giving me reading assignments so that if I follow your instruction I might some how grok your point.  lol.  Make your point and support it from the vast dialog you cite.  You care to take on the mantle of ?professor? presuming to teach me or anyone else?  Well then use this style, Doctor.  Delve into that vast store of knowledge you have and...

• Make a model!

FE/OU believers are like kids in an energy candy store seeing motion at the quantum or cosmic level and deciding, "I'll have some of that energy to power my contraption!"  Sure you will.  My question remains:

• WHEN WILL THE TALK END AND THE MODEL BUILDING BEGIN???

The model building I'm speaking about is one that actually works.  I know there's been talk of building and a frenzy of building.  What I'm wondering is when will something viable happen?

Until that does the skeptic has the reality of it not happening arguing on their side.  Do you get the point, professor of sophistry?


Bessler007
mib HQ