The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[nightlife]

 One problem I find is that it is hard to communicate unless we are talking to the other person in person. Expressions tell a lot and therefore help us understand what each other is talking about. On forums and in letters, it is hard because we don't see the expressions that go along with the words.
The other issue is that we all have our own words for certain things that we don?t know the proper words for and that makes it hard for us to understand each other. The confusion of the words used may lead to misunderstandings as I have found to happen here. I have personally had to look up words to help me understand what others have said but not all are willing to do that and that makes for reasons why some are misunderstood.

A good example would be EMF and collapsing field. Some of us think of EMF as collapsing fields and vise versa. For those who know what the proper words are for the action, it makes it difficult to understand what action is actually being referred to as.

[Koen1]

Perhaps one of the reasons for the lack of substantial progress is this. From my own observation I see that the vast majority of us pursuing overunity is totally one-sided - I mean toatally practical minded, and the idea of seeking a theoretical framework or system of reference  is as  far away from him/her as the the Pidgin speaker from the "House killing piccaninnies"                 laci

I agree. This is the very thing I am trying to address. In my view this requires a new philosophy as well as major modifications to language. How one could go about this is still an enigma to me. Hence the discussion.

Hans

... I can understand that a paradigm change may be needed in some ways, but like any paradigm shift that wouldn't really have to be a fully new philosophy, would it..?

[exxcomm0n]

@ Koen1

Only so far as was necessary/possible. In Hans and Jeanna's muslim pork sausage argument it was touched upon that he might be disinclined to invent better sausage due to religious abhorrance, but also he might also be inclined to further weaken the power of the infidels through absurd purchase price and the tendency for infidels to over-eat this beduin bratwurst.

Both examples showed philosophy/religion being a prime motivator in one way or another.

@ Jeanna

I vote for the cartoonist/police sketch artist interpretive tool.

You need not be illiterate to be lost in explanation. It might be because you have a conflicting vocabulary. Meaning that you both attach different meanings to the same word. Someone uses one in a completely different context than the one you know, and you are lost because the other words of the conversation didn't remotely touch on what you know that object word to mean.

[z.monkey]

Yup,

Need to rename the site Underunity.com...

Power applied minus work done times efficiency factor equals less than applied power out....

That means work done at a cost...

No such thing as a free puppy...

Overunity go bust, the laws of physics prevail...

Feeling overworked and inefficient, but I got a cool house...

Yeah, pigs do fly, hahahahahaaaaa...

[Koen1]

alright... but except for the fact that we must not stick too closely with "established scientific dogma"
in order to sometime obtain OU, which is illustrated by the recurrence of people stating that OU
is impossible because it should break certain "laws of physics" (think of the "conservation of energy" law
for example, the main "argument" for perpetuum mobile not to be possible), I don't see much direct
reason to throw most of that "established scientific dogma" overboard...
It seems to me that some refining of the dogma is desired with regard to the proper incorporation
of Maxwells quaternion "scalar" electrodynamics, and proper philosphical consideration may need
to be given to certain "established" aspects (regularly taking a close look at the postulates and
seeing if we couldn't interpret them or the initial observations slightly differently, and what that
would mean for the rest of the construct that is physics; It can be usefull to kick the cupboard
every once in a while just to see what is solidly connected and what is just a flimsy little addition
that comes falling off with a good kick. ), as well as continued effort to unite the 'marco'physics
and the quantum level...
And I do agree that for some of these operations new or rather better words may be needed
to describe them clearly.
But it seems to me that this "paradigm shift" if you want to call it that, is nothing new and an extension
of normal scientific development...
Throughout the "modern" scientific era, people have come up with different views and interpretations,
and those that clearly described things that were not described yet, or that described observations
better, or even explained seemingly anomalous observations, most often were incorporated into
the "scientific dogma" and became part of it, thereby expanding the body and structure of scientific
knowledge and expanding the paradigm somewhat, often also bringing along new words for newly
described elements.
How often before have scientists publicly stated "We now know everything, there is nothing left to
be discovered" only to be proven dead wrong a couple of years later? Before relativity theory,
they were pretty sure they had everything covered. Turned out to be wrong, and they needed
a slight alteration of the paradigm to fit it in. Although of course relativity theory was actually
deduced from observations and well known postulates and some lucid thinking, and there weren't
really any truly new observations involved, so it could have been developed before Einstein if
anyone had had the sense to study the old postulates and common observations very closely.
That's partly my point: if we take a very critical look at what we already have in established
theories and (preferably "anomalous") observations, and give that cupboard a good kick, someone
might just find himself hit in the head with a realisation as profound as the relativity insight,
which could advance our paradigm a notch further. And that's partly my point too: I don't think
a true completely new paradigm is needed, but rather a somewhat adjusted version of the one
we already have.

