The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[mrmjwilson]

I have spent the last couple hours reading this post... thought provoking to say the least (with the small exception of a few personal jabs)...

A few thoughts...

While some may argue about the correct wording of the line from Sherlock Holmes, I found the inverse to be of significant importance when contemplating the mindset of almost anyone who would be associated with this project (with the exception of moles attempting to subvert the efforts of this endeavor for whatever reason)...

I mean, how many times have you been told something like the following when you tell someone of an idea you have, "When you eliminate the possible, whatever you have left, no matter how probable, can not be the truth.". Only when you are able to prove that something is possible is the understanding of this possibility added to the lexicon of that which is possible. No small job as most of you would attest...

Enter the butterfly. How do butterflies know how to fly? Imagine crawling on your belly your whole life, tucking yourself into a cocoon, breaking out and unfolding your wings for the first time. Enjoying the great warmth and then for the first time a small flutter of your wings propel you into space for the first time... talk about adding a dimension to your awareness. Now imagine trying to explain this frame of reference to a caterpillar...

I have also noticed many people say they think outside the box, but I think a new way at looking at "The Box" may garner one more desireable results. Regarding the box as the standard frame of reference from which we see the world regarding any certain discipline, and language as being that which dictates the limits upon which we can form a consensus for this standard frame of reference, and language having been constructed from our combined experiences... wouldn't it be more beneficial to expand our personal understanding of the box beyond the constraints of our combined experiences than to leave the box altogether? Concerning the attempt to expand our box in this manner should of course include studying the constraints (barriers/filters) which our language places upon us when attempting this endeavor.

Thus we are back to the issue at hand, understanding that we do not understand (are ignorant of) the nomenclature of success until it is understood, while attempting to alter our frame of reference so that we can envision an understanding of that which is required for our success. Whether through leaps of intuition or logic, we will continue to expand our box, and like the butterfly which instantly understands its box has been expanded we can not go back and aptly describe our new frame of reference to the uninitiated until they have a firm understanding of the metamorphisis that our language, which describes our new frame of reference, has undergone.

All I can say is, keep asking "How is that possible?", when it seems so improbable that everyone else believes it to be impossible... you may just bust the box wide open.

Good luck and God speed!
Mike

[retrodynamic]

Project Submission:
The new Gearturbine, power by barr, with retrodynamic dextrogiro vs levogiro effect, at non parasitic looses system, and over-unit engine. Details:

www.geocities.com/gearturbine

[retrodynamic]

Project Submission:
The Gearturbine, power by barr, with retrodynamic dextrogiro vs levogiro effect, at non parasitic looses system, and over-unit engine. details:

www.geocities.com/gearturbine