Hi All,
Boy where should I start?
Time after time I see these claims of free energy or just stupid theories that end up being a waste of time and money.
I have seen these so-called experts making claims and playing formulas like they are above all, far from the truth in my book.
A theory is a idea, mathematics is also part of these idea to a point. When people throw numbers in these idea, this does not mean it to be facts at the end. I really do think most of this is misleading people down a rabit hole, and none of them can back up a single working model of a efficient energy unit.
I question everyone and thing I see, sometimes even experimenting to a point. But where does all of these claims turn out to be, a total waste of time and money in the end.
Now this is what I plan to do about it and all the misleading people making claims.
Resign from all of these forum , they are a waste of my time and it leads to no where!
I can name many that made claims coming from forums like this, and others that is a total lie.
Remember this, every week something comes up in these forums of free energy claims, ever wonder why?
My opinion is to keep people from doing their own research of what they love to do, and waste lot's of time and money doing nothing at the end...
All I will add is, I'm not part of these wasted forums any more!
To those who think they are the experts, you're either brainwashed or delusional that have nothing to back up a single claim!
Best of luck to those who search for the truth!
Tom
@Tom:
Man, I hate to see you drop off of Overunity ~ however I understand your reasoning :(
I respect your efforts and feel like your contributions and work are an effort to connect some "ideas" with "real-world-application" on a physical level.
Wishing you the best.
truesearch
Quote frm tommy reed:'time after time I see these claims of free energy or just stupid theories that end up being a waste of time and money.'
Unquote
Rather short-sighted buddy
I'm afraid Tommy is right. Think about it. Nobody here can name a single O-U device that worked EXCEPT
SM's TPU, and Floyd Sweet's VTA. There are several Videos that prove they had working units.
.
Well
There's Atom too".....(the BIG one)
How to harvest from the environment ".....?
so far nobody's talking
You can easily pull off a Mylow with very thin high-voltage wires and the miserable crappy video resolution circa 1996-1997 when people were still using VHS tape. So you can write off SM and Floyd Sweet as far as I am concerned.
If you don't believe this lie is true, ask the blind man, he saw it too.
Quote from: MileHigh on January 22, 2015, 08:35:33 AM
You can easily pull off a Mylow with very thin high-voltage wires and the miserable crappy video resolution circa 1996-1997 when people were still using VHS tape. So you can write off SM and Floyd Sweet as far as I am concerned.
If you don't believe this lie is true, ask the blind man, he saw it too.
Floyd Sweet got a lot of people going. The insufferable guff promoter Mark Goldes pushed Floyd Sweet back in the fabulous 1980s. Our own EMJ has an almost thirty year old picture of Goldes with Sweet on his website. http://www.hyiq.org/Images/Floyd%20Sweet%20and%20Mark%20Goldes.png
SM just built a small inverter. There is no magic in that. He hid the battery. Again there is no magic in that.
SM TPU
Battery's ?
Well I suppose your the expert...
How bout Atom..him too ?
Thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on January 22, 2015, 08:50:32 AM
SM TPU
Battery's ??
Well I suppose your the expert....
How bout Atom..him too ?
Thx
Chet
Yes, Chet b a t t e r i e s.
SM TPU
Battery's ?
Wow,I.ve seen the engineers report ,where is yours .?? oh I forgot your clairvoyant
No need for you to actually investigate anything OU .....ever.......
You got the "TOuch". your the expert....
How bout A T O M ..him too ?
Thx
Chet
Quote from: ramset on January 22, 2015, 09:06:15 AM
SM TPU
Battery's ?
Wow,I.ve seen the engineers report ,where is yours .?? oh I forgot your clairvoyant
No need for you to actually investigate anything OU .....ever.......
You got the "TOuch". your the expert....
How bout Atom..him too ?
Thx
Chet
I don't know why batteries seem to mystify you so. Battery => step up converter => power out at higher voltage. In Mark's time NiCads would have been ideal for their low impedance and a flyback design would have been straightforward in that envelope.
Occam's Razor instructs us to rule out the ordinary before considering the extraordinary.
So your saying the engineers that witnessed the demonstrations and the cutting open of the devices
We're woefully inept in there investigations
Cutting them open in front of the camera wasn't good enuff for you?
@Mark
QuoteSM just built a small inverter. There is no magic in that. He hid the battery. Again there is no magic in that.
Yes Mark we understand, the whole of the known universe in all it's splendor, all the galaxies and planets, all the life forms in them, all the ecosystems and in fact the whole of our mundane existence can be reduced to.... a spring and a battery.
no mystery, nothing to see here, move along.
AC
Quote from: ramset on January 22, 2015, 09:53:50 AM
So your saying the engineers that witnessed the demonstrations and the cutting open of the devices
We're woefully inept in there investigations
Cutting them open in front of the camera wasn't good enuff for you?
Steven Marks still pays the power utility for his electricity. Imagine that. No one has reproduced his devices performing as he purported they did. Imagine that. Battery and power converters are well understood devices capable of powering what he demonstrated. Imagine that.
Quote from: allcanadian on January 22, 2015, 09:54:12 AM
@Mark
Yes Mark we understand, the whole of the known universe in all it's splendor, all the galaxies and planets, all the life forms in them, all the ecosystems and in fact the whole of our mundane existence can be reduced to.... a spring and a battery.
no mystery, nothing to see here, move along.
AC
Do you limit the universe to con-artists selling phony free energy devices?
Hi All,
I will just add a few more comments,
First of all, nobody on these forums can prove any free energy device!
Every time someone claims a free energy device, they should be challenge ASP. All of the claims in the past turn out to be a lie, and this is what is called a liar!
For those that bring up bogus names that nobody can copy a single free energy claim they built, you are a fool and just believing in magic.
This is my opinion of finding free energy:
If you want simple free energy then buy a solar panel, windmill or even a simple water wheel.
Yep, see how simple this ways, nobody can say this is not free energy!
I know their is a limited of sun light and other factors in collecting this free energy, but really this is the best we have when converting one state of energy into another.
As far as other free energy claims, they are either misleading and don't understand what is going on, or just a plain lair!
Respect comes from integrity, most if not all of the free energy claims don't even come close!
Before I get any comment of my opinion, you should disprove my theory of a conspiracy of free energy claims that mislead the mass!
Tom
@Fatbird
QuoteI'm afraid Tommy is right. Think about it. Nobody here can name a single O-U device that worked EXCEPT [/size]SM's TPU, and Floyd Sweet's VTA. [/size]
T.H.Moray and Victor Schauberger come to mind, Paulo Correa and their PAGD technology have decades of compelling research as well. I could fill a page of examples in no time at all.
In any case Tommy's situation is not unique and I would guess hundreds of thousands of people have made half-baked attempts at a free energy device and failed. The thing to remember is that very few people actually understand the concept of Energy, what it is, why it is thus they are pretty much doomed before they have even started. Oh every dog may have his day and some may stumble across something of value after a lifetime of experiments however trying to build something they do not understand is a daunting task.
What I find odd is that many like Tommy make a half-hearted attempt and then when they fail they proclaim with authority for all to hear ... it cannot be done. As if the whole of the universe must somehow magically revolve around their opinions and the fact they failed. On a side note it is said that T.H.Moray worked on a single device for over 30 years before he could produce the results he was looking for. Yet some would have us believe their inept attempt at building a working device and subsequent failure must be proof it cannot be done.