Have you ever read Randell Mills GUT? (http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory/theory.shtml)
I think there's a nice example of "kicking the cupboard": Mills has re-examined the history and development
of quantum physics and its most fundamental postulates, and has apparently pinpointed a few that
were never actually properly deduced but rather assumed during experiments, never really tested,
and later simply assumed to be correct and never questioned. He seems to show that one or two
of these "false" postulates allow a different interpretation, and this gives rise to a slighlty different
construct of quantum mechanics, which all of a sudden allows for quantum interactions that
the "establishment" does not acknowledge. Mills has worked out an experiment that can be used to
easily test his theory, which has succesfully been performed by several physicists, and which
seems to confirm Mills' "outrageous" claim that Hydrogen has an additional lower energy state
than the one "established science" claims to be the lowest. Proven by experiment, yet still
not accepted by the "establishment". Good example of kicking the cupboard and catching a gem,
and of the "scientific establishment" refusing to run with it because it does not accord to dogma.

And there's a few more; The entire "B field around a toroidal core coil that affects the electroweak forces"
concept for example is a neat connection between quantumphysical processes in atoms and electromagnetism,
and was pointed out by Dicky Feynman if I recall correctly in one of his letters, but is still not taught
in most high schools or even colleges. Most study books don't mention it, except of course for those that
are high level quantum theory. But it seems so very important, so why not teach people to think
about it more? ... It seems to be similar to the fear for free thought the Catholic church had back in
Galileos time: the establishment really can't have people running around telling other people that
the dogma does not accord with observations, that would undermine their authority.

But rather than doing away with that and starting anew, I'd say we can simply compare different views
and deduce the similarities and differences, upon which experiment can be based.

The "magnetic currents" idea for example, sounds interesting but is unfortunately too vague.
"north and south pole magnets come out and half go up and half go down to the ground"
may be a statement that was clear in Ed's head, with his mental pictures to go with it,
but it very vague without those pictures. There's probably some theory involved that was
also in Eds head and not explained properly. But anyone knows that, save for a multi-
dimensional interpretation or a magical solution, Dirac showed how impossible it appears
to be to obtain a monopole. Even if we had seperate monopoles, then why exactly would
the one go into the ground and the other not? And since magnetism and electricity are
directly related, is the view of magnetic monopoles not merely the same as electrons
moving, but rather than using electric monopoles he's made a 90 degree angle in thinking
and turned them into magnets... I think that Ed may have had some idea but his explanations
are totally confusing and not at all clear.
However, if I keep in mind that Ed basically claimed that, in his view, electricity consists of
tiny magnets, and just keep that in mind, then I can see some parallels with recent developments
in the "established science" world.
"Spintronics" is the exciting "new" field of study if electron spin interactions that involve the
spin of the electrons themselves. To simplify, electrons moving through a magnetic field
behave like tiny magnets that align their spins with the magnetic field. And a current
through a flat piece of conductor will generate a circular magnetic field perpendicular to
the direction of current flow, which the electrons in the current "see" and they divide
evenly according to their spins; half of them moves toward the N-S oriented magnetic field
zone in the conductor, the other half toward the S-N oriented field zone, causing
a current in one direction to split into two currents in that direction that have opposite
spin polarisation, in other words are oppositely magnetised.
Now with that knowledge, Eds statements seem to begin to make a lot more sense.
I hope that serves to illustrate my point that it may not always be useful to start completely
anew, and that taking established science and just seeing how other views may fit
in there somehow and forming a synthesised view of both can be similar to simply
adjusting the established view and can be more usefull than trying to re-invent the wheel.

That said, it is a little unclear to me what is meant by "us lacking a framework"...
The framework is physics, experimentation and observation, isn't it?
It is the whole of what we know has been done and didn't produce OU,
and what might be and could produce OU...
But I guess that's not what is meant?