My question for detractors of overunity

[The Eskimo Quinn]

Don't worry about this guy Bess, my first post proved correct in his last statement, he quoted Newton.

You can't believe in overunity or perpetual motion if you  to the laws of thermodynamics or Newton, the object of this site is to prove him wrong, not to use him to the contrary.

If you believe Newton is correct, then you will never achieve overunity, because part of your equations will always point you in the wrong direction regarding an outcome.

I knew Newton was wrong when I was 12. You see if an object is propelled and will continue unless interferred with another (Galileo originally stolen by Newton the fraud) I realised that all had forgotten that many interactions and interferences transfer energy, as is the general argument, however no one considered the transfer may be to the moving object. thus propelling it. Many had considered this as additional power, however no one considered that it may be a constant force such as gravity or another universal factor that does not loose power itself by such a transfer, such as the earth does not loose power because it holds us on it or assist an object to fall.

Gravity is proof of perpetual or accelerated motion past the initial point of propullsion. The other constant is permanent magnets, whilst they die eventually, they do not die faster from use, the life span of the magnet is not sped up by the number of objects it  repells.

To quote Newton on this site is proof of non belief in perpetual motion or overunity. Motive busted.

[hansvonlieven]

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.

But that is not what we are talking about when we look at heat etc. There we are talking about forced molecular movement by an outside force. Totally different kettle of fish. Because here we have movement relative to the outside force.

Hans von Lieven

[Bessler007]

Hello Eskimo Quinn,

I don't disagree.  Just looking at the initial post is very telling to me.

I'll close with this.  If the leaders of OU/FE had substance in their claims they would accomplish something.  They would make a practical model.  As it is they are gathering flocks in what I see as an attempt to remain relevant so that if someone actually could create a working model they could chime in and say, "see, didn't we say that?"

I see this attempt by the leadership as an attempt to create a structure so that everyone that wants to come to OU/FE will have to pass by the gates they're standing at and and pay toll.

I am not paying toll to these trolls and I have no problem exposing them for the trolls they are.  If they weren't they'd make a viable model and sell it rather than selling vague ideas or dreams of what might be.

I got their toll. 


Bessler007
mib HQ

[PolyMatrix]

@Bessler007.

What have I said in my statements about CoE that is incorrect?
What have I said about how we measure things to determine a value for energy is incorrect?

Physics people say they have this theory and these are the experiments they have used to prove the theory.
So I look at what they actually did to prove the theory try to simplify the meaning so that I can understand exactly what physics people are saying. If you disagree with my translation and it is wrong point out the error please.

Yes I grok exactly all that you say in a psychological, semantic, Null-A, predicate logic way, and make some theoretical propositions of some of the implications intended behind the way the words have been presented.

However even with all these words the probabilistic wave of understanding has not collapsed to anywhere near certainty. So therefore I still know nothing.

The skeptics answer to my question seems to be "I won't believe that which contradicts what I want to believe until I see it working and confirmed by somebody I personally trust to make that judgment and will sit on the sidelines look down on anybody who does not speak in the technical language of the science and say that they are really stupid people wasting so much effort on what is clearly impossible".

Have I missed anything?

Not sure who is being arrogant here. Is the knowledge of physics meant to be kept secret and tied up in technical words or is the desire to help stupid people and teach the principles reflected in what has been said in this discussion?

Given my understanding of how time is measured and that physicist?s talk of time being variable what is it in terms of how it has been decided to define a time period is actually being said?

All I am doing as far as I can tell is changing words like time, CoE, Energy into the terms from which these ideas were measured. Yet for some reason the skeptic does not appear like this!

Hmmm - Physicist have developed the language of mathematics. By using all the allowable rules for normal fractions it is possible to prove 1= (-1) no that can not be right lets just say there is an operation you can do for fractions that you can not do with imaginary numbers. How about showing 0 = 1 but wait that proof is wrong, as you cannot divide by 0. I know lets use integral calculus so that as this distance between two points gets smaller and tends to zero we can work out a function that enables us to calculate the area between two points under a curve. However we cannot use the same technique to calculate say the length of the hypotenuse on a triangle as dividing by 2 is infinitely possible.

So from these examples I would say you really need to understand what is physically happening when manipulating equations to be sure of its accuracy.

I did not say physicists have a misunderstanding, I am saying that they are not looking at what they are saying in terms of the way they **measure** their experiments.

I did make my point, you did not attempt to grok it or correct it. I have made the attempt to understand why you state the obvious 'make it happen' and when shown that it has happened you refuse to believe it as proof.

So who is being scientific in this conversation, one ready and willing to accept that what we have observed can with one repeatable experiment change the way we understand this reality or someone who must wait until peer pressure says that what they don?t want to believe is true?

[Bessler007]

Professor Sophistry,

You wouldn't know a cogent argument comprised of salient facts if it bit you on the arse.  lol

hummm.   lol.


Bessler007
mib, HQ