G'day all,
Just to let you all know that I am alive and well. There still seem to be some of you worried about me. And, no Gustav, the MIB did not get to me. I think I better explain a little what I am doing and why and why I am very busy at the moment. I have not deserted the cause, you can be sure of this.
Like many of you I have been trying for years to crack the overunity mystery. We all know instinctively that there are untold amounts of energy surrounding us and yet after centuries of trying by thousands of honest and clever researchers we seem to be no closer. There appears to be something fundamentally wrong here.
After another bout of experiments that looked promising I found myself staring once more at my own rectal orifice. Again I had come full circle. It was then that I had the feeling that the whole thing might NOT be a technical problem.
I started to examine the mechanics of invention. What makes the invention of anything possible? How does it work?
Obviously everything starts with an observation of one kind or another. This is followed by a speculation that this observation might lead to the creation of something useful or desirable. In other words we start thinking what, if anything, we can do with it. We are now in the realm of pure thought, examining the possibilities that could conceivably come from our discovery.
In turn this leads to experimentation and further thought, as we find out new things from gathering related data. Eventually it might lead to something tangible or to the recognition that we were chasing a pipe dream. We all know this, having been on this particular merry go round many times before.
The key ingredient in all this is our ability to manipulate mental imagery. This all sounds trite, until you take a closer look.
Evidently our ability to create something new depends on how well we manipulate such mental imagery and how good the database (knowledge) is from which we proceed.
But lack of knowledge is not the only thing that constrains our ability to think. It occurred to me that our inability to come up with valid solutions to the overunity problem might have its origin in our inability to create a suitable mental construct. With this I do not mean a new theory! Theories are a dime a dozen, most of them are useless for all practical purposes.
I remembered chaos theory. You know Julia and Mandelbrot sets, that sort of thing. It does not matter how many iterations you use, somehow all these random integers you create fall eventually into some sort of pattern, which led to the thought that there is some underlying order to chaos. When I first looked at this I was very excited, until I recognised that the underlying order was simply a reflection of the rigid rules of the mathematics that was used to calculate the values.
It was then that it occurred to me that the same thing might be true of language. And that it might well be that the rules of language is the barrier that prevents us from thinking in certain directions.
I needed to learn more about the role of language in relation to thought.
I did two things. I enrolled in a philosophy course at Sydney university As luck would have it there was just a lecture series starting on Wittgenstein, a 20th century Austrian philosopher who had done a lot of work on this. I was very fortunate as the lectures were given by Professor Goldfarb from Harvard, an acknowledged world authority on Wittgenstein.
I had two months before the lectures started. I spent this time in the Australian outback far away from civilisation, much of this in the company of Australian aborigines that still live in their traditional tribal cultures and still speak their tribal languages.
For those of you that don?t know this, these people had lived for over fifty thousand years in isolation from the rest of the world. Apart from a few hunting implements these people in all that time never invented anything. In spite of the harsh climate they never invented clothing, they had no pottery, no houses or tents, no agriculture, in fact they had no civilisation at all. And yet, these people are not stupid, far from it. You only have to look at some of their artwork to see this.
It occurred to me that it was the structure of their language that prevented them thinking along those lines. My research to date indicates that there might well be some truth to that assumption.
Before we can think about something we must have words that describe things. We have no problem with this. The moment we come across something we haven?t yet seen we name it. Now we can think and talk about it. It is after this where the problem seems to lie, namely in the way we assemble these words into concepts. This is where grammar comes into the picture.
Wittgenstein, Frege, Moore and to some extent Bertrand Russel look at this in detail. Especially Wittgenstein sees grammar as some sort of mental groove we are forced to follow that prevents us straying too far from the centre line into more adventurous areas of thought. He offers no solutions.
The big question I am wrestling with is: Is it possible to create a language structure, perhaps as an addendum to our existing language, that allows us to delve into areas as yet unthought of? And as a corollary, how would you go about doing this?
I have no answers to date, yet the prospect is exciting. At the moment all I can do is study.
Perhaps even at this stage some of my ideas may be of use to someone.
Hans von Lieven.
Hello Hans
Nice to see you here again and still working on importand things.
Thank you for the report about the journey in to unknown experiences.
One can see in this Forum,that as long, as we use the same language,we are able
to work together and share ideas.As better as the vocabular is,as better one can share
the news. These migt be the age,that the greatest punishment to humankind will get slowly lost.
"Babylon"
helmut
Hi Hans,
How wonderful to hear from you.
My ideas usually always come first as pictures. I let them move around for a while then when it all gets too exciting, I put them into words. Well rather, I try to put them into words. Many times the ideas need to become constricted once I am relying on words.
If there is not the concept of this thing already in the language or the society, how can I apply the right words? What words? As Helmut said, better vocabulary.
But sometimes there are no words. If we don't have the words that apply to something totally new, what can we use to describe that even if we have seen it?
A related question would be, "how do we make the same image appear in another person's mind?"
This is a wonderful thought.
I am going to think about this more.
thank you for bringing it up.
jeanna
G'day Jeanna,
I don't have any real worry about words as such, even though their meaning is open to several interpretations at times. Wittgenstein goes to great lengths to examine what he calls fixity of meaning. My main area of concern is what we do with the words once we have defined them. I can show you a flower, we both know then with a great degree of certainty what object we are talking about. No real problem here. But, what if you showed the flower to someone who has no idea what that is, and whose language has no concept of flower, could he think about it in a meaningful way, even though he has seen one now. This is where I perceive the barrier.
Hans
Hey Hans,
You should check out a book called "A brief history of the human race". It talks about the emergence of farming around the world after the opening of the Holocene window. Anyway, the book talks about language and marriage customs of the Australian aborigines, you may find it interesting.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wwnorton.com%2Fcover%2F032645.jpg&hash=2d69a2cb3cf4ab6e48768f19cbdcdf8e62d69d44)
Cheers,
Feynman
@ Hans:
Also, very wonderful to see you back here. This is a very interesting thought process you have going here. I read somewhere that the Eskimos have over 50 words to describe "ice". The English language, from supposedly "advanced" people have like 2. So, if I am correct in my readings of your post, you are saying that how can I think of something "new" and attempt to figure out how it might work if the language has no real words for this device or its operations? This is intriguing. I have never even considered this before. If I were an Aborigine and you attempted to explain how "electricity" worked, we would have no common frame of reference to even begin the process. So, this lack of a common frame of reference would potentially limit them in their development of new ideas and inventions. Hard to think of something when you don't have the "mental" words to describe it. Even harder to explain your idea to someone else then. This is definitely a
mind opening approach here. I will give some more thought to this.
Excellent to have you back safe and sound.
Bill
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 04, 2008, 06:52:43 PM
The big question I am wrestling with is: Is it possible to create a language structure, perhaps as an addendum to our existing language, that allows us to delve into areas as yet unthought of? And as a corollary, how would you go about doing this?
hmm, by the process of creating a language structure that will allow you to go beyond normal thought, then maybe you would have already thought of the things you are now able to think about.
lil' ol' troll
Interesting discussions out there.
I find that a limiting factor to new discoveries can be to experiment for new discoveries by using only or mostly knowledge. Colleges are famous for this. It is like using only voltage without current to run a device. There is a lot of potential, but nothing really gets accomplished.
But I find that one must get as much understanding of a thing as you can, to be able to add to knowledge that you already have to come up with something new. In otherwords, a lack of understanding would seem to be a limiting factor to new discoveries such as coming up with a method of electrical overunity.
;)
the dictionary is full of words that help describe and improve projects. i believe that the humans just do not use what that have to the fullest. how many people in this forum know the entire dictionary? most people when they get out of school still only know the basic language when there is so much more! then human language will always grow but you have to have something to grow into before you name it!
the barriers of the language, very interesting. :)
sometimes when someone cross that barrier people think: "is a genius or is just crazy?", and how far is one thing from the other... when there's no language to define the new idea.
@Liberty, you are right, knowledge is needed to go further, but! is kind of a barrier too. sometimes knowledge help to reinforce the square that block a brilliant idea. reminds me of an old tale: "a group of experts call someone who is absolutely ignorant about the subject to help them thinking something they can't because their knowledge prevent them from innovation".
knowledge help reducing trial&error, but imagination is another very different path.
therefore we made the word "creation".
saludos!!
You are describing a long standing debate among linguists - which comes first, thought or word? From one standpoint, until someone first has a particular thought or observation, there can exist no word for it, so the thought must come first. But from another standpoint, without words to describe certain concepts, a person will never have that thought. This latter theory reminds me of Orwell's 1984, where the government seeks to eliminate politically undesireable words from the language in order to make "thoughtcrime" not merely illegal, but in fact impossible.
I think the truth lies somewhere in between. It takes one exceptional person to come up with a word to describe a new concept, and then the word is taught to others, who, without that word, would have never arrived at that thought on their own.
plus,
i think "structure of language" don't refer to language, words, knowledge and all that we learn and use, but the way we use it.
the way of thinking.
G?day all?
You are right on the money Loop! We don?t seem to have any problems creating words, though sometimes we have difficulties to explain definitively what they mean. Take the word chair for instance. Everyone knows what that is. Even if you show some modernistic avant guard version of it to someone, they will eventually figure out it?s a chair.
Now try to define chair with a descriptor that matches all possible forms of chair and all you can come up with is ?Something to sit on?, which is of course idiotic and meaningless, since you can sit on all sorts of things.
In order to define chair you have to show a whole variety of them to get the concept across, from a dolls house chair to a Chippendale and so forth.
In spite of all these difficulties we can work with the concept ?chair?.
We do this with all kinds of things, old and well known, or just thought of.
This is not where the problem lies in my view. The problem comes in when we want to do something with the words, like thinking of, or communicating a CONCEPT.
Now we are bound by the rigid rules of sentence construction, like grammar and punctuation for instance. It is here where we are fettered and have nowhere near the flexibility we have with words.
In other words, more often than not, we arrive at a certain conclusion because of the way it is put rather than because of the words that were used to convey it.
This is where I see our mental prison.
Keep it coming, this is constructive, I think.
Hans von Lieven
Welcome back Hans
It seems to me that you are not trying to use words or intelect better .
It seems to me you are looking for more intuition . ........ or a way to think more creatively .
Our culture doesn't tend to teach these things much
Most of what we are taught is how to be a good little citizen.
There is much more to mind then we have been taught.
Just because it is not intelctual doesn't mean it is not thought .
Think the intelectual mind is better than the quieter parts of the mind?
How do babys master a language in usually a year or so ? At the same time learning how to control there muscles and learn all about their surroundings .
The amount of stuff a baby learns before practical mastery of language is staggering .
Intuition and creativity come from a quieter part of the mind .
Some get there by meditation . I don't think medition is what you are looking for.
I have always invented things as a hobby .
I have learned to " expect " an answer to come when I am stumped.
I simply think things through as well as I can.
When I reach a point that I can't resolve .........I wait .
I don't give up ......I simply let the idea simmer in the back of my mind .
In time I will have a flash ........an Ah Ha moment ......and I will have my answer.
I have had Ah Ha moments that have taken me 6 months to understand intelctually .
These moments are almost always an image of some kind . They are usually "fully cooked " an idea arrived at intellectually usually has to be thought through . These ideas arrive complete .
If you are very observant when you have an Ah Ha moment you can see that the thought started much deeper ......and you just didn't notice it untill it reached the intellectual mind.
gary
Ah yes Gary,
Quote
These moments are almost always an image of some kind . They are usually "fully cooked " an idea arrived at intellectually usually has to be thought through . These ideas arrive complete .
You said the part I always have trouble with. fully cooked.
thank you, again. ;)
When I was in college, a friend walked into my room and suddenly said "house" then paused.
After that she asked if I had seen a house or the word written out as letters.
I had seen a picture.
She told me she had seen the word. I am amazed to this day that someone can reach a meaning by "seeing" the word.
jeanna
Jeanna
did your friend pick words out of the air like that very often?
I rarely see words ... it is more likely I will see the the finished product .......or the relationship involved in the prosess . These relationships can be tricky too ...... I don't get them as math it is usually visual or simply understanding .
gary
@Gary,
I think she was doing a personal survey.
I guess she had just learned that people can think in pictures.
It sure got ME thinking. In fact, I still think about it from time to time, even without the help of the subject being brought up.
jeanna
Quote from: jeanna on May 05, 2008, 01:17:32 PM
@Gary,
I think she was doing a personal survey.
I guess she had just learned that people can think in pictures.
It sure got ME thinking. In fact, I still think about it from time to time, even without the help of the subject being brought up.
jeanna
Jeanna
once in a while I pick up feelings from others . fear is the easiest .
sometimes I can tell someone is lying because I get a feeling that translates into something like " Oh $hit he caught me what do I do now . ..... I feel the feeling .........but it is not mine .....then I have to figure out what it would mean if it was mine and I was in their shoes
gary
HELLO, GOOD THOUGHTS
MY 2 CENTS!
I THINK MAYBE AN ABILITY TO QUESTION THE ANSWERS YOU ARE GIVEN COMES INTO PLAY HERE TOO
FOR EXAMPLE, I'LL USE THE CHAIR-
SAY AN ABORIGINEE WHO HAS NEVER SEEN A CHAIR SEES A RECLINER THEN ASKS A RANDOM PERSON WHATS THAT?
ONE PERSON MIGHT SAY A CHAIR
ANOTHER A RECLINER
AND YET ANOTHER FURNITURE
DEPENDING ON WHO HE ASKS AND IF HE ASKS MORE THAN ONE PERSON HE MIGHT NEVER KNOW WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS
I THINK THIS IS KINDA HOW PEOPLE LEARN THINGS (IN AMERICA ANYWAY)-
MOST PEOPLE DONT QUESTION THE ANSWERS WE ARE GIVEN.
WE ARE TOLD THIS IS THAT AND ANYTHING ELSE IS WRONG OR POINTLESS-THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER.
ALLRIGHT IM OFF THE SOAP BOX-PEACE
Hello Hans,
interesting discussion.
But I hope your are not one of them types - after years of hard research and nothing acceptable found - they change the direction:
They do this:
- get spiritually (talk about angels or other esoteric shit)
- become agent of dubious health products.
Hi all,
@ Hans
A very interesting thread you've started here about language, concepts, and thought.
I did want to put in a cautionary caveat about words though.
Sometimes they are the BEST way to derail/devert thought.
I read a story once that described the economy of words as something that can hinder the full understanding of a concept or thing.
It used the analogy of a child finding an insect outside, putting it in a jar, and taking it home and asking what it is. The child was told that it was a "BUG".
Proud of his new found knowledge the child proceeded to find a label and print "BUG" on it and put it on the glass of the jar covering the ability to see inside and put it on their bedstand to keep it as a pet.
As children sometimes do, the child forgot about the "BUG" until a few days later when a friend was over and asked what was in the jar called "BUG". The child proudly cried "My new pet!"