To them I would say... I am not you nor are you me and your failure has no relevance to my success. We are individuals first and foremost and if we cannot think for ourselves then it is probably best to just get in line and follow the rest of the herd. They are not actually going anywhere and I hear it doesn't require a great deal of thinking and can be quite pleasant going round in circles, kind of like a merry go round, round and round.
AC
Tom
Well maybe we just start from scratch,I'll concede to your claims on Men and their claims.
But something is running the show at an atomic level..
I just want Milehigh and Mark E to tell me where the Atom gets its ability to spin without end since this big bang
For it is this ability to spin with out end ....or apparent source of power in all manner of adverse conditions
Whether in gravity or open space heated or cooled ,or even brought to a stop....
And it will thaw and keep on going (as will the photon)
For myself this is the elephant in the room of free energy or over unity research
The ATOM
??
Quote frm tommy reed:'they should be challenge ASP. All of the claims in the past turn out to be a lie, and this is what is called a liar!'
Unquote
Your getting more short-sighted by the hour
Quote from: ramset on January 22, 2015, 10:33:40 AM
Tom
Well maybe we just start from scratch,I'll concede to your claims on Men and their claims.
But something is running the show at an atomic level..
I just want Milehigh and Mark E to tell me where the Atom gets its ability to spin without end since this big bang
For it is this ability to spin with out end ....or apparent source of power in all manner of adverse conditions
Whether in gravity or open space heated or cooled ,or even brought to a stop....
And it will thaw and keep on going (as will the photon)
??
Chet is it your belief that atoms
continuously dissipate energy? We have lots of experience with things being able to remain in a given energy state for a long, long time. Their energy does not increase and it does not decrease. I'll give you a very simple example of something changing energy states: Lift a rock from the ground and set it on a table. Do you think the rock is using up the extra GPE you imparted to it as it sets on the table?
Mark EThat is so WEAK."
Please do better
,to go thru a freeze thaw cycle , Atom comes to a stop and starts running again needs a bit more.....
Explanation...
@Mark
QuoteDo you limit the universe to con-artists selling phony free energy devices?
I do not believe we should judge the best based on the actions of the worst. Which leads to the problem of separating the wheat from the chaff and who is competent enough to decide what may be real and what is not.
It reminds me of Galileo, no Galileo I will not look through your telescope for if I did I might be judged as insane as you.
AC
Profitis,
First of all, prove to me that you created free energy, then I will believe!
You talk like you know, yet when someone like me calls you out, you have NOTHING!
No go in the hole where the rabit sent you running into a false free energy claim!
Like I said before, prove I'm wrong. Where is your free energy!
Tom 8)
MArk E
PS
While your googling for an answer,I. Would also like to know why we can
Bring light from 186,000 miles per second down to a stop (frozen) and thaw it out and it races back up to speed....
I put that on the over unity "why I'm here " table
@TR
I saw your same post at OUR.
I would like to know exactly what is the base of all your discord. Did something just flip your lid or is it an accumulation of little things?
Also, what did you actually build towards OU to say all this? All I saw was a nice 8 piston gizmo that you obviously put aside after the build off. So why all the crying???? Where have you actually made a concerted effort toward a specific and intentional OU device?
Last last question. When you post things that your are working on to OU forums and youtube, what did you expect from us? Nothing, some help in new ideas, help in measuring, I mean WTF did you expect from us to blabber away like you are doing?
Let's get to the meat of the problem and quite putzing around here. I fully respect your all around abilities in the build section but sorry that you have deployed all the standard stuff we have seen during years and years and you expected a different result, which you did not get and now it is because of us. WOW. I don't buy that for one instance.
wattsup
Quote from: allcanadian on January 22, 2015, 10:51:25 AM
@Mark
I do not believe we should judge the best based on the actions of the worst. Which leads to the problem of separating the wheat from the chaff and who is competent enough to decide what may be real and what is not.
It reminds me of Galileo, no Galileo I will not look through your telescope for if I did I might be judged as insane as you.
AC
The specific subject was the con Steven Mark. Where is the miraculous TPU today? Suppressed by the Men In Black? Grabbed by aliens? One thing we know that it is not doing is powering either Steven Mark's home or anyone else's home. Over the past decade VC's have dropped billions into energy projects some of very dubious value. Steven Mark claimed to have a machine that would print money out of thin air. It was almost as good as the Fed discount window. All he would have to do is deliver on his claims. So where is Steven Mark's "telescope" today?
Quote frm tommy reed:'like I said before, prove I'm wrong. Where is your free energy!'
Unquote
I'm a firm believer in replication unlike mr E and mr sark and mr libre etc.please consult the karpen pile thread and mimic, copy,rehearse,replicate any one of my shown experiments and come prove to US that you have not got overunity.
Quote from: ramset on January 22, 2015, 10:52:47 AM
MArk E
PS
While your googling for an answer,I. Would also like to know why we can
Bring light from 186,000 miles per second down to a stop (frozen) and thaw it out and it races back up to speed....
I put that on the over unity "why I'm here " table
Chet, you're just full of insults intermixed with broken text today. If you have a question to pose, then kindly pose it. You seemed to be asking how motion can occur continuously on an atomic scale. Then you went off on some heating cooling without showing the courtesy of addressing my questions as to what you believe. Do you think that atoms continuosly dissipate energy? To address this heating cooling stuff: Do you think that exchanging heat does not mean exchanging energy?
Quote from: profitis on January 22, 2015, 11:04:42 AM
Quote frm tommy reed:'like I said before, prove I'm wrong. Where is your free energy!'
Unquote
I'm a firm believer in replication unlike mr E and mr sark and mr libre etc.please consult the karpen pile thread and mimic, copy,rehearse,replicate any one of my shown experiments and come prove to US that you have not got overunity.
Ooh, are you contending that you have conducted an experiment where you demonstrate violation of a thermodynamic law? Just point to it.
@Mark
QuoteChet is it your belief that atoms [/size]continuously dissipate[/size] energy? We have lots of experience with things being able to remain in a given energy state for a long, long time. Their energy does not increase and it does not decrease. I'll give you a very simple example of something changing energy states: Lift a rock from the ground and set it on a table. Do you think the rock is using up the extra GPE you imparted to it as it sets on the table?[/size]
That example is rather weak isn't it?, because the last time I checked atoms do not rest on tables. The particle would seem to have an electric field which no one can explain which came from nowhere having no fundamental cause. The particle would seem to be in eternal motion near the speed of light. When the particle moves it produces another field we call a magnetic field which has no fundamental explanation ie. it appears as something however we do not know what this something is. Gravity would fall into this same scenario as well and while any fool can tell us what it does I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation concerning what it is.
Maybe we could start with something simple Mark, why does a particle have an electric field?. Where does it come from, why is it there, what is it?. I'm sure you have a very simple explanation you might share with us don't you?.
AC
Wattsup DOC, LOL.
First of all, it's very clear that every week I see false free energy claims pop up on these forums. Ever wonder why?
I built enough stuff and did hundreds of video in the past, I don't care who seen them at all, in fact I change more youtube channels then you change your diapers!
