The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[sdanielmsev]

  To Bill:
You may be a fan of Sir Doyle's, but you certainly do not know his writings. You are incorrect, and your spelling is wrong. The scientific method is to examine that which is possible, not that which is impossible. What may seem improbable to others, is just another walk in the park to the opened minded. Listen and learn, .that is the pathway to true knowledge. What I am able to see in this thread, excuse my ignorance, is there is a disjunction between the probable and the possible. Now I am just the house painter,but I talk to the average Joe everyday. Grappling with overunity is not something most people do on a daily basis. [Even tough they should, as it will affect their life for the next century]
I am just building a pulse motor bicycle, and the help here is great.

[Pirate88179]

@ sdanielmsev:

"Sir Conan Doyle writing as Sherlock Holmes in The Beryl Coronet, ?When you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

The above is a direct quote I found.  You are correct.  I remembered it backwards.  I am not sure what you meant by my spelling was wrong too. (always possible)

Bill

[utilitarian]

You may be a fan of Sir Doyle's

Sir Arthur's.  The knighthood is denoted with "Sir" plus first name.

[Ren]

Hi everyone, Great thread Hans

Id like to make a few comments here if I may. I think the biggest problem facing OU'ers is the lust for the design/contraption and what it will provide. I see more and more people trying to build something without first striving to understand it in its entirety. You cannot build what you dont understand. I think the genius' of the past like Tesla, Ed, Keely were genius because they strove more than ever to UNDERSTAND the forces at play. Notice how when one studies them (like Scotty1 studied Ed) they are able to understand concepts and ideas in a new light. This often leads to a finer understanding of the principles at play.

Karl Schappeller's book "The physics of the Primary state of matter" has a chapter in the beginning simply to address the TERMINOLOGY used and what the author means when he uses those words. Almost all the words have a different meaning to the traditional understandings according to the dictionaries of today. If genius' like Schappeller or Russell invisioned the wonders of our universe, but they were unable to convey it in the way they saw it, then their vision is lost. It makes alot of sense when you see all the confusion there is over a simple patent etc...

just my 2 cents

[The Eskimo Quinn]

Can't say as iv'e ever been accused of correct grammer, so you may well be right!! in fact the last week has been and endless stream of comments about my speeling and garmatical incorrectnessnnes.

I believe though Hans has only stumbled onto an old phrase called thinking outside the square, the problem is i think, that aside from myself and the nutjobs as we are known, is that we don't start inside the square.
and those attempting to do it are too like the child holding onto the side of the pool, or using a life jacket, confidence is only real when you can't see the shore.

A big yes from me as a true path to any correct and real thought, not the rehasing of someone elses point of view, that seems right and safe and as comfortable as holding onto the side of the pool.