The other child, never having seen a bug, asked to look at it so the children went over to the jar, looked inside, and found the bug dead.
The other child said, "That's dead."
So the child took out another label and wrote "DEAD" on it and put it over the other one that said "BUG", put the lid on the jar, and put it back on the bedstand.
See the allegory?
Sometimes a thought/thing comes along that needs volumes of other words to describe, and the economy of using only one word for this thing/thought keeps people from truly understanding it.
You used the example of a "chair" and gave good arguments as to why the word can help with the conveyance of a concept.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 05, 2008, 01:33:17 AM
<snip>Take the word chair for instance. Everyone knows what that is. Even if you show some modernistic avant guard version of it to someone, they will eventually figure out it?s a chair.
Now try to define chair with a descriptor that matches all possible forms of chair and all you can come up with is ?Something to sit on?, which is of course idiotic and meaningless, since you can sit on all sorts of things.
In order to define chair you have to show a whole variety of them to get the concept across, from a dolls house chair to a Chippendale and so forth.
In spite of all these difficulties we can work with the concept ?chair?.
We do this with all kinds of things, old and well known, or just thought of.
This is not where the problem lies in my view. The problem comes in when we want to do something with the words, like thinking of, or communicating a CONCEPT.
Now we are bound by the rigid rules of sentence construction, like grammar and punctuation for instance. It is here where we are fettered and have nowhere near the flexibility we have with words.
In other words, more often than not, we arrive at a certain conclusion because of the way it is put rather than because of the words that were used to convey it.
This is where I see our mental prison.
</snip>
But humans (though sometimes capable of 3rd person perspective) personalize everything, and usually will not imagine the entire range of types of chairs they know, but will visualize their favorite, or what they thought, were taught, or assumed something was.
I was helping my girlfriend go through her deceased mothers things. Her mother had been a learned woman that spoke/read latin and greek (as well as other languages) fluently and had the interest of the translations of the bible not for religious reasons, but in interest of how many times and ways it had been interpreted throughout time until today and how true was it to the original focus of the 1st written account.
She asked me to set a bunch of greek books on the curved table.
I was puzzled as all the tables I could see had square tops. I said so.
Dropping what she was doing she came over and led me to a wooden object sitting next to a window.
It was a Roman chair.
See what I mean? I knew it by it's proper (popular) name and googled it for her to see when we were near a PC (although I had to wade through a lot of fitness equipment to get to it. I probably should have used curule chair. I had always seen the chair used in book illustrations with high ranking roman officials seated upon them so that term made sense to me. I ASSUMED she would know it's proper name having been her mothers daughter and would have learned it growing up.
Had she said "the wooden thing with the curved top" I probably still would have been puzzled.
Had she said "the wooden thing that looks like a table with a curved surface" I would have still had to look for it and ask her, "Is it next to the window?"
Had she said "the wooden thing next to the window in the dining room that looks like some sort of short table" I would have seen it and known.
But she did not. She used a term that had come about when her daughters were at a very young age and they labeled it that. It was a very specific term and meant exactly that thing.
If they had seen another they would have said "this thing that looks like grandma's curved table" and as long as it was between them it would have meant 1 specific object. Anyone else would have had to play 20 questions with them to find out what that was.
Just a personal lesson on how words can be slippery I had recently.
G'day all,
I am happy that this little thread of mine is of interest to you. It is fascinating to see how the limitations of language can distort concepts. It is easiest to observe in primitive languages that are restricted by simple structures and a small vocabulary. Let me give you an example.
Years ago I was working on a project in the highlands of New Guinea. The lingua franca there is Pidgin, a primitive and basic form of English. I do not remember what the conversation was about but the man I was talking to mentioned a "house killim picaninni" ( the house that kills children). Thinking I had stumbled on some sort of human sacrifice or something of that nature I became curious and enquired as to where and what that house was.
The man explained to me that there was a house where pregnant women could enter and when they left the house the growing child was gone. He was talking about an abortion clinic!
The interesting thing here is that in the man?s view it was the HOUSE that killed the children. Other houses did not do this. In normal houses pregnant women entered pregnant and were still pregnant when they left. Not in this place though!
The events in the house that facilitated the abortion were of no interest to him. He was convinced that it was the house that was doing the killing or at the very least that only in that house something like this could occur.
I tried to explain to him how this worked but he was adamant that I was ignorant of the workings of nature and that we ?whities? had a lot to learn about good and evil places.
He seemed to be totally at a loss to think outside his cultural frame of reference and grasp concepts that the primitive language he was using did not allow.
Perhaps we are in a similar bind.
Hans von Lieven
What wonderful stories and insights are in this thread.
Here is an overunity thought.
I started a thread yesterday about a brilliant design that can be built of primitive materials and, if built, can eliminate all the electricity usage from a plug in refridgerator.
Now, a fridge is one of the most electricity hungry items in our homes.
By eliminating those KWH's from our monthly account, we are essentially creating them.
Except we are not really creating them. We need to put energy into an appliance and get more out of it than we put into it for it to be worthy of the label overunity.
hmmm
So, is doing something that used to take electricity from the grid that no longer needs any electricity - not even from solar or other alternative sources- not overunity?
Put nothing in and keep your meat cold - even frozen if the cooler is big enough- IS an overunity of sorts.
And yet, It doesn't fit the word overunity.
jeanna
@ All:
Overunity is not just a word, it is a concept. The problem with concepts is they are based on one's prior experience, upbringing, sometimes religion, etc. Hans and I had a discussion a while back on what might be, or not be considered overunity. I agreed with all of his replies. After hearing these replies it was apparent that there is not one single definition of the word. This is a problem. We are all looking for this wonderful thing, but to Hans, me, Jeanna, et al, it may mean something different. I guess the bottom line here is if we all can't agree on what it is we are searching for, how the hell are we going to find it and/or know it when we do find it?
I think one example Hans gave was setting a match to a pool of oil. Much more energy out than in. This would fit some folk's definition of OU. There is much to learn here.
Bill
Quote from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams
"One of the major problems encountered in time travel is not that of accidentally becoming your own father or mother. There is no problem involved in becoming your own father or mother that a broadminded and well-adjusted family can't cope with. There is also no problem about changing the course of history-the course of history does not change because it all fits together like a jigsaw. All the important changes have happened before the things they were supposed to change and it all sorts itself out in the end.
The major problem is quite simply one of grammar, and the main work to consult in this matter is Dr. Dan Streetmentioner's Time Traveller's Handbook of 1001 Tense Formations. It will tell you for instance how to describe something that was about to happen to you in the past before you avoided it by time-jumping forward two days in order to avoid it. The event will be described differently according to whether you are talking about it from the standpoint of your own natural time, from a time in the further future, or a time in the further past and is further complicated by the possibility of conducting conversations whilst you are actually travelling from one time to another with the intention of becoming your own father or mother.
Most readers get as far as the Future Semi-Conditionally Modified Subinverted Plagal Past Subjunctive Intentional before giving up: and in fact in later editions of the book all the pages beyond this point have been left blank to save on printing costs.
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy skips lightly over this tangle of academic abstraction, pausing only to note that the term "Future Perfect" has been abandoned since it was discovered not to be"
G'day all,
@Hans: Well done mate, I was going to say that you've given us some food for though, but it seems you may have served us up mega banquet. On yer ;D
How many of us have thought of ideas, concepts and images only to be totally frustrated with the inability or shortcomings of our language to convey those ideas to others ( to our satisfaction).
Wilhelm Reicht had the same problem. He discovered something and he had to invent a word for it. He called this "thing" Orgone. Try and explain that concept to a teenager chomping down on a Big Mac. Like the chair, orgone is many things to many people. Some have different names for it like Chi, life force ect but at the end of the day there can only be one complete correct definition of this stuff. Languge is the staircase to arrive at that definition, and we are all building that staircase everyday.
Thanks for the little mental holiday Hans, most refreshing. :)
Now if you would excuse me, I have to refill my Phlogiston tanks. ;D
Catch yer
Ian
@ Rosphere:
Great book! I just listened to it on my library's online audio book selections.
Bill
Hello All,
Interesting thread! I have been scoping out overunity.com for a little while and just registered. This is my first post.
I would like to add a few concepts. These come partly from my spiritual pursuits, but as many people are aware, western scientific understanding and spiritual concepts are coming to the same conclusions. Apologies if these seem like basic ideas to some, but to others these notions might be new or under-appreciated.
I have come to know that words are an abstraction on at least two levels: 1) they are a label for things which carry different denotations/connotations in the same language and 2) as mentioned above, a name for a thing is not a complete description.
A "chair" as we might usually understand it, is actually a complex construction of energy, atoms, molecules, functions of use, and "parts" in our larger, limited world of human perception. Without much difficulty, we can see none of us really know much at all about the full truth of what a "chair" is. Indeed, if one accepts the concept that we live in a holographic universe, that all physical objects are standing wave structures created by the sum of energy emissions from all other things, the truth of a "chair's" nature is as fully incomprehensible and utterly unexplainable as the universe.
A famous book teaches that we gain wisdom by first accepting that "I know nothing." Given the infinite complexity of all things, this can be seen as relatively true. What we "know" of a new thing is only a grouping of ideas which we already understand and ascribe to this new thing. In our subjective individual and collective sense, we must be creating this new thing by our minds, as our subjective and limited understanding creates only a container which reveals this thing as how we want it to be.
Many people are familiar with the stories of native Americans who were at first physically unable to see the massive ships coming ashore from Europe. They had never encountered nearly similar things so these objects were not permitted into consciousness by existing thought forms. Once a few of the natives could construct an explanation of a sort in words, others began seeing the ships.
So, yes, it could be that understanding and generation of overunity power goes beyond what we're able to construct with words, diagrams, device constructions, and existing thought forms. So where do we go?
I believe the answer lies in the power of the subconscious and superconscious realms, of which I have only a limited "knowledge." Here I refer to "knowledge" as a resonant intuition and feeling for the truth of something, and not the inadequate constructions of our thoughts. The subconscious and superconscious can inform us without words.
We all have some experience of the physical world and an intuitive feeling for the natural forces which surround us. So how about we try to "feel" what it's like to be the parts and particles of our inventions?
Imagine being a water particle crashing into a wall or an oncoming wave of water. How are we impacted? A ball rolling on the inner perimeter of a round track: what do we feel if we are that ball? What might a dog's nose experience? What do we feel as a grain of sand bouncing on a vibrating metal plate? By practicing "feeling" experiments like these - and avoiding the temptation to let thought control the experience - we can perhaps grow our ability to get a better "knowing" about physical objects.
Someday, the masses will join in a glorious "AHA!" when inner knowing of overunity power is achieved.
P.S. I highly recommend the book "A New Earth, Awakening to Your Life's Purpose" by Eckhart Tolle. This book has great wisdom about the human ego and how it has hindered the development of our race.
Howdy Y'all,
Have you considered that there is something wrong with our environment?
How could all of these free energy researchers not be finding overunity? How could taping this vast, even universal, field of energy be that hard? Why is it all the modern free energy experimenters are coming up with zip, while all the century old experimenters were successful, ie Tesla, Hubbard, Moray, etc?
I have a few of theories.
1. HAARP, The High Altitude Auroral Research Project, set up by the US Air Force and other questionable agencies in the 1960's causes the entire globe to resonate at 60 Hertz. The actual reason for this technology is clouded in secrecy. This project may be interfering with the natural flow of subtle energies on this planet. It is a potential cause for the failure of free energy experiments world wide.
2. The Earth's magnetic field is suppressed by a buildup of ice on the poles. The naturals energies of the Earth should flow along with the natural magnetic field of Earth. Supposedly the Earth is overdue for a polar realignment which would clear the ice blockages around the poles and allow the natural magnetic field be restored to full strength. Thus allowing all natural energies that are supposed to flow along with the magnetic field also to return to full strength.
3. Free energy researchers are being manipulated by nefarious psychic, and possibly discarnate forces which are determined to not allow free energy to exist. We already know that there are many existing people (incarnate) which are determined to prevent free energy (big oil, financial, transmission line distribution, auto manufacturers, etc.) We have seen the vast power and influence which these people wield, it would be perfectly feasible that they are using covert and illegal means to render the effects of free energy devices inert by means of field dampening devices, and psychic manipulation of the free energy researchers.
4. We are living in an alternate time line in which subtle alternate energy sources do not exist, such as zero point energy. The Montauk Project involved experimenting in space time, including alternate space time lines, or superspace. The reality that we are experiencing may not be the reality that we are meant to occupy. If we are stuck in an alternate time line where free energy will not work it would explain why we all try so hard to achieve something that seems feasible, yet none of us have been able to corroborate.
5. OK, last one, God is protecting the meek. Those of us who care about the environment, who want to achieve free energy, who want to stop polluting the environment, who want to have cheap plentiful power are all being "protected" from the technology because of the malevolence displayed by the status quo power elite. God knows that those who have power want to keep it, and will do so at all costs. That includes sacrificing anything, and anyone they need to hold power. God (or benevolent forces) knows this and is protecting us from our own inventions to keep us safe until the time is right for the release of free energy. When the time is right all of our wacky inventions will start working just as they are supposed to. I know this is a stretch. I have been chasing free energy and overunity for twenty years and I have zip, goose egg. There has to be a reason.
While I agree that there is a discontinuity between what we think and our ability to explain what we see in our mind, this should not stop all people from building what they are thinking about. The ability to verbally relate what one has built should not hinder the process of building. For instance it is said that Tesla would build his devices in his mind and then bring them down to the physical plane and build them with his hands. From our century later perspective it seems that he had it all figured out and could relate these concepts to anyone. I do not think that this was so. I think he was human, and upon having an epiphany he would have to meditate, write a lot of notes, hash out his ideas, build a device, troubleshoot the device, and then play with the device for a long time before coming up with the words to explain the device.
Also I believe that a lot of the free energy concepts that are floating around right now are valid. It is a matter of development to get these concepts to working prototypes and then on to production level devices. This is what the average free energy researcher lacks is development funding. When a concept is pursued by government or big business there is a lot of money poured into the endeavor. Also there is a lot of manpower involved. But in the case of the free energy researcher we have one or maybe a few engineers working on a project and almost no budget to work with. In my case I have myself (EE) and one consulting engineer working from the spare change that I can scrape up between paychecks. This is hardly adequate. No wonder free energy hasn't been accomplished. But, you know, this is how many companies were started. A garage endeavor on a shoestring budget managed to put together the right combination of components and get the little widget working. Bam! Then you get a little market share and you are off and rolling.
The bottom line is that we keep trying to achieve the goal. The goal will always be just out of reach until we achieve it. Then everything changes, and we go into production, then its work work work....
Blessed Be Brothers...