If you think I'm impress with any of you guys, you're crazy, my point is that many of you claim to know stuff and can't even give a simple free energy unit to prove your case.
I did a pulse motor build off, not to show you or any others my skills. It was Tinman that challenge me to join it. I won hands down, because I don't follow the normal building circus!
I am calling out all of those that think they have what it takes to create free energy, while you all fart together I have a free energy device that creates 800 watts of solar power!
My point is to challenge all of those that make claims to man up, stop feeding these false videos every week on free energy forums!
Tom :o
Quote from: allcanadian on January 22, 2015, 11:08:45 AM
@Mark
That example is rather weak isn't it?, because the last time I checked atoms do not rest on tables.
The example simply demonstrated a macro level case where an energy state is preserved without further action. There are many more examples where an energy state is maintained indefinitely. Why then with such examples all around should anyone believe that at the atomic scale energy states cannot be maintained?
Quote
The particle would seem to have an electric field which no one can explain which came from nowhere having no fundamental cause.
Are we back to the difference between observation and philosophy?
Quote
The particle would seem to be in eternal motion near the speed of light. When the particle moves it produces another field we call a magnetic field which has no fundamental explanation ie. it appears as something however we do not know what this something is. Gravity would fall into this same scenario as well and while any fool can tell us what it does I have yet to hear any reasonable explanation concerning what it is.
I see you are onto philosophy. That's grand. How do any of your philosophical musings affect what we observe?
Quote
Maybe we could start with something simple Mark, why does a particle have an electric field?. Where does it come from, why is it there, what is it?. I'm sure you have a very simple explanation you might share with us don't you?.
We observe the effects of the electric field. We observe the effects of the electric force. For questions as to what there was before there was anything you will have to mosey on over to the school of philosophy at your local university.
Quote
AC
Quote frm mark E:' Just point to it'
Unquote
Sure buddy,go to my photograph of a nickel hydroxide ontop graphite/MnO2 cell there on that thread and ..replicate godamit.make it as powerful as you can.use all your chemicals
Quote from: profitis on January 22, 2015, 11:15:47 AM
Quote frm mark E:' Just point to it'
Unquote
Sure buddy,go to my photograph of a nickel hydroxide ontop graphite/MnO2 cell there on that thread and ..replicate godamit.make it as powerful as you can.use all your chemicals
LOL, that's it, you posted a photograph. You're a funny guy.
@Mark
QuoteThe specific subject was the con Steven Mark. Where is the miraculous TPU today? Suppressed by the Men In Black? Grabbed by aliens? One thing we know that it is not doing is powering either Steven Mark's home or anyone else's home. Over the past decade VC's have dropped billions into energy projects some of very dubious value. Steven Mark claimed to have a machine that would print money out of thin air. It was almost as good as the Fed discount window. All he would have to do is deliver on his claims. So where is Steven Mark's "telescope" today?
On a shelf somewhere I imagine and he is probably sitting on his beach with an ice cold corona in hand thinking life just couldn't get any better. People who succeed don't worry about people like you and me Mark, it's all about the experience and moving forward. When I am sitting on my beach I will think of you and smile, I will think of the wonderful conversations we had and how warm the sand feels between my toes.
It is the way of our world.
AC
Quote frm mark E:'LOL, that's it, you posted a photograph. You're a funny guy.'
Unquote
funny maybe,but poisonous,defintely.I thought that's what you wanted mark E,a photo of a replicable demo
Profitis,
You're a clown to show a picture, where is the real deal video of free energy claims?
:o
@Mark
QuoteWe observe the effects of the electric field. We observe the effects of the electric force. For questions as to what there was before there was anything you will have to mosey on over to the school of philosophy at your local university.
Good answer, I always found it odd how one group of people seeking answers to the most fundamental questions such as those at the CERN particle accelerator are called scientists however other groups of people asking the same questions are called philosophers. It is odd that whenever I ask the question there is no response or the person simply avoids the question altogether such as you have here. I find it confusing, I ask a very simple question, what is an electric field fundamentally?, and all the very intelligent and knowledgeable people stop in their tracks like a deer stuck in our headlights.
Not to judge to harshly but when I found I had no real answers to the most important and most fundamental questions I can think of I figured it might be a good idea to find some answers... but that's just me.
AC
Anybody can show a video or picture @ tommy reed.how many can show a testable principal?
Quote from: allcanadian on January 22, 2015, 11:19:30 AM
@Mark
On a shelf somewhere I imagine and he is probably sitting on his beach with an ice cold corona in hand thinking life just couldn't get any better. People who succeed don't worry about people like you and me Mark, it's all about the experience and moving forward. When I am sitting on my beach I will think of you and smile, I will think of the wonderful conversations we had and how warm the sand feels between my toes.
It is the way of our world.
AC
So you're offering the suppressed free energy invention conspiracy theory? Is that it?
@Tommy
QuoteIf you think I'm impress with any of you guys, you're crazy, my point is that many of you claim to know stuff and can't even give a simple free energy unit to prove your case.[/size]I did a pulse motor build off, not to show you or any others my skills. It was Tinman that challenge me to join it. I won hands down, because I don't follow the normal building circus!I am calling out all of those that think they have what it takes to create free energy, while you all fart together I have a free energy device that creates 800 watts of solar power!
I thought you were leaving the forum?, no worries I have been in that place many times but always seem to wonder back to chat with the like minded individuals here. I find inspiration in it regardless of whether I should succeed in anything I do.
I think that you have made a great start and I do not discriminate when it comes to Energy, Energy is Energy regardless of where it may come from. In my opinion a solar cell is as much a free energy device as any other device we might imagine because we do not pay for the energy we pay for the machine to extract the energy. When I walk outside and the Sun warms me I do not pay for this it is free as are we.
I think our ultimate goal requires perspective, Energy is Energy, and we simply want a better faster way to extract it from our environment just as our forefathers made the transition from hunter/gatherer's to farmers and now we have automated hydroponics. Each incremental step requiring less work on our part and 100 years ago nobody could even imagine the solar power system you have which many take for granted. I mean think about it you are converting energy from a nearby star, our sun, directly into electrical energy.
The next logical step is to take this same solar cell concept and apply it in a system which may seem very different on the surface but is actually very similar in it's nature. We are literally swimming in a sea of energy and all which we call energy relates fundamentally to motion or change on some scale. As Faraday once said-- "it does not matter how the change occurs only that it does". As such this free energy game so many seem so preoccupied with is simply a convenient distraction. Seek change, tap into it in whatever form it may take and convert it into a form we find most useful...that is free energy in a nutshell.
I will not be pigeon-holed into believing anyone's particular notion of what they think free energy is or should be... I will decide for myself as I think we all should. Just walk outside and take a good look around and if it's moving on any level that represents Energy which is inherently free.
AC
@Mark
QuoteSo you're offering the suppressed free energy invention conspiracy theory? Is that it?
No I am offering the -- if someone offered me $30 million dollars for my device I wouldn't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks--theory. Very simple don't you think because it pretty much explains itself.
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on January 22, 2015, 01:01:04 PM
@Mark
No I am offering the -- if someone offered me $30 million dollars for my device I wouldn't give a damn what you or anyone else thinks--theory. Very simple don't you think because it pretty much explains itself.
