Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Paul.  That's a nasty number you've got.  I've just looked it up. You'll need some expert treatment there I think.

From one heretic to another - I'm not sure that describing the field as 'flowing' or 'bending' is really sufficient.  As I understand it - mainstream ALL consider that there's a 'carrier' particle for all the forces.  Something that interacts with the forces on a profound level - that then determines the particle's behaviour.  The forces themselves are in the field.  So.  The field 'force' has a sympathetic particle - such as the electron for electrical fields - and so on.  Then.  While the field itself is not explained - the behaviour on the particle is.  But the downside is that there are no gravitons found for gravity nor darkons for dark energy - and so on.  However, they have found the electron.  This is absolutely not speculated as they have also photographed it.  I've seen the photographs.  It looks something like this '*****'.  A discontinuous series of lights.  It's that 'discontinuous' nature that surprised the theorists - I think.  As this implies that it also decays and then restructures so to speak.  Not unlike a virtual particle - that can first come from particle interactions and then they disappear or  decay back into the void or the vacuum.  Who knows?

I think, by the way, that our string theorists propose that the vacuum of space comprises strings arranged in a kind of 'scaffolding' - but like our classicists, they also propose that this field is steady.  The only ones proposing that it's massively energetic are the aether theorists.  But as they variously describe the field being filled with virtual photons or even electrons - then they're imposing a field condition on particles that - in their essential nature - are not able to generate fields.  Electrons are negatively charged - and would not be able to amass in any kind of coherent structure.  And photons only irridate outwards in straight lines.  My own preference is close to Ed Leedskalnin's proposal which is that the 'carrier' particles are monopoles - except that, here too, monopoles would not be able to amass as a field.  But dipoles would.  Therefore do I think that the quintessential construct is a dipole - which would give it the precise properties of a standard permanent bar magnet - both individually and 'en masse'. 

My own proposal suggests that particles, such as the photon and the electron all have a moment where they 'decay' into the field.  That's when they're 're-energised' in a sort of way - and then they come back out of the field - decay - and so it goes.  Essentially the energy in the particle would be almost nothing.  The energy would be the result of the movement of the field that supports it.  And, therefore, in effect the actual energy that we see in the movement of particles - essentially relies on a continual interaction with the field that surrounds it and, in it's way, supports it.  That would certainly account for the 'discontinous' nature of the particle. 

But I do see a difference in the time line between manifest and hidden states of that particle.  Here's why.  If the field stays hidden as a result of it's velocity and mass - then, by contrast - what's visible is also the result of it's velocity and mass.  By this I mean that if small and fast and cold - is invisible - then big and slow and hot - is visible.  We CAN see the big and slow and hot - even if that big, slow, hot is still relatively too quick for our eyes.  It can, at least, be seen by photons.

By the way, I believe that the particulate nature of photons has also be proved.  I think it's to do with shining focused light beams on the blade of a rotor that is then able to turn that rotor.  But I'm open to correction here.  I just seem to recall reading an experiment related to this - some time back. 

You might think of taking copious quantities of vitamine C to supplement any medication.  It may help. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Hello Loner,  I've just got back in and have also just seen your post.  It's likely this reply will reach you - your tomorrow.  In any event.

I have no quarrel with the term particle.  It's the part of the whole.  And essentially the smallest part that has - thus far been seen.  I saw your comments regarding a potential reconciliation of everything through standing waves.  Not sure how this is managed.  But quantum and classical physics requires both - and I see no essential difference.  Except obviously that the particle is never stationery unless it's held - suspended - in a bubble chamber or somesuch.  And when it's stationery it has no relevance to it's 'wave state' - or none that can be entirely determined.  Isn't that the basis of Heisenberg's imponderable?  In any event.  The fact is that the particle can be shown as as both but measured against different evident parameters. 

I depend on the wave manifestation to prove the interactive moment with the field.  It's the only way one can reach any kind of time constant.  But it'll take a while to explain.  I'll try it later on today and would love the opportunity.  So Art.  You guys must be patient.

Kind regards,
Rosemary

[exnihiloest]

Critical thinking is gone away from this thread initially dedicated to FE methodology and now turning in vague digressions, pompous blah blah blah and incantations for free energy.
My bullshmeter is seriously shaken. I'm afraid it was damaged by overloading.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Critical thinking is gone away from this thread initially dedicated to FE methodology and now turning in vague digressions, pompous blah blah blah and incantations for free energy.
My bullshmeter is seriously shaken. I'm afraid it was damaged by overloading.

This is rich.  This from a man whose own critical faculties incline him to  use wild allegation as proof of fraudulent culpability.  Whose only contribution to critical thinking is a poor unsubstantiated essay related to some wild claim that our classicists base all theory on proven evidence.  LOL. 

I'm afraid exnihiloest that your own critical faculties are entirely tainted by your evident desire to believe that all OU claims are false.  You can uphold this opinion but only against the evidence.  But indeed, it's your right to do so.  It is, unhappily however, NOT proof of critical thinking.  Nor is it the topic of this thread.  It's only proof of YET more of your own unsubstantiated OPINION - and that seems to be the limit of your intellectual reach.  But more to the point.  There is not ONE CONTRIBUTOR to this thread - who has ARGUED FE or OU or any other term related to challenging thermodynamics.  Perhaps, before you give us your OPINIONS you could take the trouble to read the text.  It usually better qualifies those opinions which you share so gratuitously and which are so embarrassingly inappropriate.

I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread.  It's always your option.  And it will CERTAINLY continue to offend you.  But not because it's BLAH BLAH.  But because you, yourself, have entirely MISSED THE POINT.  LOL

Rosemary

I've just re-read this post and I realise now that I need to make it simpler for you so that you can understand it.  This thread was NEVER 'initially dedicated to FE methodology' as you put it.  What class idiocy did you use to assume this?  Actually, why am I even asking? 

[exnihiloest]

...This from a man whose own critical faculties incline him to  use wild allegation as proof of fraudulent culpability...
...NOT...YET...ONE CONTRIBUTOR...ARGUED FE or OU...MISSED THE POINT...
...
I would strongly recommend that you 'stay away' from this thread
...

Please avoid personnal attacks. My point was general and about what is said and not about people who said it. You should leave your ego at the door of the forum (as well as your capital letters) when you come here. If you really believe that your ad hominem attacks against skeptics will give credibility to your not proved claims of FE, you are wrong.

Visibly you make a personal matter and confuse methodology and opinion. Even if you think sincerely there is FE in your simple circuit, and I agree that you are probably sincere, from a scientific viewpoint the sincerity proves nothing at all.
Therefore to elaborate fuzzy theories about not proved facts and not confirmed observations is what I said: blah blah blah, the same as theorizing about angels to know if they are male or female without having seen one.

About the methodology - Note that I only affirm there is no OU in FE claims (like yours) until proof of the contrary, i.e OU is only a hypothetis not a fact, both options being not yet definitive. Consequently I'm waiting for further duplications, and trying myself, because skepticism implies also open mind. It is the second time you demand me for leaving a thread; an open mind prevents such an attitude, so if you have one, you should exert it. If you are afraid by free speech, you should stay on your own site with your only own version, and censoring objections from others. What fun it would be for you, Rosemary, to deal only with followers having your opinion. Delightful, isn't it?