Quote from: z.monkey on May 05, 2008, 10:42:07 PM
Howdy Y'all,
Have you considered that there is something wrong with our environment?
How could all of these free energy researchers not be finding overunity? How could taping this vast, even universal, field of energy be that hard? Why is it all the modern free energy experimenters are coming up with zip, while all the century old experimenters were successful, ie Tesla, Hubbard, Moray, etc?
Z monkey
I think you are looking to far away for the answer .
I think the answer for why we are not getting any results here is because of the way things are done here .
You could call it skeptic driven reaserch .
WHat I have observed is that when an idea is produced that looks promising everyone gathers around to try a to varify OU .
The person with the idea is bombarded with questions and " demands " such as you need to test this ......in this way . ........ you need to prove that .
A successful test is just a test ...........but a failed test retires that line of thinking .
The skeptics keep asking questions and demanding proof untill they happen on a situation that the inventor can't answer .......or the test fails . ......One more possability lost . .........even if the test was not reallly valid .
WHen the person with the idea finally runs out of ideas.......or gets burnt out ...... the attitude is ..........another idea lost .........another person not willing or able to defend there idea .
As long as we need to DEFEND our ideas here ...... this is not a safe place to develope our ideas.
The majority should be ASSISTING in proving that our ideas are valid ............rather than assuming all of them are frauds untill proven otherwise .
I have a few theorys that I want to build .......I am not stupid enough to try to perfect them here in this environment ........I have seen this environment in action . I can't defend my ideas against all the skeptics, prove every step along the way is valid and then actually make some progress building .
It is much easier and more realistic to just build it all myself .
Once I have a working model that works well ......... then I will present if for varifcation .
gary
resonanceman, while I do some what agree with you, I have to say that by talking about what we want to build and having others around to debunk it, helps some of us see the flaws that we may have found the hard way. I also like hearing what others have to say as well as I like to hear about expirements they have done and or want to do. Others idea's help give me ideas as well as they help to give others ideas.
I have learned a lot from others and I hope to learn more.
Quote from: nightlife on May 05, 2008, 11:49:34 PM
resonanceman, while I do some what agree with you, I have to say that by talking about what we want to build and having others around to debunk it, helps some of us see the flaws that we may have found the hard way. I also like hearing what others have to say as well as I like to hear about expirements they have done and or want to do. Others idea's help give me ideas as well as they help to give others ideas.
I have learned a lot from others and I hope to learn more.
Nightlife
I was not talking about developing a basic idea here ....this place is great for that .....lots of ideas to draw from .......lots of opinions .
I was talking about once someone thinks they have OU or are at least close to it . .......that is when things get ugly .
Try going back and reading a few threads where someone claimed OU ........there is almost always a feeding frenzy that would make a shark blush .
What part of replication is a skeptic required for ?
Try counting the posts of skeptics in what passes for a replication attempt.
gary
welcome to the "Reign of Off-topic" :D
gary, now I believe I know what you are talking about. One thing that we all must understand about over unity is the fact that we first must understand what true energy really is before we can ever claim over unity of it.
If some one claims they get more electricity out then is put in and then claims it to be over unity, they are wrong unless they can explain what electricity really even is. I have yet to find anyone that knows what electricity really even is. I started a thread asking what electricity is and no one could answer it. The same was then asked about what energy really is and again, no one could answer it.
So you see, no one can claim over unity unless they can prove what they are claiming over unity of. We have yet to prove what energy is and until we can, over unity can never be claimed and or proven.
Quote from: nightlife on May 06, 2008, 01:37:10 AM
If some one claims they get more electricity out then is put in and then claims it to be over unity, they are wrong unless they can explain what electricity really even is. I have yet to find anyone that knows what electricity really even is. I started a thread asking what electricity is and no one could answer it. The same was then asked about what energy really is and again, no one could answer it.
So you see, no one can claim over unity unless they can prove what they are claiming over unity of. We have yet to prove what energy is and until we can, over unity can never be claimed and or proven.
:o come on!! :D
"electricity" is way off the matter.
overunity (>1) as i catch it refers to obtain: 1 from 0 = 2 from 1 = gain
an overunity device dosnt need to produce "electricity" (wich is a "form of energy" if you ask me, "energy" that "power mechanical devices", if you insist), just move something by it self.
i think anybody understand the "move" concept.
now if you have "something moving" you can go further and produce electricity, or just attach the "self moving device" to whatever you need to put effort on, such a water pump (a mechanical one, without electricity, so we dont need to understand what electricity is!)
anyway i think you put out a brilliant example of how we can block ourselfs following curious lines of thinking. ::)
saludos!
loop888, thinking needs to involve common sense. You can not have over unity if you do not know what energy is. You can think you have over unity but the energy you are claiming to be over unity has to come from some where. You can not get something from nothing.
If you build a motor that puts out more then what it uses, then the motor must be collecting the excess energy from somewhere other then what it is supplied with.
Everyone wants to build something that they consider to be over unity but they don?t want to start with the basics and that is finding out what energy really even is. How can you claim over unity of something that you know nothing about?
I want to produce energy so I have to first answer these 3 following questions:
1, What is energy?
2, Where does energy come from?
3, How do we produce energy?
I have answered all three in my mind and I have found that because of my answer to the first question, over unity is impossible to achieve. This is because I find true energy to be vibrations and or pulses. This may or may not be true but that is where I am at right now.
""electricity" is way off the matter."
Electricity is not way off the matter, it is what most are trying to produce as well as what most are claiming over unity of. They do this without even knowing what electricity even is.
"overunity (>1) as i catch it refers to obtain: 1 from 0 = 2 from 1 = gain"
You would be assuming over unity based on that assumption but with out knowing what is used, there is no way to know that you in fact have created over unity.
You may say that you know electricity is being used but if you don?t know what electricity is, then you don?t really know what is being used.
So again I must state that we can not claim over unity of something we know nothing about. I believe we need to focus on what energy may be so that we can focus on the collection of it. Common sense tells us that we can not make something out of nothing and just because we cant see it, doesn?t mean it?s not there.
I Think it has to do with your point of view.
Language will be improvised to describe it. (sometimes incorrectly as well)
I?ve had to do that on my ?Tesla coil electrostatic? thread, probably with mistakes.
Take for example the ?Tesla Coil?
This gives you the impression of a transformer (vague) due to it?s ?coil? nature.
But look at the same device from the electron view.
It now looks like an ?Electron pump?. (less vague)
Or further still from the magnetic field view,
A Monopolar Electron pump?, primary surrounding secondary.(even more "less vague")
Is that the ?best description? ? probably not.
And interesting as well,
The Tesla ?Magnifying Transmitter?, implies "more".
If it were outputting more, you?d think he would have used
"Amplifying Transmitter?
Cliff,
Quote from: shruggedatlas on May 04, 2008, 09:52:53 PM
You are describing a long standing debate among linguists - which comes first, thought or word? From one standpoint, until someone first has a particular thought or observation, there can exist no word for it, so the thought must come first. But from another standpoint, without words to describe certain concepts, a person will never have that thought. This latter theory reminds me of Orwell's 1984, where the government seeks to eliminate politically undesireable words from the language in order to make "thoughtcrime" not merely illegal, but in fact impossible.
I think the truth lies somewhere in between. It takes one exceptional person to come up with a word to describe a new concept, and then the word is taught to others, who, without that word, would have never arrived at that thought on their own.
@nightlife,
well, first i think electricty is way off the matter because the overunity concept is older than electricity. first people trying overunity where looking for work. today's people looking for overunity to produce electricy, in most? cases, are looking for work TO produce electricity, like their attach their overunity machine to a generator, right? so produce electricity would be the aplication to something wich came first, the overunity device.
"You would be assuming over unity based on that assumption but with out knowing what is used"
let's suppose i want to make a gravity powered overunity device. well, maybe i dont know precisely what gravity is but for sure i got the simple concept: "small mass is attracted to the big one". so therefore im located at earth, the big mass, i can be sure anything smaller released away from the earth will be attracted to it. did i understand what im using there?
ok, in that gravity example i would not creating something from nothing, because gravity is already there, therefore the machine would be creating something from something, so you would be right if you state a gravity powered device is not overunity.
now, before we get there, the problem is we dont know how to pull away the small mass from the big one with less power than the produced on the attraction step.
so, if i made it i could dare to claim overunity, real or not that overunity i would be claiming would be "my" concept, and we both would be right, just because if we relate to the problem "push away the small mass with less power than the produced on the attraction step" the machine still would be producing something from "nothing".
saludos!
loop888, we cant say that the over unity concept is older then electricity because as long as we have had friction, we have had electricity.
You may be right if you are talking about the human concept of electricity.
Based on your use of gravity and the concept of producing work using it, it still can not be considered as over unity because you would have to know what the gravity's work is to say that you are producing more then gravity produces. Your concept is nothing more then the manipulation of gravity. You would not be creating something from nothing because you are creating something from using the energy of gravity.
Some may consider it as nothing because it cost us nothing but the fact remains that gravity it's self is something. The work being done by the use of gravity may be considered over unity but who is to say that we are not taking away energy from gravity to produce the work? The only way we could say that it doesn't take away energy from gravity is by having a exact measurement of gravity's energy both before and after the work is done. Then again we would have to know what energy really is to know what is being used.
@nightlife,
you are right, "concept" is a human concept.
yes, manipulation of gravity would not create something from nothing, it would be something from something, that wat ive sat. still, if gravity is considered "one way" force and turns out that i manage to trick it into a "two way" force then i would create something from "aparently nothing".
about taking energy from gravity, well, observation tell me no matter how much time have passed by since the first thing got away from the object (in ex, earth) that was attracting it with gravity force and how much other things breaked that same gravity force again and again from that first moment to now, our weight remains the same.
so i would fearless state gravity is a pretty "renewable" resource.
of course if someone invent a gravity OU manipulation device and after some time we start to float around... well, then i gonna recognize i was wrong. :D
Whoa fellows, hold your horses for a minute.
We are back on the old merry go round again. Have a look at what is happening here in the forum and elsewhere on the scene. Anyone who has watched this for sometime must by now have noticed that everyone, me included, is running around in circles. When it is all said and done there are only a few ideas lurking around that keep cropping up in one form or other over and over again. Things like Bessler wheels, Smots, Bedini and Newman Motors, Tesla coils, Keely resonators, Magnet Motors and so forth in a myriad of adaptations and configurations.
None have led to anything worthwhile so far. How many times have you seen someone coming up with a new super-groundbreaking idea, only to discover the same design has been posted thirty times before and has proved to be a dud.
Now these people are not idiots. It appears to me, there is some kind of mental track that we are all following which runs in a great big circle.
Play with the machines by all means. I would never discourage anyone who is having a go. But lets stop every now and then and question our approach.
Douglas Adams isn?t all that far off with his thinking; he makes fun of it to the point of ridicule, but that does not mean there is no validity to his concept.
We must change our way of thinking about OU or we will still be pissing around with Smots in a hundred years from now. Perhaps that is OK for some, I mean it?s only been around for three hundred years so far, another century might just turn it into something worthwhile.
Hans von Lieven
G'day all....
Hi Hans...nice to see you back from walkabout.....
All of this is very interesting, and i think that i am the perfect example.
Before my research I knew nothing about electricity, but then i came accross the notes that Ed wrote in his Magnetic Current book.
So I spent the next couple of months going through Ed's notes, following word for word exactly as written and performing all the tests.
I made oversized models, repeated experiments, wound coils for the first time (i didn't even know what magnet wire was ;D) over and over again....and I got all the same results as Ed had written.
After a while I could just do all the tests in my head and see every interaction that was occurring, and I could make motors and generators ect..
Now since i did all that and everything worked exactly as Ed wrote it....why would I, as a person who knew nothing else, think that Ed was wrong?
Next I went and learn't all about the standard theories about electricity, and i found something called Lenz's law and after i studied it I noticed that I already knew all about it from my experiments on Ed's notes....then I found out about Orstead and his tests, but again when i studied them i found that i had already done the experiments in Ed's work, but Orstead and Lenz were using a different base theory to describe their work.
6 years later, i now know all about the electron theory, but it is nothing like Ed's theory that i learn't first, and the truth is that i much prefer Ed's theory over the electron theory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is an example.....Ed writes about radio waves....Here is what he wrote.
Radio waves are not waves; they are North and South pole individual magnets which are coming out
of a transformer of the secondary winding?s coil ends, one-half going up in the air and the other half
in the ground in increasing and decreasing numbers. The numbers are regulated by the transmitting tube, and the speed by voltage. The increasing and decreasing magnet numbers cause the receiver?s antenna to generate a tiny current to start the amplification to reproduce the original broadcast. The magnets are not running up to the ionosphere and down again, but are running horizontally until they are lost. Those magnets which go up to the ionosphere never come back as radio waves to the receiver, they only cause the ionosphere?s magnets to come back to Earth as radar waves. Magnets do not run in the way the radio wave drawings show.....ED.L
---------------------------
Now I will show you what the above actually means.....
From this http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm (http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm) article we read:
The elevated terminal charged to a high potential induces an equal and opposite charge in the earth.
same as Ed wrote....
and here http://www.rexresearch.com/rogers/1rogers.htm (http://www.rexresearch.com/rogers/1rogers.htm) the inventor says.."If 50 units of power are past into the aerial, then what becomes of the equal amount of energy which passes into the ground".
same as ed again
Tesla again...Nothing is more important in the present phase of development of the wireless art than to dispose of the dominating erroneous ideas. With this object I shall advance a few arguments based on my own observations which prove that Hertz waves have little to do with the results obtained even at small distances.
In Fig. 13 a transmitter is shown radiating space waves of considerable frequency. It is generally believed that these waves pass along the earth's surface and thus affect the receivers. I can hardly think of anything more improbable than this "gliding wave" theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_waves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_waves) and the conception of the "guided wireless" which are contrary to all laws of action and reaction. Why should these disturbances cling to a conductor where they are counteracted by induced currents, when they can propagate in all other directions unimpeded? The fact is that the radiations of the transmitter passing along the earth's surface are soon extinguished, the height of, the inactive zone indicated in the diagram, being some function of the wave length, the bulk of the waves traversing freely the atmosphere. Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.
Back to the second link....To Mr Rogers?s mind it was more reasonable to suppose that the energy liberated at the base of an aerial was propagated through the earth as well as through the ether above, and that an elevated aerial, at great distance, would be actuated by them as effectually as if the waves reached the same point through the ether above; when the waves through the earth reached the base of the aerial the potential of the plate would be raised and lowered and the aerial would accordingly be energized.
AND AGAIN..These ground currents travel with the speed of light and are picked up at the receiving station. The space waves persist for an appreciable distance, which accounts for airplane-to-airplane and airplane-to-earth communication, but it is the belief of Mr Rogers that in such long-distance radio transmission as half-way around the globe (12,000 miles) that it is the ground wave current that does the work, and that the free space wave above the surface of the earth never reaches the station, due to the high resistance of the atmospheric envelope.