AC
In Steven Mark's case there is no evidence that anyone ever bought him out or that anyone ever attempted to produce his claimed device.
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2015, 01:20:10 PM
In Steven Mark's case there is no evidence that anyone ever bought him out
Nor is there evidence to support the contrary.
Quote
or that anyone ever attempted to produce his claimed device.
Sure, many have tried. However, the most anyone could do was put together something that was a best guess as to the principle of operation and design, as Mark never came forward with enough info to attempt a true replication.
I might add also, that a tiny battery-operated inverter would not be capable of driving the loads Mark demonstrated for the period of time that was logged in the reports.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 22, 2015, 01:40:52 PM
Nor is there evidence to support the contrary.
Sure, many have tried. However, the most anyone could do was put together something that was a best guess as to the principle of operation and design, as Mark never came forward with enough info to attempt a true replication.
I meant as a manufacturer with a deal with Mark. Here, Steven Mark claimed for a decade plus that he had this technology of incredible value and pffft, fizzle, it has never gone anywhere. The so called "engineer's reports" were to be charitable: weak. Some con artists over the years have proven to be rather determined and clever in their deceptions.
Quote from: poynt99 on January 22, 2015, 01:45:12 PM
I might add also, that a tiny battery-operated inverter would not be capable of driving the loads Mark demonstrated for the period of time that was logged in the reports.
If someone were to ask me to evaluate a power supply, then first a specification of the power supply inputs and outputs would be required, and then the appropriate sources, loads and instrumentation would be set-up, verified, and finally connected to the device under test. After the DUT tests, the set-up would be run on reference equipment once more. The client or claimant would supply only the DUT and instructions for its operation.
Any discussion of Free Energy or Over-unity would
be incomplete without mention of Daniel Pomerleau. (http://cjmorris.co.uk/daniel-pomerleau-free-energy-wizard)
PesWiki article (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Daniel_Pomerleau_Free_Energy_Coils)
Rainman of Free Energy (http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2826)
Science as it presently exists has no answer for what
Daniel is able to present. It is possible that others who
have fabricated devices which seem to produce large
quantities of anomalous energy may have encountered
the strange phenomenon as well.
Those who we have come to refer to as "Aliens" know
the answer and make use of it extensively. As does the
Black Project Secret Space Program and other programs
where Alien entities have collaborated with certain research
efforts.
Only a few have the ability to summon this energy. It comes
from a source which most would consider to be Super-Natural.
It is real.
RE Steven Marks
It is much easier to assume all involved were fools and then to call a man a thief a fraud and a liar ,just ask Mark E he does this with impunity everyday
Some days more than others,,,
As to the contribution above from the soggy simian , men like Daniel would be incarcerated in his world , or MarkE would not be able to sleep at night ,regardless of the evidence placed in front of him or even if investigated to the utmost of his ability.
Prison"...............guilty as charged!!
In HIS world there is no other option.
I propose that we do and will have power over nature and that some are here as witness regardless of their beliefs.....
It is written , all things are possible only believe....
Not sure if Daniel has any particular faith.....but then after all that would not matter....
Just one mans opinion
Chet
Quote from: ramset on January 23, 2015, 03:54:52 AM
RE Steven Marks
It is much easier to assume all involved were fools and then to call a man a thief a fraud and a liar ,just ask Mark E he does this with impunity everyday
Some days more than others,,,
And when have I been incorrect in my assessment of a free energy claimant?
Quote
As to the contribution above from the soggy simian , men like Daniel would be incarcerated in his world , or MarkE would not be able to sleep at night ,regardless of the evidence placed in front of him or even if investigated to the utmost of his ability.
Is Daniel yet another BS free energy claimant? Is he looking for investment cash? Because I keep getting emails from these Nigerian princes who are ever so anxious to invest millions of dollars that they have laying about.
Quote
Prison"...............guilty as charged!!
In HIS world there is no other option.
If you say so.
Quote
I propose that we do and will have power over nature and that some are here as witness regardless of their beliefs.....
You can propose what you want. Reliable evidence is what counts.
Quote
It is written , all things are possible only believe....
Not sure if Daniel has any particular faith.....but then after all that would not matter....
Such sayings are often offered to folks shortly before the collection plate goes around.
Quote
Just one mans opinion
Chet
And that's the point: It is opinion.
Well Mark ,where I grew up we had this thing called due process ,and wE also found out pretty early
That to assume is a very good way to make an ASS out of U and ME.
I never "ASS U ME "and I always support due process .
No exceptions in my world ,and I never have to look over my shoulder or worry about who I might meet on the street.
I'm not a fascist....
But that's just me...
As they say in the big house Mark
"YOU DO YOU "
Who knows with your attitude in a world of do process you just might end up in a big house.
Keep Rollin those dice baby..
Or were you not aware it is a crime to call a man a thief a liar and a fraud with out evidence to the contrary ,you are truly a man of faith,the likes of which this pilgrim has never seen.....
Respectfully
Chet
PS
As TinMan and myself (and many others) have mentioned
You write things as fact which were never mentioned by the person you are conversing with
You do this on a regular basis and have since the first time I engaged you.
You obviously have much more time to play...games.
In this case you will be playing with yourself ,I have no time for your silly games.
Translation
Good bye
Quote from: ramset on January 23, 2015, 04:41:30 AM
Well Mark ,where I grew up we had this thing called due process ,and wE also found out pretty early
That to assume is a very good way to make an ASS out of U and ME.
Where I grew up we learned these things called: critical reasoning and science. We also learned the difference between various standards of proof.
Quote
I never assume and I always support due process .
You have demosntrated that claim to be false many times.
Quote
No exceptions in my world ,and I never have to look over my shoulder or worry about who I might meet on the street.
That's fantastic! You fear neither muggers nor the dreaded yet elusive Men In Black. Good for you. When visiting big cities do you carry a machete ala Crocodile Dundee? Now that's a knife!
Quote
But that's just me...
As they say in the big house Mark
"YOU DO YOU "
Are you quoting from personal experience?
Quote
Who knows with your attitude in a world of do process you just might end up in a big house.
Keep Rollin those dice baby..
Oooh veiled threats. I thought that attempts at intimidation were supposed to be a Men In Black, NWO sort of thing. Chet, who thought you had such things in you?
Quote
Or were you not aware it is a crime to call a man a thief a liar and a fraud with out evidence to the contrary
Are you accusing me of committing a crime, or are you trying to let suggestion do your heavy lifting for you?
Quote
Respectfully
Chet
PS
As TinMan and myself (and many others) have mentioned
You write things as fact which were never mentioned by the person you are conversing with
You do this on a regular basis and have since the first time I engaged you.
Kindly cite an example.
Quote
You obviously have much more time to play...games.
In this case you will be playing with yourself ,I have no time for your silly games.
And yet here you are.
Here I give an example,it is not as jaw dropping as those I've seen you do to TinMan or myself or others on a regular basis.
But it was here for the taking
Veiled threats.....
You say that I am threatening you in some way because of the way I live my life....
The law states a man is entitled to do process ,it is not open to assumptions ,feelings or hunches
These things have no place in law,I have read those words many times from yourself Mark E.