One of the Naval experts present mentioned that it had been found that the penetration of the ground wave component increases with an increase in wavelength. This is an important fact and helps to explain the operation of this new radio system, with its aerials buried in the ground. He also mentioned that "Radio to Mars" or other planets would be impossible, if we are to believe in the well-known "Heaviside" ionization layer, surrounding the earth
AND TESLA...This shows that in the transmission from an airplane we are merely working thru a condenser.
The same conclusions will be reached by transmitting and receiving circuits with wires buried underground. In each case the actions carefully investigated will be found to be due to earth currents. Numerous other proofs might be cited which can be easily verified. So for example oscillations of low frequency are ever so much more effective in the transmission which is inconsistent with the prevailing idea. My observations in 1900 and the recent transmissions of signals to very great distances are another emphatic disproval.
The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.
-----------------------------
So now we can see what Ed was really talking about.....
Ed had the same radio theory as Tesla ;D, and the inventor from the other link.
Ed's notes are about the Heaviside Layer and radio wave (non) reflection...and Earth propagation of power.
Marconi said that a submarine would have to come to the surface to receive a signal....now that's funny. ;D
Ed uses the terms North and South pole individual magnets to define electricity, but all his work is just as good as Tesla's, because it can be shown they both had the same theory.
-----------------------------------------------------
I've expanded Ed's theory to cover lots of things.....but how to show everyone else?
NOW THAT IS THE QUESTION. ;)
Read about magnetic currents, then you will know what electricity is, what makes it and how it runs in a wire.
That'll do pig
That'll do! ;D
Scotty
Howdy Y'all,
Hans is right. were all stuck in the same oval shaped rut. Trying to prove centuries old theories and all that is getting done is making a deeper rut. I see the discontinuity of language in these threads. Different people talking about the same things, but arguing because we use different words to describe the same concepts.
We need standardization. We need benchmark experiments. We need a point of reference, a ground. With out some sort of standard to use as starting point we are all just floating voltages that are meaningless to the devices that NEED to be built.
I have experienced exasperation and exhaustion when trying to make a point on this forum, and get attacked from all over the globe. Everyone has some slightly different way of expressing the same concept and it is fodder for a virtual war. Anti-productive!
Z.Monkey throws his hands up and stomps off into the kitchen to get coffee....
Blessed Be Brothers...
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 06, 2008, 05:35:35 AM
Whoa fellows, hold your horses for a minute.
We are back on the old merry go round again. Have a look at what is happening here in the forum and elsewhere on the scene. Anyone who has watched this for sometime must by now have noticed that everyone, me included, is running around in circles. When it is all said and done there are only a few ideas lurking around that keep cropping up in one form or other over and over again. Things like Bessler wheels, Smots, Bedini and Newman Motors, Tesla coils, Keely resonators, Magnet Motors and so forth in a myriad of adaptations and configurations.
None have led to anything worthwhile so far. How many times have you seen someone coming up with a new super-groundbreaking idea, only to discover the same design has been posted thirty times before and has proved to be a dud.
Now these people are not idiots. It appears to me, there is some kind of mental track that we are all following which runs in a great big circle.
Play with the machines by all means. I would never discourage anyone who is having a go. But lets stop every now and then and question our approach.
Douglas Adams isn?t all that far off with his thinking; he makes fun of it to the point of ridicule, but that does not mean there is no validity to his concept.
We must change our way of thinking about OU or we will still be pissing around with Smots in a hundred years from now. Perhaps that is OK for some, I mean it?s only been around for three hundred years so far, another century might just turn it into something worthwhile.
Hans von Lieven
Some ideas are different. My approach has been to figure out how permanent magnets can work with each other in a motor to allow it to rotate (whether there are moving parts or not and overunity or not), and then create an improved motor design, based on what I have learned, that will be able to take advantage of this method, being designed to exceed 100% electrical efficiency. It's seems to be a logical approach that is working for me.
Hans,
as I have studies philosophy myself, I quite like this turn you've taken. :)
Linguistics, logic, epistemology, they all come together at some point.
And what you're suggesting is that it is our strong ties to our native languages
and inherent logic that "twist" our world view to fit our "imprinted"
thought patterns, that are directly related to our language structures?
Interesting idea, although it has been considered before, I think.
I personally do not think our language dictates our world view or thought patterns,
although it is true that the more interesting thought constructs do not arise from
pure imitation of linguistic and "intuitive" information structures.
A nice example I'd like to cite is the so-called Sapir-Whorf hypothesis;
Everyone knows the famous example that "eskimos have 20 words for snow",
or the example that "natives in papua-new-guiney do not know the difference between
blue and green", both situations have been used as examples of how other cultures
with other languages also have totally different ways of looking at the world than
we do.
Fortunately such linguistic determinism claims have been proven false;
although it is true that eskimos have a large number of different words for snow,
the connotation of the terminology is not actually different. English speakers also
know different types of snow, they just use a descriptive term and not a seperate word.
And the New-guiney Papua certainly are not colour blind for the colours green and blue,
they see them just as we do, and know there is a difference. It is just that they use
a different name for it in their culture. One can compare that to a language where
the term "water" were used for both river water and rain; the people obviously know
that rain falls from the sky and river water does not, but to them that may not seem
important enough a difference to actually waste a word on it.
This also shows that yes, ways of looking at things are determined to a degree by the
world view in which one is raised, and ways of using language to talk about things is too,
and so is the way these words are used to describe a certain world view.
But that does not mean that we need to break free of our language in order to gain
access to a different world view. We need to transcend linguistic limitations,
get the view straight.
And yes, many people have never realised how much their world view is tied to
their language and the way that language was used to teach them their world view;
for such people it may well help to study a totally different language or even better:
to study logic, in order to gain experience and practise with "re-molding" their
world view and/or linguistic-logical model in order to gain a better understanding of
other ways of looking at things.
Can you perhaps give some examples of the things that you feel may be too strongly
embedded in our linguistic patterns and cause us to perhaps look at certain things
in an unflexible or crooked way?
Thanks.
And great to see you're still around, by the way. ;)
Always knew you hadn't run off or gotten grabbed by the MIBs :)
Regards,
Koen
Hans, "We must change our way of thinking about OU or we will still be pissing around with Smots in a hundred years from now."
I couldn't agree more and that is one of the reasons I have posted what I did. I feel that we should all start thinking of over unity as being something created at no physical cost to us. I have stated that I believe true over unity is impossible but I do feel that over unity based on our physical cost can be achieved,
I for one would like to see the contest here changed to imply that the winner must show over unity of human physical cost and not just over unity. When I say physical cost, I mean labor as well as cost and not just our own but anyone else?s as well. For example:
We can build fox hole types of radio receivers that can be used to produce power but we are not actually producing power because of the physical power used to produce the radio wave the radio transmitter is receiving. This can not be thought of as achieving human physical cost over unity.
But if we were to extract energy from the earth like earth battery's do, then we could say that yes, we have achieved human physical cost over unity provided the amount of energy extracted is more then what the energy was used to produce the substances used to extract the energy that has been extracted. Meaning that it takes a certain amount of physical costing energy to produce what we have and for us to claim physical cost over unity, we would have to extract more total energy then the total energy used to produce what is being used to extract the energy. So as long as the products used last long enough to extract enough energy to cover the physical costing energy used and still last longer, then I could agree that human physical costing over unity has been achieved.
Hans,
What you have brought up is impossible to answer, why?. Well because you cannot look into the future but you can look at the present or past. you have to be able to have something, solid or not, to be able to name it. If we had a Dictionary that had all the words possible for everything in the universe it would be impractical and very confusing. Just like your chair idea. What came first the chair or the name chair or the idea that the word chair exists. Its hard to believe that someone thought of the word chair exits rather the idea of a chair itself. Of course everyone in the forum is going around and around in circles, thats because there is no possible end until you can see the end of the future. Remember you can only see the present and the past. never the future.
Oh and also.
OK NOW TAKE THE WORD CHAIR OUT WHEN READING.
A chair is a kind of furniture for sitting, consisting of a back, and sometimes arm rests, commonly for use by one person. Chairs also often have four legs to support the seat raised above the floor.
OK now did that because even if the word chair does not exits you can still build or think of a CHAIR.
The term chair only speeds up the process of explaining what your sentence consists of
EXAMPLE: mom, mother
once you have the word chair conceived you can build upon it
Example: nice chair
nice (ns)
adj. nic?er, nic?est
1. Pleasing and agreeable in nature: had a nice time.
2. Having a pleasant or attractive appearance: a nice dress; a nice face.
3. Exhibiting courtesy and politeness: a nice gesture.
4. Of good character and reputation; respectable.
5. Overdelicate or fastidious; fussy.
6. Showing or requiring great precision or sensitive discernment; subtle: a nice distinction; a nice sense of style.
7. Done with delicacy and skill: a nice bit of craft.
NICE CHAIR......... the final conclusion
Hello all,
I've just thought of a different wrinkle to this.
Is it true or not that the observation of a phenomenon's activities significantly alter the activities?
We're using the same medium (english language) that we are observing/debating. :D
Maybe this is why a picture is worth 1000 words, and written language evolved from pictograms (heiroglyphics). Perhaps the evolution of the pictogram to the (word) letter is flawed?
That evolution of words, from my vague and flawed recollecting(and I could be wrong, I haven't studied this), was from the pictograph meaning 1 object/action, and then being shortened to representing the idea of the pictogram, and then being shortened again to be a symbol in it's own right.
Quote
From Wikipedia:
The earliest uses of pictograms were made in Mesopotamia and predated the famous Sumerian cuneiforms (the oldest of which date to around 3400 BC). As early as 9000 BC tokens marked with simple pictures began to be used to label basic farm produce, and around 6000 BC, with the rise of cities and spread of basic craftmanship, more complex pictographic tokens were devised to label manufactured goods. Eventually the tokens were replaced by clay tablets on which symbols were drawn with a blunt reed called a stylus. The impressions left by the stylus were wedge shaped, thus giving rise to the name cuneiform; wedge-writing.
(and in writing this this way, I have invoked a different (action) language html tagging.)
So if I look @ the letter A and find it comes from aleph, so I go to Wikipedia for it's "definition" I get:
Quote
ʾĀlep is the reconstructed name of the first letter of the Proto-Canaanite alphabet, continued in descended Semitic alphabets as Phoenician Aleph , Syriac 'Ä€laph Ü, Hebrew Aleph ×, and Arabic ʾAlif ïº.
Aleph originally represented the glottal stop (IPA /Ê"/), usually transliterated as ʾ (U+02BE) "modifier letter right half ring", a character of the Unicode Spacing Modifier Letters range, based on the Greek spiritus lenis ʼ. For example in the transliteration of the letter name itself, ʾÄleph.
The Phoenician letter gave rise to the Greek Alpha (Î'), being re-interpreted to express not the glottal consonant but the accompanying vowel, and hence the Latin A and Cyrillic Ð.
Origon:
Aleph is thought to be derived from the West Semitic word for "ox", and the shape of the letter derives from a Proto-Sinaitic glyph based on a hieroglyph depicting an ox's head,
In modern Hebrew, "meulaf", derived from the Hebrew root Ê"-l-f (alef-lamed-pe) is the passive participle of the verb "le'alef", and means trained (when referring to pets) or tamed (when referring to wild animals); the IDF rank of Aluf, taken from an Edomite title of nobility, is also cognate. In modern Arabic, "aleef" literally means "domesticated".
That's supposedly where it came from, but the ox is far from what I 1st think of when I think of "A".
In fact, the literal translation in modern arabic is the direct opposite of what I think when someone uses the term "type A".
Just another way I see the ambiguity of language. :D
For modern examples think of the latest word crafting due to political, fiscal, and even scientific manipulations.
acceptable losses
military intelligence
reverse growth
homeland security
marginal gains
low interest
orbital attraction
etc.
@ Haliburton:
I have to slightly disagree with one of your statements: " Remember you can only see the present and the past. never the future."
You can only observe the present. The past has already occurred and we depend on memory (God help us) if we experienced the event or, (even worse) reports from other people's memory who did witness the event. The future, like you said, has not happened yet, so that's out too. In my humble opinion, (for what it may or may not be worth) we are stuck with the present and the present goes by in an instant. Very small window there.
@ Hans:
Damn! All of this thinking is giving me a headache. I think one needs to slowly sip a pint or two while contemplating ideas such as this.
Bill
@Bill,
I now must slightly disagree with your post.
Look at my avatar. Remember?
I must also thank Rosphere for that delightful laugh from Douglas Adams.
I have the conscious memory of being on that brick wall watching an event that another conscious memory tells me I attended when I took the picture.
II remember being present for both instances and they were 4-6 months apart. And the idea to go forward to the event happened first...I think... ;)
I have no interest in proving this to anybody. I only use the pic as my avatar to have it there before me always.
(I just realized I have missed the whole last page. I will read up and change this if necessary.)
jeanna
G?day all,
Koen1 said in his post: Can you perhaps give some examples of the things that you feel may be too strongly embedded in our linguistic patterns and cause us to perhaps look at certain things in an unflexible or crooked way?
Yes I can.
Many years ago I was hanging around in an airport lounge waiting for a plane that had been delayed. I got talking to an elderly lady, an anthropologist who had been studying primitive societies in Africa for much of her life. We were discussing the limitations imposed by language on those societies. She told me the following story:
She had been living for some time with a tribe that shunned contact with civilisation and the outside world when one of the more valued members of heir society became ill. Knowing that the man could be successfully treated in London she managed to convince the people to let her take him there for treatment. The man was cured and duly returned to his tribe.
On his return he told his people about his adventures overseas. Naturally he was telling his story in the primitive language of the tribe.
In one of the stories he related how he went to this big hole in the city. A magic hole, for if you climbed down into the hole at the bottom of it there was this house. You went into the house and it started rattling and shaking and a wind was howling outside. Then the noise and the wind stopped and you could leave the house. You were back in the big hole, but this time when you climbed out of it you were in a different place.
He had described a journey on the London underground in the only way his language permitted.
My point here is that such a society could never invent an underground system or a bicycle for that matter, their language simply does not allow them to think in this direction.
We have a far more sophisticated system of language. But is it good enough to develop free energy? This is the question.
Hans von Lieven
But Hans,
Inventions by their nature have no description in the language.
There was a need or they would not have been produced.
There will not be a word for something until it exists.
This is why inventors live out of the box. The thing they are looking for is not in the box, nor is it described in the box.
jeanna
A good thought Jeanna,
However, the precursors to that inspiration are a requirement to ferment the idea. That is my point.
Hans
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 06, 2008, 04:54:16 PM
Hans
Yes,
Please elaborate.
On how the precursors are used by the inventor.