YOU DO YOU ". and roll the dice and walk by faith ,it's what you do every day...
You talk out of both sides of your mouth,where ever it happens to suit your fancy.
I came back to share some unfinished business between us,where you were saying that I was intimating some nonsense about atoms
And you the all knowing we're straitening me out
I brought you a movie, you'll notice that the recent model of the atom looks different in the latest rendering
No longer is it thought that 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of the atom is empty space
Now it has magic too.....like pixy dust inside ,in and out of exsistence
And to rule out an ether,aether or some other contributing force to this atomic reality would be more arrogance than I would allow even a deity such as yourself on these pages.....
You'll have to cut and paste.....
How Small Is An Atom? Spoiler: Very Small
. - YouTubewww.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNF3_30lUE
Enjoy
Respectfully (always)
Chet
Ps
Now it is goodbye (on this thread and to you)
Quote from: ramset on January 23, 2015, 06:04:31 AM
Here I give an example,it is not as jaw dropping as those I've seen you do to TinMan or myself or others on a regular basis.
But it was here for the taking
Veiled threats.....
You say that I am threatening you in some way because of the way I live my life....
Really? Let's see the quote in context where I supposedly did such a thing. You asserted that I may find myself "in a big house". You asserted this right after claiming that certain types of speech are a crime. You are free to try and make yourself clear or wallow in your own muddy words. It matters not to me.
Quote
The law states a man is entitled to do process ,it is not open to assumptions ,feelings or hunches
What law are you citing there Chet? Or, are you making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, things you claim not to do.
Quote
These things have no place in law,I have read those words many times from yourself Mark E.
What things have no place in law Chet? Kindly be specific.
Quote
YOU DO YOU ". and roll the dice and walk by faith ,it's what you do every day...
I am sorry Chet, you are again not being specific.
Quote
You talk out of both sides of your mouth,where ever it happens to suit your fancy.
Again, you make allegations against me, and again, I ask that you cite specific examples.
Quote
I came back to share some unfinished business between us,where you were saying that I was intimating some nonsense about atoms
Do you have some unfinished business Chet? Perhaps it is some shoe businesss. Perhaps it is even some red shoe business. Who is to say? Because you aren't saying.
Quote
And you the all knowing we're straitening me out
You have suggested that there is something magical about an atom or atoms remaining in a particular energy state. I asked you several times if you believe that atoms continuosly dissipate energy. I still haven't had the courtesy of a straight answer from you.
Quote
I brought you a movie, you'll notice that the recent model of the atom looks different in the latest rendering
Movies can be entertaining.
Quote
No longer is it thought that 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of the atom is empty space
It's massive overunity space!
Quote
Now it has magic too.....like pixy dust inside ,in and out of exsistence
And what "it" are you referring to Chet? Are you claiming that atoms blink in and out of existence?
Quote
And to rule out an ether,aether or some other contributing force to this atomic reality would be more arrogance than I would allow even a deity such as yourself on these pages.....
Are you now criticizing an opinion that you have yet to ask of me? That would be, what's the word for that, it's coming now, oh yeah: assumption. Remember assumption Chet? You said that you never assume. Oh, well. Check that one off your list of virtues. Now, if you provide allowances to deities, does that mean that you see yourself as some kind of super deity? Does Sterling Allan know that you are competing with him?
Quote
You'll have to cut and paste.....
How Small Is An Atom? Spoiler: Very Small
. - YouTubewww.youtube.com/watch?v=_lNF3_30lUE
Enjoy
Respectfully (always)
Chet
Ps
Now it is goodbye (on this thread and to you)
Wow, atoms are small. Who would have thought?
Tom
I know that this path is wrought with opinions , we are all entitled to those.
I know the line between the possible and the impossible seems etched in stone by some, in science things magically appear and disappear all the time , only to appear later on when yet another invented or make believe particle just doesn't quite fit the math equation .
fact is Tom ....in science there really are no facts....
here is just a snip from a mind that will not be trapped by the boundaries of the cage/ box.
Lorentz invariance, lorentz covariance, by Miles Mathis (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmilesmathis.com%2Fphon.html&ei=PMTDVJ6zGonFggTIsYKwAw&usg=AFQjCNGW1VnbN5JxTFqnuDsxmekkBMsWTw)
http://milesmathis.com/phon.html (http://milesmathis.com/phon.html)
it pays to pay attention ,and keep an open mind.
Chet
Quote from: ramset on January 24, 2015, 11:22:34 AM
Tom
I know that this path is wrought with opinions , we are all entitled to those.
I know the line between the possible and the impossible seems etched in stone by some, in science things magically appear and disappear all the time , only to appear later on when yet another invented or make believe particle just doesn't quite fit the math equation .
fact is Tom ....in science there really are no facts....
here is just a snip from a mind that will not be trapped by the boundaries of the cage/ box.
Lorentz invariance, lorentz covariance, by Miles Mathis (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmilesmathis.com%2Fphon.html&ei=PMTDVJ6zGonFggTIsYKwAw&usg=AFQjCNGW1VnbN5JxTFqnuDsxmekkBMsWTw)
http://milesmathis.com/phon.html (http://milesmathis.com/phon.html)
it pays to pay attention ,and keep an open mind.
Chet
Oh dear lord. Now, you're using a big time internet crackpot as a reference?
Hi Chet,
Good point, but where is the real free energy claim?
I try to leave these forum, but I also have to answers some of the claims people are telling me.
First of all, these are hear say, and nobody has any working free energy device yet.
I have a few I'm doing research on as we speak, but until I see it I have to challenge every claim today even my own builds.
It's very simple to understand watts in verse watts out, no secret to the basic calculations, yet some like to add bogus numbers to make it seem like free energy.
Again, if these forum are putting up these false claims of free energy every week, then maybe they are part of the energy conspiracy of false claims.
It's that simple, why not question everything we read today?
Tom
Tom
you have a perspective which is quite unique on this page
you actually do experiments...
I apologize for the Chris Hunter phase change engine build,although I still feel that such ideas have merit and so do others [Rob Mason to name one fellow I hold in high esteem although Rob's idea is a variant .]
sometimes its hard to cover all the possibilities on these things with a tight budget.
I have tried many times here to get others to contribute to these things [financially] but it always falls on deaf ears .
granted we do have a few that assist on a regular basis [financially] but we can only do soo much ?
but I will never stop trying and I know you will never stop either..
below is a response to Mark E's inappropriate Libel of the link I posted
from Miles Mathis
perhaps he can correct the lies and straiten us out...
post
One of the interesting outcomes of my corrections to the relativity transforms concerns what is now called either Lorentz variance or Lorentz violations. These two terms have spawned a whole subfield of pseudo-research, but they were originally invented to explain experimental outcomes that did not match Einstein's equations. Since the new physicists did not know how to correct the equations, or how to even begin correcting them, they instead defined the equations as absolutely correct and then began codifying all the necessary tweeks under the heading of Lorentz variations (or violations). They did not consider these "variations" to be falsifications of the math. No, the variations were embraced as another subfield, one where new researchers could coin new terms, create new particles, and pretend to be physicists in all the new ways. [/size]Jeffrey Goldstone is perhaps the ultimate example of this. He invented something called the Goldstone boson. A boson is generally any new particle that fills any old hole, and you get to name the boson for yourself, if you find a proper hole. The Goldstone boson is basically a phonon, and a phonon is a photon that is moving too slow, for reasons unknown in this case. What Goldstone did, among other things, is use the holes in Einstein's equations to build himself a little theory. When an experiment is spitting out less energy than Einstein's equations are predicting, Goldstone tells us this is because phonons are involved instead of photons. So Einstein's equations aren't failing; Einstein just didn't know about the phonon. Of course Goldstone does't say it in this straightforward way. No, we are told that the experimental failure is caused by a "spontaneously broken symmetry". This broken symmetry is used to explain many of the current gaps in physics, and it turns up in gravity models, electroweak models, magnetic models, and so on. Anywhere that the equations aren't working, the events are said to be in a state of broken symmetry. Since the physicist just made up the idea out of nothing as a stop-gap, he has no mechanism for it, hence the added adjective "spontaneous". If something is spontaneous, you don't have to offer a mechanical cause for it, which is convenient. An awful lot of new concepts in physics seem to be spontaneous, for some reason.I can only touch on the absurdities here, since I cannot waste time addressing all the meaningless new fields, particles, and maths. But I will offer you this as an example of how the theory of violation tends to spin out: Wikipedia tells us that, "The phonons travel at LESS than the speed of light. In general relativistic theories, this leads to a massive graviton (note that this is different from massive gravity, which is Lorentz covariant) which travels at less than the speed of light (because the graviton devours the phonon)".* Lovely, isn't it? The first lie (a slow photon) requires an even bigger lie (a massive graviton), and the second lie is a double lie, since here we have the tweeking of a particle that doesn't exist. The phonon, which doesn't exist here and is only an outcome of a bad equation, requires the recalibration of the graviton—a particle that was manufactured to fill another hole caused by a different bad equation. As if that isn't enough, we have to imagine one fake particle devouring the other; and this meal is spontaneous, we suppose, since there is no possible mechanism for it. The phonon is devoured only because we don't want to have to look at it any more after the experiment.Everybody involved pretends this is not extravagantly dishonest, and they pretend this because the new subfield of Lorentz violations gives them something to do. Contemporary physics is bursting with similar fake projects consisting of fake particles in fake fields proposed by fake physicists. String theory is the largest and fakest of these. But Lorentz variance and violations have produced an impressive array of absurd papers, all of them even more transparently fake than is now usual in physics. It has spawned "very special relativity" and "extra special relativity", two theories that are not special at all. The first still allows violations, since it does no correcting: it is just more Minkowski hijinx with null vectors and suchlike, allowing time reversal and other non-physical abstractions. Since I have shown (http://milesmathis.com/mink.html) that Minkowski's math is compromised by a simple algrebraic error, all this is folderol. The second was devised to answer the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit on cosmic ray energy, which of course uses Einstein's kinetic energy equation, which I have corrected (http://milesmathis.com/emc.html). Once the equation is corrected, the GZK limit is higher, which negates the violation of the Oh-my-God particles. No violation, no need for esoteric new maths and theories.[/size]Anyone with any residue of honesty, logic, or rigor can see that everything to do with Lorentz violations is manufactured, and that the only sensible thing to do is to correct the original equations so that they don't fail. This had always been the normal procedure in physics, and it still is in any subfields with any integrity. You don't formalize the gap between prediction and experiment by assigning it a new theory, new particles, and new terminology. You don't call this gap a variation, and pretend that it is somehow an extension of the original prediction and the original equations. No, you close the gap by creating new equations that do away with the gap directly. This latter is science; the former is just job creation. My corrections to the transforms (http://milesmathis.com/adp.html) of relativity close the gap in this old-fashioned way. In doing this, they totally destroy the entire field of Lorentz variance. I have shown that there are no Lorentz violations (other than the bad old math that caused the problems). There is no longer any gap that needs to be filled. But even if new gaps arise in the future, I would not admit the need for new variance, since the failure of my equations would not be variance, but failure. I would hope someone would correct my equations further, rather than jerry-rig the theory so that my equations could continue to stand. Einstein would say the same, I am certain. He would detest the whole subfield of variance, which has made a mockery of his theory. His theory was a good theory, and good theories are not in need of filling or bombast. At the proper times, they are in need of correction and extension, but this is achieved by better equations, not by filler particles and dishonest pushing and pulling. My theory and equations bypass and falsify all variance not only because they are able to correct the mathematical mistakes of Einstein, but because I deny that Lorentz variance ever had any scientific meaning. Experiments do not "vary" from the prediction of an equation. Experiments confirm or do not confirm an equation. If a repeatable and respected and logically prepared experiment does not confirm an equation, then the equation must be changed or extended. The math and theory must conform to the experiment, and it must do this in sensible ways. It used to be understood that you could not just measure the gap of failure and cut a particle out of cloth to fit that failure. The phonon is just such a particle. It is like betting someone that you can guess their weight using a complex theory you have. You guess 180 pounds. When you weigh them the scale says 190 pounds. You claim that you are still correct, since according to your new extended theory—just created after the weighing—all people who weigh ten pounds more than your original prediction have ghosts that weigh exactly ten pounds. Then you guess that a second person weighs 130 pounds; she actually weighs 120 pounds. So you create another extension to your theory that states that all people who weigh ten pounds less than your first prediction have holes left by departed ghosts. You call your theory extensions your Goldstone variations, in homage to the master. Any new variations caused by actually weighing new people can be added to your prestigious list of variations, and you can now create a vast computer model to house them. You can further categorize them, calling all variations within ten pounds firmions; and all variations above 50 pounds, fations. Physical Review Letters and ArXiv will publish a 4-page announcement of your model to a stunned world and Wikipedia will update your fans regularly on new variations. The Dalai Lama will rush to comment, and then of course Richard Gere. You can now see why physics has become uncorrectable. The economy of physics cannot afford the job loss. One person correcting one central equation can put 10,000 people out of work. One person correcting 10 equations can put 100,000 people out of work. Seen like this, truth is the ultimate disaster. Truth will not set you free, if you happen to be a fake theorist or a researcher in fake theory. Truth will dry up your funding, purge you from the encyclopedia, jeopardize your book deals, and sour your Hollywood contacts. If an alien sent us a corrected version of our high-school physics book, 99% of current research would immediately evaporate. It would have to be redirected. But it couldn't be redirected without a nearly total personnel change. Do you think the Jeffrey Goldstones of the physics world—used to creating fake particles and writing books with glossy pictures and creating empty computer models and giving eachother awards—do you think they would be useful as servants of the truth, even if you could compel them somehow to want to be? This would be like asking the politicians we already have to begin to be real public servants. All these people only have a talent for self-promotion, and even if you vaccinated them with some sort of truth serum, they would still be lacking the fundamental education. I have talked to some of these people. They don't know the first thing about kinematics or mechanics or simple math. They have spent all their time with sexy fake maths and fields and particles, and real math and logic just mystify them.
Quote from: ramset on January 24, 2015, 04:58:30 PM
Tom
you have a perspective which is quite unique on this page
you actually do experiments...
I apologize for the Chris Hunter phase change engine build,although I still feel that such ideas have merit and so do others [Rob Mason to name one fellow I hold in high esteem although Rob's idea is a variant .]
sometimes its hard to cover all the possibilities on these things with a tight budget.