In my opinion the inventors whose inventions are too far ahead are so because there are too few precursors in the society for the invention to be seen and accepted.
But the inventor went way out there to make the invention to solve a problem.
jeanna
well all that african man did was describe the subway. Now they know what the subway looks like so know he can just say i took a subway to london instead of giving a description , and so on, They do not use subways so why would the have the word subway, in there native language! What they did have was descriptive words that lead to what is know known as a subways by them. Same for us. How can we name something we never seen thought of or felt. And yes you can look at the past. by video documents, mind ETC. ;)
OK Jeanna.
What I call the precursors to an invention are all the things that have to be present before the idea can take shape. Amongst them are the required knowledge base, the ability to reason, the opportunity to observe, the ability to perceive a need, perhaps even manual skill, these sorts of things.
Many of these things are shaped by language, cultural background, living conditions, opportunities for exchange of ideas (which again are language dependent) and so forth.
For example, a pious Muslim is unlikely to invent a better pork sausage, his religion prevents him from doing so. An illiterate factory worker cannot conceive a particle accelerator. Autistic people do not make good brain surgeons.
There has to be a foundation from which to proceed. These foundations are often severely restricted. Language plays a big part in this.
Have you ever seen a scientific dissertation in ghetto speak? It is unlikely to happen, The vocabulary and the grammar are missing to express sophisticated concepts.
Does that answer your question?
Hans
QuoteHowever, the precursors to that inspiration are a requirement to ferment the idea. That is my point.
Yes, but I would say not to ferment the idea, although I see your reasoning for saying that, I would still want to say the precursors like what the patent office refers to as "skilled in the art" are a requirement to
produce it.
While the muslim may not ordinarily be inclined to invent a better pork sausage, he may be enterprising and do it anyway because he can see the market for it. And that would make him very out of the box and perhaps in some personal danger.
Still the language would be less of an impediment than the customs of his society.
An illiterate factory worker who is NOT also stupid could perhaps see the overall picture of a particle accelerator, if shown by a persom clever at explaining... and what makes you think there are no autistic brain surgeons?? ;D ;D ;D
I do understand your point, I think.
It is just that I think that thinking :out of the box" puts someone beyond these limitations.
jeanna
great topic, Hans!
Dear Hans,
I am afraid your parallel between the Pidgin speaking guy in Papua and our OU fraternity and our outlook is not exactly correct.
I am nearly certain this guy never mingled with "whitie" women and never noticed that (at least some of them, if not the majority) are relieved when they leave the clinic - not distraught. This guy must have been near hermetically isolated from any other sections of society, or so profoundly devoid of curiosity (in other words a man of "limited wisdom") that the concept of difference, or diversity had not occurred to him.
The trouble with your parallel is this: we may be going around in circles, but some of us (perhaps quite a few of us) are not deliberately shunning the development of our conceptual framework. On the contrary, we are seeking to expand it and we are conscious that this expansion may bring about radically different notions and outlook.
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".
Overunity is a very deep concept, I am increasingly convinced that theoretical and practical outlooks must go hand-in-hand to maximise the chances for success. We can see a very good example for a co-operative pair of our colleagues - does it ever occur to you all why exactly Bedini needs Peter Lindemann? Because Bedini - a genius amongst us - is almost totally incapable of expressing himself.
I do not mean it so drastically, they may be good friends anyway, but Bedini needs Lindemann, and by saying so I do not think I denigrate or defame Bedini - at least I do not intend to pooh-pooh him.
Perhaps the problem is that so many of us want to be the sole genius, The new Faraday.
The great pity is the total lack of co-ordination between practical and theoretical efforts. As if they were totally distinct universes.
laci
An illiterate factory worker who is NOT also stupid could perhaps see the overall picture of a particle accelerator, if shown by a persom clever at explaining... Jeanna
Yes Jeanna, true, but that would also be a precursor by itself.
Hans
Yo dogs, my peeps just jumped on da cell, so dont trip, day on da scene now and day got da scoop on what us need fo the info. The spinners are rollin on day own. Day trip from da bumps to get day flight.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 06, 2008, 06:46:23 PM
An illiterate factory worker who is NOT also stupid could perhaps see the overall picture of a particle accelerator, if shown by a persom clever at explaining... Jeanna
Yes Jeanna, true, but that would also be a precursor by itself.
Hans
oops when I said "explaining" I was actually thinking of a clever cartoonist who can draw out the elements needed to expalin in a pictorial way since words might confuse the illiterate person.
jeanna
wow nightlife,
there is something to think about
what are spinners?
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
oops when I said "explaining" I was actually thinking of a clever cartoonist who can draw out the elements needed to expalin in a pictorial way since words might confuse the illiterate person.
jeanna
Even that would be another precursor Jeanna
Hans ;)
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 06, 2008, 06:53:03 PM
Even that would be another precursor Jeanna
Hans ;)
Oh I thought you were saying that the precursors had to be language / words.
I need to look back.
jeanna
OK I did. I see
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.
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 06, 2008, 06:51:57 PM
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..?
@ 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.
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...
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 (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?
@koen,
I am minded to exclaim "Jesus Christ" - of course we should not be blinded by established orthodixies of theoretical physics.
Textbook physics is not the Bible.
If you followed a simmering debate amongst the theoreticians (and mainly amongst the maverick ones), you would realize a broad consensus that coventional theoretical physics (the stuff taught at universities) is so seriously flawed that it is untenable.
I am reluctant to use this phrase but it is vivid and apposite: some tracts of accepted theoretical physics is total crap. And the maverics are just as fighting an uphill struggle to get their ideas accepted as we do. They, too, are subject to being sidelined and ridiculed.
Perhaps we should seek a practical cooperation with some of them, should not we?
Regards,
laci
Quote from: laci on May 07, 2008, 06:33:31 AM
@koen,
I am minded to exclaim "Jesus Christ"
what? too much ranting in one post? ;) Sorry 'bout that...
Quote- of course we should not be blinded by established orthodixies of theoretical physics.
Textbook physics is not the Bible.
Well it is to some. Quite often people will come up with objections based on "facts" in their textbooks...
QuoteIf you followed a simmering debate amongst the theoreticians (and mainly amongst the maverick ones), you would realize a broad consensus that coventional theoretical physics (the stuff taught at universities) is so seriously flawed that it is untenable.
I am reluctant to use this phrase but it is vivid and apposite: some tracts of accepted theoretical physics is total crap. And the maverics are just as fighting an uphill struggle to get their ideas accepted as we do. They, too, are subject to being sidelined and ridiculed.
Perhaps we should seek a practical cooperation with some of them, should not we?
Yes, and I feel "we" already do a little bit. So basically it's the "cutting edge scientists" and the "over unity crackpots" versus the "establishment"... ;)
But it would be nice if more scientists decided to join "our" side. :)
Honestely, I do not think it is a matter of language or thinking. We need an effect that contradicts the known laws of physics. All you need to so to have mainstream science pay attention is point to one such anomalous effect and really prove it up. Isolate that one thing and focus on it and do extensive experimentation. Then, once that is proven, you can make a device based on that, and it will all make sense.
Where people go wrong is they try to present a whole device and claim that it works and not really explain what the anomalous effect is that makes the thing work. Well, based on known laws of physics, no device can be truly overunity, so these devices get dismissed right away, and the inventors get labelled crackpots. The fact that the devices invariably turn out to be under unity does not help matters.
So anyway, that is the problem with overunity as I see it.
@ shrugged
While you bring up a salient point with the idea that individual effects of experiments have to be beaten to death with proof, it still doesn't help if you can't relay the steps/processes/expected outcome to an independent researcher so they can duplicate and verify your results.
Look at how hard other threads are trying to decipher the writings of Tesla, Moray, Keely, etc.
Kinda makes me wish Tesla had asked his friend Mark Twain to do a little transcription.
The experimenter need not worry about the terms used to describe what's happening until they are convinced it IS happening successively. THEN he/she needs to discuss the process with peers so points of ambiguity or things that have no words at the moment can be described to the point where you can give a capable person the equipment and instructions and they can duplicate the results.
Isn't that the point where a discovery becomes validated?
It would be frustrating if I had a friend that discovered a yet untapped energy, and I could see his process work, but when I asked him how he did it and then tried to replicate it I failed and he'd point somewhere and say, "That's not a capacitor". when I know it is, that's what he'd told me to use, and that's what it was labeled as when I bought it. His use of capacitor could mean a huge energy tank created with spherical media when my experience with capacitors says they are made up of plates.
At that point an experimenter might wish to completely redo the experiment again with a querying observer so that when the observer doesn't understand a term or action they can ask and then translate for the rest of us.
A tall order I know, but if you want posterity to benefit from your work it should be an integral issue.
P.S. Never is the time when I can write and not have to proof read @ least once as my brain moves faster than my fingers. I'm sure many brains move faster than mouths, but saying something sometimes gives someone a chance to ask a question.
G'day all,
This is turning out to better than the Friday night footy game.
Ya know I have replies and ideas that I'd like to put to Hans and Koen ect but I'm struggling for the correct words. Perhaps that highlights Hans original point, don't know.
What I do know for a fact, is, the London underground IS a big hole in the ground. ;)
Damn you Hans, you'll pay for this. ;D ;D
ooroo
Ian
LOL Ian ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: exxcomm0n on May 07, 2008, 03:26:57 PM
@ shrugged
While you bring up a salient point with the idea that individual effects of experiments have to be beaten to death with proof, it still doesn't help if you can't relay the steps/processes/expected outcome to an independent researcher so they can duplicate and verify your results.
What you say is true, but I think that once an anomaly is discovered, it would not be that hard to describe what is going on. The hard part is finding the anomaly, not finding the words to describe it. There may be a little back and forth of "I meant this, not that", but given intelligent people, replication should not be that hard to accomplish. Where we are stuck is there are no anomalies. Every step of the way, there are energy losses and no one has figured out how to turn a profit yet.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on May 07, 2008, 11:01:43 AM
Honestely, I do not think it is a matter of language or thinking. We need an effect that contradicts the known laws of physics. All you need to so to have mainstream science pay attention is point to one such anomalous effect and really prove it up. Isolate that one thing and focus on it and do extensive experimentation. Then, once that is proven, you can make a device based on that, and it will all make sense.
Where people go wrong is they try to present a whole device and claim that it works and not really explain what the anomalous effect is that makes the thing work. Well, based on known laws of physics, no device can be truly overunity, so these devices get dismissed right away, and the inventors get labelled crackpots. The fact that the devices invariably turn out to be under unity does not help matters.
So anyway, that is the problem with overunity as I see it.
Hi ShruggedAtlas,
How would a scientist knowing how the device works, help the inventor? How would the scientist protect and then promote the inventor's invention value and profit potential?
What if the "anomalous effect" by itself does not show overunity, but the whole device functioning together can operate exceeding 100% electrical efficiency? In this case, testing only the anomalous effect would not be a fair test of the device...
Quote from: Liberty on May 07, 2008, 10:05:31 PM
Hi ShruggedAtlas,
How would a scientist knowing how the device works, help the inventor? How would the scientist protect and then promote the inventor's invention value and profit potential?
What if the "anomalous effect" by itself does not show overunity, but the whole device functioning together can operate exceeding 100% electrical efficiency? In this case, testing only the anomalous effect would not be a fair test of the device...
So wait a minute, you say you can have a device where at every step, conservation of energy is obeyed, but yet the end result produces a surplus of energy? That is simply not possible. Do you have an example?
That's not fair, I asked you a question first. :)
Quote from: Liberty on May 07, 2008, 10:19:58 PM
That's not fair, I asked you a question first. :)
Fair enough. To answer your question, if the effort is truly open source and collaborative, publishing experimental proof of an anomaly would get others to replicate. Anyone performing the experiments, including scientists and other mainstream experts, could only aid in the cause through comments and suggestions for improvement.
If the inventor is more interested in patenting and then exploiting the invention, then of course it is better to keep things under wraps, but I do not think we are talking about that.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on May 07, 2008, 10:44:34 PM
Quote from: Liberty on May 07, 2008, 10:19:58 PM
That's not fair, I asked you a question first. :)
Fair enough. To answer your question, if the effort is truly open source and collaborative, publishing experimental proof of an anomaly would get others to replicate. Anyone performing the experiments, including scientists and other mainstream experts, could only aid in the cause through comments and suggestions for improvement.
If the inventor is more interested in patenting and then exploiting the invention, then of course it is better to keep things under wraps, but I do not think we are talking about that.
I have kept certain aspects of the devices under wraps that I want to carry forward and further develop. I have released videos of some experimental motors at my web site, that you are welcome to watch. (The devices in the videos use neo magnets in the stator and rotor, there are no coils directly in the motor but the rotor turns from the interaction of permanent magnetic fields only). I will probably not further develop the video devices, but I am focused on a new non-powered version at this time. This will be a new breed of motor from previous versions and is kept under wraps. Also a power assisted version that will be of a very high electrical efficiency nature, that has a similar design to the non-powered version. It is described in general terms at my web site.
G'day all,
It is interesting to note how Edward Leedskalnin keeps cropping up in this thread. He is an excellent example of what I am talking about here, though no-one has mentioned that aspect yet.
When one analyses Ed's writings it becomes obvious that he was not THINKING in English. His writings are a TRANSLATION!
I do not know in what language Ed thoight. Apart from standard Latvian, which is natively spoken by only 60% of the population, there are 3 dialects in common use see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latvian_language for further detail.
It is my contention that the use of one of these languages led Ed's thinking in this unconventional direction.
Any comments would be appreciated.
Hans von Lieven
Hans:
This also would apply to Tesla would it not? Language for them was not a problem, or so it seems. I have studied Ed's writings and his English was pretty good. But, obviously, it was not his first language so we can only speculate what language his "thoughts" were in. This is a great topic.
Bill
Bill (&Hans ;)), reading Teslas papers and patents I have noticed that his
use of English seems quite similar to the quaint style of English some
old Dutch and German physicists use(d) around that time, about the
first part of the 20th century. And in fact, a few old Dutch electrophysics books
I have read clearly showed certain terminology that was nearly identical to
that used in Germany, whereas some other terminology was clearly literally
translated from English. This makes for some curious terms and formulations,
which become much more clear when you read about the same subject
in those other languages, as some things are apparently translated literally
and others figuratively unsing different words.
The closer you get to the "modern" post-1950s era, the more you see that
type of "international language jumble" turn into a more standardised
terminology with increasing adoption of English terminology.
Now it may just be that I have an interest in linguistics, combined with the fact
that Holland is a small country in between Britain, Germany and France,
so we've traditionally had to learn to speak and understand at least a little of
those languages in order to keep trade going, we have a lot of loan words from
those languages, and nowadays we get them in school, so I may just have
a slightly different take on language elements, differences, and application
than many other people do who don't share that situation...