I have tried many times here to get others to contribute to these things [financially] but it always falls on deaf ears .
granted we do have a few that assist on a regular basis [financially] but we can only do soo much ?
but I will never stop trying and I know you will never stop either..
below is a response to Mark E's inappropriate Libel of the link I posted
from Miles Mathis
The well known internet crackpot Miles Mathis promotes all manner of trash including "proofs" that Pi is really equal to 4.0. Note that your cited post MM simply makes a series of assertions. Apparently in MM's world, reliable evidence is for other people.
Quote
perhaps he can correct the lies and straiten us out...
post
For detailed critiques of various of Miles Mathis' crackpot ravings one can visit: https://milespantloadmathis.wordpress.com/2012/12/04/pi/
Quote from: TommeyLeeReed on January 24, 2015, 03:04:48 PM
Hi Chet,
Good point, but where is the real free energy claim?
I try to leave these forum, but I also have to answers some of the claims people are telling me.
First of all, these are hear say, and nobody has any working free energy device yet.
I have a few I'm doing research on as we speak, but until I see it I have to challenge every claim today even my own builds.
It's very simple to understand watts in verse watts out, no secret to the basic calculations, yet some like to add bogus numbers to make it seem like free energy.
Again, if these forum are putting up these false claims of free energy every week, then maybe they are part of the energy conspiracy of false claims.
It's that simple, why not question everything we read today?
Tom
Take a look up in the sky during the day Tom,and there you will see a bright white ball full of free energy. There are many free energy devices you can buy right of the shelf today
Solar pannels
Wind turbines
Hydroelectric generator setup's-if you have a running streem.
How many more free energy devices would you like?
Im guessing you(like so many others)want to see some exotic free energy device that no one has thought up yet?.
Quote from: MarkE on January 22, 2015, 10:40:37 AM
Chet is it your belief that atoms continuously dissipate energy? We have lots of experience with things being able to remain in a given energy state for a long, long time. Their energy does not increase and it does not decrease. I'll give you a very simple example of something changing energy states:
I have removed the silly rock on the table comment,as it was totally irrelevant-no motion with a rock on the table from our reference point.
Please refer to another thing(mass)that can remain in an ever changing constant motion without dissipating energy. Please also show another mass that has both an electric field and a magnetic field without an external energy input requirement.
Quote from: tinman on January 25, 2015, 05:12:40 AM
I have removed the silly rock on the table comment,as it was totally irrelevant-no motion with a rock on the table from our reference point.
Please refer to another thing(mass)that can remain in an ever changing constant motion without dissipating energy. Please also show another mass that has both an electric field and a magnetic field without an external energy input requirement.
Examples of objects that are in motion: The earth to our sun, our solar system to the CoG of our galaxy, etc, etc, are in constant orbital motion. They will continue to do so for
billions of years. Higher quality Class II material ceramic capacitors can be charged and will retain their charge for a decent period of time before they self discharge. The dielectric materials are ferroelectric. Charging them with a an electric field results in a magnetic moment.
QuoteI have removed the silly rock on the table comment,as it was totally irrelevant-no motion with a rock on the table from our reference point.
This really betrays that you wold do yourself a service to read some of those books you so disdain. Motion does not mean
energy dissipation. Acceleration parallel to the direction of motion requires or releases work from a moving object. No acceleration parallel to the direction of motion and the object remains in its energy state just as surely as the rock on the table remains in its energy state.
Quote from: allcanadian on January 22, 2015, 11:47:32 AM
@Mark
Good answer, I always found it odd how one group of people seeking answers to the most fundamental questions such as those at the CERN particle accelerator are called scientists however other groups of people asking the same questions are called philosophers. It is odd that whenever I ask the question there is no response or the person simply avoids the question altogether such as you have here. I find it confusing, I ask a very simple question, what is an electric field fundamentally?, and all the very intelligent and knowledgeable people stop in their tracks like a deer stuck in our headlights.
AC
The reason they dont answer AC,is simply because they have no idea. They will fight and argue as to how correct they are,and that your ideas are total rubbish,but as we have seen so many time's,they have no answer them self. It's just a !im right,and your wrong! arguement with nothing to back up there claim. There best is-well it dose what we expect it to do. This is another rubbish claim,as devices were built around the effect's,the effects wernt built around the device.
The magnetic field is a very good example,they know all about it because your computor work's ;)
In actual fact,the computor was designed to work with the already present magnetic field. So what they did was to build an ICE that runs on gasoline,but cant explain what the gasoline is ???
The best bit is that they ask you!insist! that you believe in the current modle of the magnetic field,even though they cant explain what it is that produces the physical force within the field-->aint that a hoot--please come for a ride in my plane--i dont know why it flies,but it dose :D Funny thing is,most who fly on planes actually dont know how they fly.
Here is something interesting i read not to long ago.
It is a fact that magnetic dipoles and magnetic fields cannot exist without there being some directly associated electron related charge flow-spin-circulation, as via atomic-molecular orbit or flow via a conductor, coil or plasma etc.
So how can it be stated that an already radiated electromagnetic 'wave' propagates with an associated transverse magnetic 'field', when electromagnetic radiation is known to not be a stream of electrons (current) travelling at the speed of light, whilst additionally, at no point along the 'wave' is there any circuit through which charge can circulate or flow in order to generate a magnetic field?
There is no answer to that question; and thus I personally cannot any longer accept that there is any sinusoidal alternating transverse magnetic 'field' component accompanying the propagation of a radiated electromagnetic 'wave'.
This guy has done years of bench work,and can back up all his data with actual measurements of actual devices. he go's on to say that he believes that it is not electromagnetic waves we are dealing with,but more of a photon wave of different spin ratios.
Of course this will be dismissed by those that think they know better,but as usual,have nothing to offer as to why there modle is better.
Quote from: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 05:21:30 AM
[/b]. The dielectric materials are ferroelectric. Charging them with a an electric field results in a magnetic moment.
]. Acceleration parallel to the direction of motion requires or releases work from a moving object.
QuoteExamples of objects that are in motion: The earth to our sun, our solar system to the CoG of our galaxy, etc, etc, are in constant orbital motion. They will continue to do so for billions of years
Sorry Mark,but that dosnt count,as we know that these motions were set into place via a force acting apon them.
QuoteHigher quality Class II material ceramic capacitors can be charged and will retain their charge for a decent period of time before they self discharge.
And the ever changing motion in this example is?
QuoteThis really betrays that you wold do yourself a service to read some of those books you so disdain. Motion does not mean energy dissipation[/b
A change in direction of any moving mass requires energy-where dose this energy come from that constantly changes the direction of the atom-which has mass?.<--from the books Mark ;)
QuoteNo acceleration parallel to the direction of motion and the object remains in its energy state just as surely as the rock on the table remains in its energy state.
That is correct,the rock remains at a constant,while the Atom's motion constantly changes direction.
Oh P.S
QuoteThe earth to our sun, our solar system to the CoG of our galaxy, etc, etc, are in constant orbital motion.