When I read Teslas writings, it is clear that he sometimes "thinks in" a slightly
different way which is, in my opinion, clearly due to certain linguistic influences
that can probably be traced down to his slavic mother tongue in which such
formulations are apparently more common (I have been told by an ex-Yugoslavian).
I like to recognise that as the same tendency I mentioned in regard to the old
Dutch physics books: the tendency to unintentionally translate terminology
in literal formulation in some cases and in figurative formulation in others,
resulting in a text in english that reads a bit "funny" and needs one to imagine
what is described before the exact meaning of the formulation sinks in fully.
Certain other elements or formulations are so similar to the old literal-ish
style of those old books I mentioned that the author and Tesla cound almost have taken
the same English course. ;)
Perhaps that is why I do not see the difference in language as such a big problem?
I think it's about the actual knowledge, and that's a layer 'behind' the language,
so to speak. Language is only a tool to convey this knowledge, as is imagery.
Both can be very usefull to explain things and to help people grasp ideas and concepts,
but if incorrectly applied they can be as confusing as they can be helpfull.
And yes, to some degree the similarities in the thought structures and the language
in which these structures were originally learnt does play a role, but when the person
in question has also learnt to work with different linguistic systems and incorporate
the information learnt in those different languages into one coherent system of
mental constructs, most of the the linguistic and interpretational differences disappear
as both the conceptualisation as the formulation in different languages are under
cognitive control of the person. I think. Sort of. ;) Well it remains difficult in any language
to express exactly what you mean, which is a problem with language as such and
not of different languages; the more complex the idea you are trying to convey,
the more words we need.
But hey, what do you want...
... it remains difficult to express complex logical constructs in a language that
originally evolved to convey animosity to the monkeys in the next tree. ;) ;D
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 05, 2008, 01:33:17 AM
In other words, more often than not, we arrive at a certain conclusion because of the way it is put rather than because of the words that were used to convey it.
Yes! In fact, in training for my work, I learned that about 85% of the information we absorb from a *telephone* conversation is from the tone of delivery, not the words.
So we get a certain feeling from delivery. In writing, we can also get some impressions from sentence structure, vocabulary, analysis of handwriting style, etc. As Hans observes, "we arrive at a conclusion." How we arrive at this conclusion is of course dependent on our personal biases, mood of the moment, past experience, etc. In coming to our conclusions, in pursuit of truth, we must all overcome these barriers.
I believe that overcoming the ego and keeping an open mind are the keys to understanding.
Though I am new to this bulletin board, I have read many of the heated discussions. I am very, very impressed by the many members here who are tolerant of the words, forgiving of personalities, and willing to look past the words and first impressions to find something good and worthy.
This "New Approach" topic is exactly the kind of "thinking outside the box" that will get us where we want to go!
Another reason why is because we are not teaching properly. This next link will explain what I am talking about in one respect.
http://www.amasci.com/emotor/stmiscon.html
G'day winner,
Welcome to this little discussion of ours. I think you have really understood what is being tried here. The idea is to expand our consciousness by creating additional linguistic tools. Language determines the way we think. There are many groups out there that are are at the moment stuffing around with language to change consciousness, the political correctness lobby being one of them. We know this can be done. My point is why don't we do something positive with language that will enable us to program into the future and come up with a technology that does not leave such a devastating footprint as the current one does.
Hans von Lieven
I'm no master of linguistics but I have found in order to understand any speaker correctly you must consider their frame of reference.
Example: To almost all folks from the US up means North but it can also mean to the higher level of something. Many Germans will point South when they speak of up. Why? I think because that is UP. The Alps are that way.
When I read a very old patent this is very apparent. The Cook patents refer to magnet wire and helices. Magnet wire, as we know it today, wasn't invented until well after the patents. Until then it was literally ferromagnetic or some alloy that had iron or tin in it. A coil was a single conductor wrapped onto some form. A helix was multiple conductors wrapped together on that form. Sometimes the coil or helix was what we would consider an exo-core.
When Tesla speaks of high frequencies he is talking about what we consider ELF and VLF. Even documents from a few decades ago cause similar problems for the reader.
No matter what the information is it is only what the listener/reader perceives it to be.
Quote from: shruggedatlas on May 07, 2008, 11:01:43 AM
Honestly, I do not think it is a matter of language or thinking. We need an effect that contradicts the known laws of physics. All you need to so to have mainstream science pay attention is point to one such anomalous effect and really prove it up. Isolate that one thing and focus on it and do extensive experimentation. Then, once that is proven, you can make a device based on that, and it will all make sense.
Where people go wrong is they try to present a whole device and claim that it works and not really explain what the anomalous effect is that makes the thing work. Well, based on known laws of physics, no device can be truly overunity, so these devices get dismissed right away, and the inventors get labelled crackpots. The fact that the devices invariably turn out to be under unity does not help matters.
So anyway, that is the problem with overunity as I see it.
Sorry shrugged to have taken so long to respond to this post of yours, but your first two sentences illustrate precisely one of the major points of my argument and requires a well reasoned response. There is an inbuilt contradiction in what you say.
You say:
Honestly, I do not think it is a matter of language or thinking.
And then follow with:
We need an effect that contradicts the known laws of physics.That second sentence shows clearly why our thinking has to change, for it demonstrates the major flaw in our current thinking that keeps us trapped in the mental circle we are stuck in. Of course, the idea is enticing. All we have to do is to disprove Newton?s laws of thermodynamics or Helmholtz with his Conservation of Energy and we are home. Perpetual motion, here we come.
To date no-one has done this in spite of many claims, such as Milkovic, who tells us that his device contradicts Newton (it doesn?t) or the SMOT which is said to violate CoE (which it doesn?t either).
This perpetual search for a phenomenon that contradicts those two fundamentals of physics as we know it has led nowhere.
We need to look outside the trodden path and only a new direction in our line of thinking will enable us to do this.
Hans von Lieven
@shruggedatlas,
Of course there is something seriously wrong with our (the average OU researcher's) thinking and outlook.
I wonder if it ever occurred to you that, being an experimenter (gadget builder) would indeed qualify you, or anyone of us to find overunity. You still do not get it.
Why don't you look for maverick - dissident - theoretical physicists? There must be some, with a new theory contradicting the 2nd law of thermodynamics or anything; then, try to build a gadget that "proves" this new theory, and pronto: you have your overunity device complete with "adequate proof". you only need to get it accepted.
The trouble is that to consider theory, or theoretical approach is so far outside your vision, so alien to you - and so far removed from the average gadget builder that it beggars belief.
This one-sided approach is so sterile; it positively hampers progress. Very depressing.
laci
G?day all,
Here is another example of how fossilised the thinking is at times here in the forum. I keep getting mail from experimenters telling me how they are trying to come up with overunity devices that prove Newton and CoE wrong by using simulation software like WMD2.
Can you conceive of anything more idiotic?
Simulation software uses the standard mathematics and physics of the day. As such the calculations are based on the laws of conservation of energy and Newton?s laws of thermodynamics. These are GIVEN PARAMETERS! Now how on earth could you prove a violation of these principles with software that does not allow for it?
It is like trying to show yellow on a black and white monitor. The signal might well be in colour but the monitor, because of its inbuilt limitations, can never show it.
We need to break out of this way of thinking.
Hans von Lieven
A couple of examples that make me grind my teeth, every time.
Why do folks speak about the magnetic and only measure the electric? Do they assume they know what the magnetic is doing based upon scope shots of the electric? Iron filings are a very bad and limiting way to display a mag field. A scope is much worse when you only measure the electric.
PM motors, wound coils, scope shots all have one thing in common. So far they are the flatlander's view of a 3-D world. They will all be useless in a new solution until people can see past the fifth postulate and stop circumsizing themselves with that razor idea.
How can people think a potential would turn on one axis? Do they think there is a shaft pinning it? I mean, Really! We say we know the world isn't flat. Do we still think a potential is flat?
And then there is that 'forest for the trees' concept. Folks are so busy looking at a localized magnetic field they actually think the magnet is the source. The thing is, it IS the source of the field - not the flux. If you continue your precious field line drawing outward you will find ALL the lines wind up pointing N/S no matter which way the magnet is turned.
Every time I see the term 'RMF' it is like someone dragging their front teeth across a chalk board.
--Now there is a concept that could be translated a dozen different ways ;D
I would think that we would be much more likely to get something worthwhile done if we more people spent more time actually doing something and less time whining about how stupid everyone else is .
If you have knowledge that others here don't have ........and you are just sitting here gloating about your wisdome.......your knowledge is wasted .
I have almost no training to build electronic devices ....... I am learning . I am trying .
Will sitting here feeling superior help your children or grandchildren pay there energy bills?
Will talking about how wise you are end global warming?
The problem is not language ........the problem is what you choose to talk about .
gary
@Gary,
You re totally missing the point here. Most of the people here in this thread that have joined this discussion have built devices, are building devices and and share their technical expertise in other threads.
If you don't believe me look at my own postings, they are on a number of subjects and voluminous.
There is nothing wrong with examining critically the way we think and the language and underlying philosophies that are dominating our behaviour. It is just another avenue of exploration and just as valid as building machines.
Hans von Lieven
@Gary
My point wasn't how smart I am. It is how smart I am not. No matter what information is shared the attempt at repeating is almost always 'weak'. Why?
On previous attempts I've supplied detailed, scaled drawings along with a complete operating procedure, all in one Fed-Ex packet. It took weeks of repeating answers to questions that were already answered on the drawings before one was completed. Then it didn't work.
When RMF is brought up I think something else. Why? Because my experience tells me there is no point in rotating a measurement of something.
One of my favorites happened on this forum.
With great difficulty an experimenter shared what looked like something important. Even with photos and descriptions of materials replications failed - or seemed to fail.
One replicator boiled it down to one nail with a few turns of wire.
Until the supplier of the information is willing to share detailed drawings, lists of materials and a host of other documentation this will continue. Even then I doubt it will work because everyone has a different foundation to understand any ideas.
Most experimenters won't take the time to provide that much information because they would rather spend time on the bench, aside from an occasional break to rant, like me. That is my excuse.
I think the idea of this thread has more value than most.
Regards,
John
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 11, 2008, 03:03:21 AM
@Gary,
You re totally missing the point here. Most of the people here in this thread that have joined this discussion have built devices, are building devices and and share their technical expertise in other threads.
If you don't believe me look at my own postings, they are on a number of subjects and voluminous.
There is nothing wrong with examining critically the way we think and the language and underlying philosophies that are dominating our behaviour. It is just another avenue of exploration and just as valid as building machines.
Hans von Lieven
Hans
Somebody has totally missed the point here.
I am not saying that it is wrong to discuss this type of thing .
I know that you you have done alot of work here in the past .
There is a fine line between thought that is constructive and thought that is destructive.
If we have 2 groups of people , and one of those groups tries to make their lives a little better each day .
The other group sits and talks about how their lives need improvement all day .
Can you guess which groop will end up with better lives?
It is very unlikly that you will make any progress by talking about what it holding you back .
History is full of examples of people that overcame huge problems not because they talked abot the the problems ........ they overcame them because the took action and moved in the right direction.
If you take enough small steps in the right direction you eventually get to your destination .
Even if you take quite a few steps in the wrong direction , If you keep focused on going in the right direction you will eventually get where you are going .
I don't think that most of the posts in this thread are even a small step forward .
I think most of them are complaints about not being at the destination yet They are about how hard it is to take a step .
This world has LOTS of problems
Whining about the problems will never fix any of them.
If we are going to make progress we need people actually doing something .
Whining about how we are held back onlly makes it more harder to take action .
gary
@Hans (forgot to post this yesterday. lol)
Hope you are back for a while.
Tihs stenence wsa wrttien ot sowh yuo tath yuor mdin deos nto ndee teh wrdos ot eb slelpde teh rhgit wya.
In terms of language to hinder the creation of OU devices, we have to understand that your creative mind does not wait for the right words when it decides its time to light the bulb. This involves not words, but concepts, regardless of what your level of illiteracy may be, this has no consequence on the creative act itself.
When you have been exposed to what your life has exposed you too, when you have lived through your experiences, worked in all the jobs, seen all the devices relative to your interests, at one point or another, all this information comes together. In the NeoTech world of thinking they call it "integrating". When you have integrated enough information, regardless if it is from reading words or doing acts, once this integration takes over, it goes into another level and that is creation. But you have to have an opening to integrate and let this action happen.
So I don't know if the hindrance of achieving OU is language. When the primordial soup of actions and thoughts come together, as we are trying on this forum to make such a soup of ideas, actions and words, through the law of probability, eventually whatever will happen will happen, regardless of if it is intended or not. You can't force creation.
Also, I don't feel that you can develop a form of clinicalization (not a word) of the creative process with the hopes that using the right words will suffice. They will not. You can't convey experience only with words. You can read 50 books on spaghetti sauce but none of them will equal the first actual taste.
In our present day of exponential rates of new discovery, the challenge will not be words, but will be "word overload". The human mind can only take in so much information, process it and use it to advance the art. We are presently experiencing this on this Forum to an extent.
Another problem is the advent of specialization (which in itself is a form of global control by the power holders). Let people only see and concentrate on one piece of the pie. So people are becoming more and more specialized in their limited fields of activity. How many times have you heard someone say, "I don't know, I'm just an accountant (or whatever)". Generalists are becoming a rare breed. So if the discovery of OU required mastering and integrating a multitude of disciplines into one mind, we are becoming less and less inclined to produce the generalists required to then play in the soup of the proverbial numbers game of discovery.
On the other side of specialization, we have the ultra specialists who use their own code of language designed to keep the uninitiated out of the loop. Papers are published not with the intent to teach the world, but to teach the chosen few. Those of the emeritus league of the specialization. But what happens tomorrow if the whole world suddenly dies, leaving a handful of humans to fend for themselves and perpetuate the race. What happens to all these papers. How will they be understood? They will not.
Then there is the whole range of disinformation (more words). Academia has not delt us the real cards so we are all playing with a fixed deck, designed to make us lose in the very aspects we are pushing to win. This is the main problem. This has to be fixed.
Then there is the problem of well accepted but erroneous concepts. One example in my view may be mundane but it is very revealing. "The vacuum of space". What does this mean. I my opinion there is no such thing as a vacuum in space. There is no vacuum in space and there cannot be any vacuum in space. To make a vacuum, you need a closed box and a vacuum pump. So where are the limits of this space box and where is the vacuum pump? There is none. So there is no vacuum of space. So there is no negative pressure. And there is no positive pressure either. Positive pressure is what we have on Earth. The atmospheric pressure we live under is what keeps our cell walls from exploding, hence it is what keeps humans and everything else on the surface of the Earth intact and alive. So space has no pressure and no vacuum and no gravity. Then why do we keep saying the "vacuum of space"? Why not say the zeroness of space. lol
Good thread.
Quote from: BEP on May 11, 2008, 09:16:48 AM
One of my favorites happened on this forum.
With great difficulty an experimenter shared what looked like something important. Even with photos and descriptions of materials replications failed - or seemed to fail.
One replicator boiled it down to one nail with a few turns of wire.
Until the supplier of the information is willing to share detailed drawings, lists of materials and a host of other documentation this will continue. Even then I doubt it will work because everyone has a different foundation to understand any ideas.
Most experimenters won't take the time to provide that much information because they would rather spend time on the bench, aside from an occasional break to rant, like me. That is my excuse.
I think the idea of this thread has more value than most.
Regards,
John
John
You are totally missing my point .
what you are describing is simply life ............. $hit happens ........that it part of life.
Life is not easy. It does not always go the way we wish .
my question is .........what was gained in the quote above ?
One person tried to comunicate how a device was made .........and failed
that is life .
get used to it .
You also pointed out how one replicator found out that the the missing knowledge revolved around one nail with a few turns of wire wrapped around it .
THAT is PROGRESS that is another little step in the right direction .
You are focusing on the problems not the progress .
Every time we share something that works or might help something work we are taking a little step in the right direction .
There are alot of people here taking little steps .
With each little step the pool of knowledge grows .
If enough people take enough little steps there will be no way to hold back the knowledge .
gary
@Gary,
I find myself agreeing with you.
My goal is the same as others so it seems I'll have to do the following:
1. Share, explain, demonstrate and prove the basics of my concepts.
2. Seek out those that can repeat, understand and use #1
3. Then, and only then, provide information on the culmination of #1.
I've been doing the above for some time now. I'll try to refrain from speading negativity. As you imply, that serves no purpose.
Thanks for reminding me.
@ All:
OK, let me take a different approach to what I believe Hans's point was in starting this topic. Actually, I think a good many of us have proved his point when I look at some of the posts here.
I think it is a combination of several things, language limitations, dogma, and the universal acceptance of a "premise" that may or may not be true.
If a universally accepted premise states that "X" is not possible, only "kooks" would even dream about attempting "X".
"Heavier than air vehicles will never fly" was universally accepted by "experts" in the aerodynamics field until 2 kooks took it upon themselves to see beyond that premise. They took a lot of abuse from these experts until they succeeded, and then, they became the experts.
I am, and always have been, a student of this type of history. I have even had several instances in my own life's experiences that proved that absolutes are not always absolute. To this day, red flags appear in my mind when I see words like: always, never, can't, impossible, etc.
Why I am attempting to say is that thinking "outside the box" has been the foundation for a lot of major advances in our technology. I believe, and possibly wrongly so, what Hans may be referring to is who decided what the box was in the first place? How were the parameters of the box defined? And with what language? If another either more advanced, or less advanced society defined the box's parameters, what would the box now look like? How would this affect that society's future advancements in a particular field?
I think discussions like this topic are an important chance for us to examine our own approach, a good look in the mirror as it were, to see if we are not guilty of some of the same behavior that held back major advances in the past.
Hans, if I am totally off the mark here, I am sorry. Feel free to say so. It will not be the first time I have not been correct. I don't see this topic as a battle between thinkers and experimenters, or dreamers and engineers. I believe that a dialog such as this, could be the beginning of the exact type of symbiosis required for our desired progress.
Bill
Im sorry guys pease watch this .. i had never saw this one and well its about the funniest ive ever seen. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEAGmBRC1dc
as well a friend sent me this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3oHpup-pk
G'day Bill.
You are right in the money Bill. Before you can break out of the box you must first know that the box is there and that you are in it. Next you must define the box and it's borders. Then, and only then do you stand a real chance to break out.
This feeble attempt of ours here is trying to do just that.
That does not mean one cannot get a glimpse outside the box without this, many people have achieved it, by luck, good management or sheer genius, who knows? But these are exceptions.
My hope is that by mapping out the restraints we can come up with a way that will enable a mass breakout instead of individual forays.
Hans von Lieven
Bill
I agree with all that you said in general
However I don't think that you have got to the bottom of it .
I do agree that problems with language is a big problem but it is only a bump in the road ......it is something that we will get past each time it pops up .........if we keep trying .
The problem as I see it is that it has been actively taught in all of our schools for at lest a couple hundred years now that OU is just not possable .
Even though we are working at achieving OU .......we still tend to believe what we have been taught .
When Edison invented the incandesent light bulb he tried over 2000 different materials for the filiment before he tried tungstan . ......... THAT is BELIEF .
Because we tend to not believe we give up at the first sign of failure .
An example ......... quite a few have tried magnetic motors here .
Our schools teach us little or nothing of practical use about how magnets interact .........the learning curve it steep .So we come up with a new rule ........ ALL MAGNET MOTORS TEND TO DEMAGNATISE THE MAGNETS .
As far as I know ......this 'law " was created here , and it is just as good at limiting people from looking deeper into what is really going on as the laws of thermodynamics .
The law of gravity is a real and practical law .........yet butterflys can fly .........airplains can fly ........we can launch rockets into space .........and all this time the law of gravity is working .
All " laws" have loopholes . Why do magnetic motors tend to demagnitise the magnets? is anyone asking that question ?
Has anyone noticed that aluminum is used for almost all magnetic motors?
Aluminum is para magnetic .......... in rapidly changing magnetic fields it develops a very strong magnetic field .......could part of the problem be wrong choice of materiels?
If we are going to find anything of value as far as energy goes we are going to have to do more than just scratch the surface and wait for the answer to fall in our laps .
Part of what our schools have taught us is disinformation designed to keep us from finding the truth .
We will not know for sure what is disinformation and what is now until we test our theorys ourselves .
The fact that we fail the first time may or may not mean that we are wrong .......it may mean that we made a mistake somewhere . Or just don't understand enough of what it going on .
We also have to assume that the people that would loose the most if we come up with a new source of energy probably have somone here to guide us in the wrong direction ...... If you were making millions or more a year would you let someone take it way without a fight?
The answers we are looking for are out there .........and they will be in the details .
We are not likely to find OU in killowats ..... we will more likely find it in milliwatts .......and learn to enhance the prosess to get more power .
In my opinion one of the errors that is often made here is trying to jump to the end of the game .......as was done with the TPU ...... we were trying to reproduce the end result of years of research without understanding the research ..... it just ain't going to work that way .
In my opinion OU will be found in little steps .......one step at a time ...... but hundreds of people taking hundreds of steps in hundreds of directions very quickly becomes unstopable ................
Keep on building , testing and sharing .
:)
gary
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 11, 2008, 02:10:45 PM
My hope is that by mapping out the restraints we can come up with a way that will enable a mass breakout instead of individual forays.
Hans
I don't think that it is possible to have a mass break out .......
Who would organize it ......who would lead ?
If you were a leader in a 3rd world nation that had little income other than oil would you allow ANY one group to take away your nations income ? Or would you hire someone to throw a wrench into the works?
We have to assume that part of the reason that we have failed to achieve results is that we have been " professionaly " misguided
Assuming I am right about there being someone here with the hidden intent of throwing us off the trail ..... we have to keep an open mind about everything .
If you were being paid to keep us from finding the truth woudn't you want to be in on the organization of this breakout?
Wasn't it Stalan that said . " the best way to control the resistance is to lead it yourself ."
I think we have been well controlled so far .
gary
@resonanceman,
Again, some of the points you are making are what I am talking about, part of the box! We need to map out ALL of the box. Just arguing about some bricks in the wall will get us nowhere. It's not about bricks, it's about the f**king wall.
Hans
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 11, 2008, 05:31:50 PM
@resonanceman,
Again, some of the points you are making are what I am talking about, part of the box! We need to map out ALL of the box. Just arguing about some bricks in the wall will get us nowhere. It's not about bricks, it's about the f**king wall.
Hans
Uuuummmm
Hans I hate to point this out to you ...........but without the bricks there would be no wall .
by talking about the bricks ........I was defining part of the wall
gary
Personally I don't see why we need to define the wall .......
A butterfly doesn't understand the law of gravity
What a butterfly understands is that it needs to flap its wings to fly
I think it would be much more productive to look for ways to flap our wings than it would be to define all the ways we have been prevented from flying
gary
Quote from: resonanceman on May 11, 2008, 05:49:57 PM
A butterfly doesn't understand the law of gravity
What a butterfly understands is that it needs to flap its wings to fly
gary
@Gary,
You are making an awful lot of assumptions about butterflies ;)
Hans
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 11, 2008, 07:00:50 PM
@Gary,
You are making an awful lot of assumptions about butterflies ;)
Hans
Hans
I am not assuming anything
I was simply making a point ........a point that you can understand if you wish to .
It looks to me like you want to disagree with me ........but you really don't have anything to disagree with .
so you find fault with my words
gary
No Gary, I am not arguing for argument's sake.
The point is, in your statement on butterflies, you profess to know what a butterfly understands and what it does not understand. Since you could not possibly know that, the argument is invalid.
Many "scientific" statements are based along similar lines of reasoning.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 11, 2008, 08:05:49 PM
No Gary, I am not arguing for argument's sake.
The point is, in your statement on butterflies, you profess to know what a butterfly understands and what it does not understand. Since you could not possibly know that, the argument is invalid.
Many "scientific" statements are based along similar lines of reasoning.
Hans von Lieven
Hans
You have made your point very well ......... but probably not the point that you intended .
My point about the butterfly was not about knowing all that a butterfly knows .......but I do know that a butterfly doesn't go to school to learn about the laws of nature .....it learns about them from experience .
As you know my point was never about the exact knowledge of the butterfly ......it was just a the example that came up when trying to explain my concept .
I have no doubt that you uderstood the meaning of my statement ...............but chose to argue a pointless detail rather than let the whole idea go.
The problem here is not understanding or even language .......it is ego .
I have no reason to argue with someone that is willing to distort the facts to win an argument that is not even an argument .
I am done here
gary
I have read this posting with most amusement , as I have run into this type of roadblock many times. Communicating ideas to another being, whether human or animal, usually is frustrating, However to take Einstein, as an example, he changed language to support his theory of (flatulence) relativity. In doing so he set back physics a decade or two, while others figured out his theories were just stupid.
I realise this may not be popluar among most, but the truth needs to be said.
In order to change the mind set of the masses one must work with the masses. I will not say that over-unity is unrealistic, there are just not a whole lot of believers out there. When you make believers, over-unity is no longer necessary. If the idea is to save energy, or produce more energy from existing sources, then this your mission. Please do not change your ideas to fit the existing framework of communicating, it is foolish.
When Newton 'discovered' gravity, he just gave it a name, or more to the point,described to the masses something they already knew, but were unable to explain to their bar buddies.
If the idea of your "idea" is to explain, explain. If the idea is to name a new idea, name it. If the idea is to change the mind-set of the mases,so they will pay fealty to your new-found world changing idea, then go ahead, call it the fleasbanant roachkillerofalltime, or as I like to call all new inventions, attaboys.
Now I am just the house painter. So what do I know?
I am at sdanielmcev@aol.com. All replies are welcome. Please use overunity as as the keyword.
One more thing: when you elminate the impossible whatever remains, however improbable must be true. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
I believe that is...."When you eliminate the possible, than what you are left with is the impossible which is most likely true."
I am a big Conan Doyle fan you see.
Bill
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 10, 2008, 06:19:25 PM
G?day all,
Here is another example of how fossilised the thinking is at times here in the forum. I keep getting mail from experimenters telling me how they are trying to come up with overunity devices that prove Newton and CoE wrong by using simulation software like WMD2.
Can you conceive of anything more idiotic?
Simulation software uses the standard mathematics and physics of the day. As such the calculations are based on the laws of conservation of energy and Newton?s laws of thermodynamics. These are GIVEN PARAMETERS! Now how on earth could you prove a violation of these principles with software that does not allow for it?
It is like trying to show yellow on a black and white monitor. The signal might well be in colour but the monitor, because of its inbuilt limitations, can never show it.
We need to break out of this way of thinking.
Hans von Lieven
Wow, you know, you don't need to be a dick. Yes I can concieve of something more idiotic: coming up with an idea in your head, spending a bunch of money and time putting this idea together in real life finding that idea doesn't work. To me, it makes alot more sense to evaluate designs in virtual reality before you waste alot of time and money building them. I mean, that's only the way that every single design/engineering company does things. They all must be pretty stupid too huh?
Despite what you say about WM2D calculating CoE my model continues to work (with great effect) so your metaphor isn't very apt. CoE etc. are unbreakable laws of physics. Any kind of free energy device needs to operate without violating CoE which appears to be the case in my instance...
@ erickdt & @ Hans
Kudos erickdt and I hope to see your device soon! ;)
But the discussion about using/not using software simulation is kinda moot.
Software might be able to represent 95% of the process accurately, but cannot decipher the last 5% and therefore will say the process fails.
Just remember that software is written by humans.
Remember when the world was in a tizzy because software engineers left out 2 digits to work better/be more efficient inside the constraints they had at the time, and those constraints being laughable by the time the situation came to a crisis?
There were lots of theories about what would happen when Y2K hit, but now we can look back and smile at our insecurities, but think about the millions (billions) of dollars spent in the belief of experts.
It was a prime example of fear and popularity being a prime motivator and decision criteria.
That's just the most icky way to think for a scientist/experimenter/inventor.
Everyone uses different tools, analysis, and targets for their experiments.
To say that a tool shouldn't be used, or should ALWAYS be used is just another way to say "You're right" or "You're wrong".
At the end of the day (project) there should be standing testimonial as to whether those tools worked for the inventor/scientist, what the ending result is, and why it's desirable.
Let's not get tied up in everyones pet process, or else we're doing the work for (place external negative forces here).
I agree that scientific analysis is necessary for those not close to the inventor, but have you ever thought that the inventor/scientist might look at the documentation of a successful project like writing a childrens book for a 6 yo when they are used to thinking of, and imparting information in a much more evoluted manner? Or maybe they are autistic and don't even have a frame of reference to convey the knowledge to a "normal".
All an experimenter can do is make their idea physical to see if the idea matches the actual.
Someone might make something in their barn without the benefit of software that outputs kilojoules of energy without using a previously known power source, but only be able to talk about it with their 10yo niece.
If I can look at it closely, measure it's output, and see that it's not using any energy known to me for it's actions I have to grant it as success even though the inventor and I cannot have a conversation about it.
THERE IS NO _1_ WAY TO THINK.
Just because it's popular, or the way it's always been done does not make it right.
Anyone that tells you there is only 1 way is trying some type of indoctrination upon you.
I've seen MANY claims that someone has a built working device that they have made, but no one has seen yet.
In this case I like to use a little life coping device I learned a while ago.
I listen to everything someone says and view it as a theory. I then use my observation to see if their actions mirror what they've said. If it predominately does over a significant span of time, I learn to honor their word without as much scrutiny.