It's not actually an orbital motion,it's more a helical motion ;)
You can orbit a mass that is in constant motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
And this one shows our journey through the galaxy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws
Quote from: tinman on January 25, 2015, 05:58:20 AM
The reason they dont answer AC,is simply because they have no idea. They will fight and argue as to how correct they are,and that your ideas are total rubbish,but as we have seen so many time's,they have no answer them self. It's just a !im right,and your wrong! arguement with nothing to back up there claim. There best is-well it dose what we expect it to do. This is another rubbish claim,as devices were built around the effect's,the effects wernt built around the device.
The sad part is that you probably have really convinced yourself of this idea.
Quote
The magnetic field is a very good example,they know all about it because your computor work's ;)
Once again this is very sad. There seems to be an impenetrable block for some folks where they just cannot or simply refuse to grasp how science works. We are limited to what we know by what we can observe when we go about to test our ideas, but even so we are fully justified in having very high confidence in a number of our beliefs. Our confidence is justified by the extent to which we have put those beliefs to the test.
Quote
In actual fact,the computor was designed to work with the already present magnetic field. So what they did was to build an ICE that runs on gasoline,but cant explain what the gasoline is ???
The best bit is that they ask you!insist! that you believe in the current modle of the magnetic field,even though they cant explain what it is that produces the physical force within the field-->aint that a hoot--please come for a ride in my plane--i dont know why it flies,but it dose :D Funny thing is,most who fly on planes actually dont know how they fly.
More of the same clap trap. The conventional theory has been explained to you over, and over, and over again. You have been pointed to numerous references. And yet, you persist in this narrative. What then is your conclusion? It it that since according to you the efforts of millions over hundreds of years have totally botched science that we are doomed to as you claim never understand magnetic attraction?
Quote
Here is something interesting i read not to long ago.
It is a fact that magnetic dipoles and magnetic fields cannot exist without there being some directly associated electron related charge flow-spin-circulation, as via atomic-molecular orbit or flow via a conductor, coil or plasma etc.
A magnetic field exists whereever charge moves. Electrons are hardly the only source of charge in the universe.
Quote
So how can it be stated that an already radiated electromagnetic 'wave' propagates with an associated transverse magnetic 'field', when electromagnetic radiation is known to not be a stream of electrons (current) travelling at the speed of light,
Wrong.
Quotewhilst additionally, at no point along the 'wave' is there any circuit through which charge can circulate or flow in order to generate a magnetic field?
You began with an incorrect premise and went downhill from there. 150 years ago a genius named James Clerk Maxwell Maxwell discovered the mathematical relations that allow for transverse electromagnetic waves to propagate without a medium. You are free to attempt to disprove Maxwell's math, or how that math applies to observable electo-magnetic phenomena. Many very bright and well-educated people have tried. In Maxwell's time many of his contemporaries were very skeptical of the idea that any kind of wave could propagate without a medium to support that propagation. Yet, his equations continue to work unscathed for 150 years, while the search for the elusive lumineforous aether, a medium for E/M waves goes on without any successful attempt to detect the aether. If the aether exists, so far we are unable to find it.
Quote
There is no answer to that question; and thus I personally cannot any longer accept that there is any sinusoidal alternating transverse magnetic 'field' component accompanying the propagation of a radiated electromagnetic 'wave'.
Really? And where have you looked for answers? Certainly it has not been in any second semester physics course where Maxwell's equations are typically introduced.
Quote
This guy has done years of bench work,and can back up all his data with actual measurements of actual devices. he go's on to say that he believes that it is not electromagnetic waves we are dealing with,but more of a photon wave of different spin ratios.
That's nice. Can you delineate the difference between a "photon wave of different spin ratios" and an electromagnetic wave?
Quote
Of course this will be dismissed by those that think they know better,but as usual,have nothing to offer as to why there modle is better.
The quality of a model is its ability to make accurate predictions. When it comes to electrodynamics, conventional theory daily makes predictions that prove correct from simply heating wires to transmitting data at over 30 billion bits per second over just two copper traces, or terabits per second over one optical fiber.
Quote from: tinman on January 25, 2015, 06:18:35 AM
Oh P.SIt's not actually an orbital motion,it's more a helical motion ;)
You can orbit a mass that is in constant motion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
And this one shows our journey through the galaxy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws
And as long as the orbits do not suddenly collapse you have answered your own challenge as to where can one find an object in continuous motion.
Quote from: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 07:22:03 AM
And as long as the orbits do not suddenly collapse you have answered your own challenge as to where can one find an object in continuous motion.
Once again,this motion is the result of an applied force. Some say,or theory has it that this motion is the result of the big bang.
What im asking here is-->what caused the motion of the Atom,what force was applied to the Atom to start this motion?.
Quote from: tinman on January 25, 2015, 08:08:35 AM
Once again,this motion is the result of an applied force.
The motion continues without any force required in the direction of motion. ERGO no energy added or removed.
QuoteSome say,or theory has it that this motion is the result of the big bang.
The source of energy that established a given energy state has nothing to do with whether or not any energy is required to maintain the energy state. In this example, as in many others, no energy is required simply to maintain the state.
Quote
What im asking here is-->what caused the motion of the Atom,what force was applied to the Atom to start this motion?.
That's a: "What was the universe like at T0 and what caused it to be that way?" kind of question. No one has yet found a solid answer.
Quote from: MarkE on January 25, 2015, 10:08:17 AM
QuoteThe motion continues without any force required in the direction of motion. ERGO no energy added or removed.
So it takes no energy to change the direction of our moving sun or planet's ???
The sun has a mass about 330 000 times that of earths mass,and yet no energy is required to change the direction of travel of that mass ??? And yet if we wish to change the direction of the space shuttle when in space,energy is required.
QuoteThe source of energy that established a given energy state has nothing to do with whether or not any energy is required to maintain the energy state. In this example, as in many others, no energy is required simply to maintain the state.
How dose one maintain a helical motion of a mass without a force being applied to that mass,or the mass itself supplying the energy to create the required force to change the direction of that mass?
QuoteNo one has yet found a solid answer.
If physics has no answer,then how can you state-reply 19 Quote
Quote: Chet is it your belief that atoms continuously dissipate energy? We have lots of experience with things being able to remain in a given energy state for a long, long time. Their energy does not increase and it does not decrease.
As physics has no answer yet,then this statement is unjustified-we have lots of experiance,but we have no answers ???-->you see how silly that looks from our side of the fence.
Quote from: tinman on January 25, 2015, 10:36:15 AM
So it takes no energy to change the direction of our moving sun or planet's ???
Whatever gave you that idea?
Quote
The sun has a mass about 330 000 times that of earths mass,and yet no energy is required to change the direction of travel of that mass ??? And yet if we wish to change the direction of the space shuttle when in space,energy is required.
See if you can figure out why. You might have to pick up one of those books you hate.
Quote
How dose one maintain a helical motion of a mass without a force being applied to that mass,or the mass itself supplying the energy to create the required force to change the direction of that mass?
Here is a hint for you: Force is not energy. Force applied over distance parallel to the direction of motion is work.
Quote
If physics has no answer,then how can you state-reply 19 QuoteAs physics has no answer yet,then this statement is unjustified-we have lots of experiance,but we have no answers ???-->you see how silly that looks from our side of the fence.
Physics does have an answer. Now it is time for you to stop resisting what you refuse to first understand.