I look @ what you DO. Not what you SAY. I believe this is a principle that is as important, and as crucial as "the golden rule" and should be taught with the fervor and belief that any other is.
Honor isn't given, or else the word would be gift and not honor. Honor is earned.
Teach me to honor your words by showing me that you mean them.
Don't tell me about your device. Show me your device. Show others your device.
Then, even if you cannot describe to me how you made it, I can look at it, look at it's output, look at how it realizes that output, and discuss it with others doing the same things as me to see if we can come up with a agreed upon way to talk about it and relay the discovery to others in terms they will understand. Perhaps then my peers and I can replicate it, and then others can too.
I (and I assume other people) come here to discuss ideas and theories that most either don't have the intellect to be interested in, or the desire to want to be.
We're different (mostly), except we same to be falling into the same social patterns everyone ELSE uses that I (for one) disparage.
Do I exhibit that behavior too? Yep.
It's been part of my environment for so long I've become inundated with it "by rote".
But I TRY not to. That's all I can do.
Will you try too?
Other than that, have a good day inventing/theorizing/dreaming all, and show me what you've been thinking about!
:D
Quote from: erickdt on May 12, 2008, 08:35:38 AM
Wow, you know, you don't need to be a dick. Yes I can concieve of something more idiotic: coming up with an idea in your head, spending a bunch of money and time putting this idea together in real life finding that idea doesn't work. To me, it makes alot more sense to evaluate designs in virtual reality before you waste alot of time and money building them. I mean, that's only the way that every single design/engineering company does things. They all must be pretty stupid too huh?
Despite what you say about WM2D calculating CoE my model continues to work (with great effect) so your metaphor isn't very apt. CoE etc. are unbreakable laws of physics. Any kind of free energy device needs to operate without violating CoE which appears to be the case in my instance...
G'day Erick,
You have totally misunderstood what I said. There is nothing wrong with testing a design in a simulation programme prior to building.
What I have said is: .....
how they are trying to come up with overunity devices that prove Newton and CoE wrong by using simulation software like WMD2.and: .......
Now how on earth could you prove a violation of these principles with software that does not allow for it?Of course this is an idiotic pursuit. I still stand by my statement.
Hans von Lieven
Quote from: hansvonlieven on May 12, 2008, 03:45:35 PM
Quote from: erickdt on May 12, 2008, 08:35:38 AM
Wow, you know, you don't need to be a dick. Yes I can concieve of something more idiotic: coming up with an idea in your head, spending a bunch of money and time putting this idea together in real life finding that idea doesn't work. To me, it makes alot more sense to evaluate designs in virtual reality before you waste alot of time and money building them. I mean, that's only the way that every single design/engineering company does things. They all must be pretty stupid too huh?
Despite what you say about WM2D calculating CoE my model continues to work (with great effect) so your metaphor isn't very apt. CoE etc. are unbreakable laws of physics. Any kind of free energy device needs to operate without violating CoE which appears to be the case in my instance...
G'day Erick,
You have totally misunderstood what I said. There is nothing wrong with testing a design in a simulation programme prior to building.
What I have said is: .....how they are trying to come up with overunity devices that prove Newton and CoE wrong by using simulation software like WMD2.
and: .......Now how on earth could you prove a violation of these principles with software that does not allow for it?
Of course this is an idiotic pursuit. I still stand by my statement.
Hans von Lieven
My bad if I misunderstood. Anyway, I'm not sure that CoE needs to be violated in order to harness the free energy of gravity. The fact that it is achievable in this program (WM2D) would suggest that CoE is not violated. The trick is that you need to figure out a way for the weights to be naturally unbalanced without a mechanism that has to do work and therefore lose energy due to CoE.
G'day Erick,
Perhaps you don't need to violate CoE.
Bessler said that his system did nor break any laws of nature and he was aware of Newton, though CoE came much later with Helmholtz so Bessler couldn't have known about that.
Hans
To Bill:
You may be a fan of Sir Doyle's, but you certainly do not know his writings. You are incorrect, and your spelling is wrong. The scientific method is to examine that which is possible, not that which is impossible. What may seem improbable to others, is just another walk in the park to the opened minded. Listen and learn, .that is the pathway to true knowledge. What I am able to see in this thread, excuse my ignorance, is there is a disjunction between the probable and the possible. Now I am just the house painter,but I talk to the average Joe everyday. Grappling with overunity is not something most people do on a daily basis. [Even tough they should, as it will affect their life for the next century]
I am just building a pulse motor bicycle, and the help here is great.
@ sdanielmsev:
"Sir Conan Doyle writing as Sherlock Holmes in The Beryl Coronet, ?When you eliminate the impossible, whatever you have left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."
The above is a direct quote I found. You are correct. I remembered it backwards. I am not sure what you meant by my spelling was wrong too. (always possible)
Bill
Quote from: sdanielmsev on May 12, 2008, 10:28:16 PM
You may be a fan of Sir Doyle's
Sir Arthur's. The knighthood is denoted with "Sir" plus first name.
Hi everyone, Great thread Hans :)
Id like to make a few comments here if I may. I think the biggest problem facing OU'ers is the lust for the design/contraption and what it will provide. I see more and more people trying to build something without first striving to understand it in its entirety. You cannot build what you dont understand. I think the genius' of the past like Tesla, Ed, Keely were genius because they strove more than ever to UNDERSTAND the forces at play. Notice how when one studies them (like Scotty1 studied Ed) they are able to understand concepts and ideas in a new light. This often leads to a finer understanding of the principles at play.
Karl Schappeller's book "The physics of the Primary state of matter" has a chapter in the beginning simply to address the TERMINOLOGY used and what the author means when he uses those words. Almost all the words have a different meaning to the traditional understandings according to the dictionaries of today. If genius' like Schappeller or Russell invisioned the wonders of our universe, but they were unable to convey it in the way they saw it, then their vision is lost. It makes alot of sense when you see all the confusion there is over a simple patent etc...
just my 2 cents
Can't say as iv'e ever been accused of correct grammer, so you may well be right!! in fact the last week has been and endless stream of comments about my speeling and garmatical incorrectnessnnes. :)
I believe though Hans has only stumbled onto an old phrase called thinking outside the square, the problem is i think, that aside from myself and the nutjobs as we are known, is that we don't start inside the square.
and those attempting to do it are too like the child holding onto the side of the pool, or using a life jacket, confidence is only real when you can't see the shore.
A big yes from me as a true path to any correct and real thought, not the rehasing of someone elses point of view, that seems right and safe and as comfortable as holding onto the side of the pool.
Ren, "You cannot build what you don?t understand. I think the genius' of the past like Tesla, Ed, Keely were genius because they strove more than ever to UNDERSTAND the forces at play."
This is very true and I am not 100% sure that either Telsa, Ed or even Keely completely understood the forces at play. If they had, we would have a so called over unity device in every home by now.
Bedini and Bearden are the closest so far as far as I can find but then again, they most not have understood the forces at play because if they did, their motors would have been over 200% efficient.
It is a mater of understanding the forces as well as understanding how to manipulate them properly. All the above were trying to produce more work with two forces without properly utilizing either force. The only true over unity device ever built is the magnet and nature has even produced them but yet we have not properly utilized them. Bedini and Bearden were the closest thus far and they both left out three very important things.
I shouldn't post this but what the heck.
One very important thing they are not utilizing is both poles of the coils. While they are using one, the other is being wasted. Both can be utilized. Once both are utilized, the motor becomes 100% more efficient.
The other is the proper utilization of the magnets. They are only utilizing one half of the face polarity when they could be utilizing 100% of both face polarity's. This can be done if you truly understand how they work. This adds another 100% efficiency to their designs. It only adds 100% because you have to use both poles of the coils to properly utilize them.
To do this, you need to place one magnet next to another but with opposite polarity's facing up. This has to be done in two different arrangements but they must me arranged in the opposite, meaning, if you have one with the north first, the other has to have the south first.
Another thing that has to be done is the switching of polarity?s the coils put out. This has to be done between each pulse that the coils are supplied with.
Once this is all done, you will have what you all call over unity. There is your true free energy. Good luck and please don't be greedy.
Quote from: nightlife on May 13, 2008, 11:11:17 AM
This is very true and I am not 100% sure that either Telsa, Ed or even Keely completely understood the forces at play. If they had, we would have a so called over unity device in every home by now.
Bedini and Bearden are the closest so far as far as I can find but then again, they most not have understood the forces at play because if they did, their motors would have been over 200% efficient.
It is a mater of understanding the forces as well as understanding how to manipulate them properly. All the above were trying to produce more work with two forces without properly utilizing either force. The only true over unity device ever built is the magnet and nature has even produced them but yet we have not properly utilized them. Bedini and Bearden were the closest thus far and they both left out three very important things.
I shouldn't post this but what the heck.
One very important thing they are not utilizing is both poles of the coils. While they are using one, the other is being wasted. Both can be utilized. Once both are utilized, the motor becomes 100% more efficient.
The other is the proper utilization of the magnets. They are only utilizing one half of the face polarity when they could be utilizing 100% of both face polarity's. This can be done if you truly understand how they work. This adds another 100% efficiency to their designs. It only adds 100% because you have to use both poles of the coils to properly utilize them.
To do this, you need to place one magnet next to another but with opposite polarity's facing up. This has to be done in two different arrangements but they must me arranged in the opposite, meaning, if you have one with the north first, the other has to have the south first.
Another thing that has to be done is the switching of polarity?s the coils put out. This has to be done between each pulse that the coils are supplied with.
Once this is all done, you will have what you all call over unity. There is your true free energy. Good luck and please don't be greedy.
I believe they did nightlife. Their work is full of countless clues and insights. Just because there isnt a so called free energy device on the market doesnt mean it hasnt been created/invisioned. They might not have totally grasped the forces at play when compared to, say the Creator :), but I believe they understood a damn site more than what we ever will. Can you show me a genuine Tesla/Ed or whoever motor? How can you say they arent 200% efficient if you havent built/dont understand them?
In regards to Bedini. John has perhaps built more prototypes than any other man in our time. I have seen examples that utilise both poles and everything else you can think of. Johns monopole is a teaching tool, perhaps the cheapest/simplest battery charger that a 9 year old can build. Dont make the mistake that others make by thinking the monopole is the be all end all of Johns work. Do you truely understand how a magnet works? Does anyone?
G'day all,
I think one of the problems Ed, Tesla and especially Keely had was their inability to articulate their ideas in a language totally unsuitable for the task. Keely's writings are perhaps the most telling example of this. Concepts like sound colours, celestial and terrestrial streams, triune currents, enharmonic chords, dominants and so forth are difficult to picture and understand, since there is no common consensus on their meaning.
This is one of the areas I would like to address.
Hans von Lieven
Ren, "Just because there isnt a so called free energy device on the market doesnt mean it hasnt been created/invisioned."
I agree as well as think they have been built but they are being held from us.
"I have seen examples that utilise both poles and everything else you can think of."
If you have seen this, could you please post a link for me to read about it. I honestly have not been able to find one and I have been searching for over a year now.
"Do you truely understand how a magnet works?" I do in my mind but that is not saying that it is right but it does work for me at this time.
Does anyone? I cant say either way but I am sure there are others like me who also have it figured out in their minds but again, that is not saying they are right either.
hansvonlieven, "Concepts like sound colours, celestial and terrestrial streams, triune currents, enharmonic chords, dominants and so forth are difficult to picture and understand, since there is no common consensus on their meaning."
"This is one of the areas I would like to address."
That would be a good thing to do, so lets start with the ones you posted first.
"Sound colours", Colours is the same as color.
"Physics of color:
Electromagnetic radiation is characterized by its wavelength (or frequency) and its intensity. When the wavelength is within the visible spectrum (the range of wavelengths humans can perceive, approximately from 380 nm to 740 nm), it is known as "visible light".
Most light sources emit light at many different wavelengths; a source's spectrum is a distribution giving its intensity at each wavelength. Although the spectrum of light arriving at the eye from a given direction determines the color sensation in that direction, there are many more possible spectral combinations than color sensations. In fact, one may formally define a color as a class of spectra that give rise to the same color sensation, although such classes would vary widely among different species, and to a lesser extent among individuals within the same species. In each such class the members are called metamers of the color in question."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colours
Based on the above meaning, the wavelengths could be what he is referring to sound as.
Mr Bill; kudos to you . The main thing I am impressed with ot this site is the arguements put forth by the members. As far as "grammer" boy goes, what a stupid!
From; House Painter
Isn't the idea to build something? All the angst about which science philosopher, or that, or whatever,is a self-imposed junket to the same square that caught you in the first place. Whether or not the enegy comes from magnets, wire, gravity, or from Uncle Elmo's flatulence, is irrelevant. C'mon people, stay away from the books that teach the same old, same old. Use and lose the irrelevant. Scientifc method: Does A= B, or does A=A? You guys are smart, that is why I'm here. Impress me.
sdanielmsev, "is irrelevant"?
You have to have a understanding of what you are trying to produce and or collect, otherwise you are just whizzing in the wind.
Its like fishing, first you have to know what fish are, then you have to know what kind you are wanting to catch, then you have to know what food attracts them so you can catch them.
So you see, is not ?irrelevant? to search for what the source is that is trying to be caught.
@ sdanielmsev:
Hell, I can't even impress me.
Bill
House Painter
Hell, Bill, I'm impressed you were smart enough to say you were wrong. I can only hope I am that strong when someone explains I am wrong.
From: House Painter : to Nightlife:
Stupid fishing analogies are just stupid.
Well, I only admit I am wrong when I am. This appears to happen fairly often so I am getting pretty good at it, ha ha.
Bill
sdanielmsev, "Stupid fishing analogies are just stupid."
LOL, that may be but they do make for easier understandings for those who post stupid questions and stupid comments. I must admit that even I should be given one at times do to my own stupidity.
I like books, I couldn't tell you what they say but they sure do have some nice pictures at times. ;)
I used to like the bible because I could use the pages for rolling paper when I didn't have one but I no longer smoke pot so now I have no interest in that book.
I used to like playboy and others like it but then I got married so I no longer have a interest in them.
Jack and Jill still strikes my interest because of the picture of Jack rolling down the hill. Gravity Hmmmm. LOL
I honestly try to stay away from books unless I am doing some research and even then I tend to always question what I have read. I am some what of a doubting Thomas but what the hell, it's makes life more interesting. ;D
@ Nightlife:
Jack didn't just roll down the hill, he was pushed by that bitch Jill.
Bill
House Painter
If nightlife is a senior member of this group, I am going to move on. I see in these posts a very great intelligence,and very great egotism. I am sad to say, good-bye. Never knowing the real potential of this group saddens me. Never knowing where to find intelligence is a hard quest. Yet I will try.
Pirate88179, I kind of thought that?s what happened. They just didn't show that part. The government must have had something to do with hiding that too. Damn our government.
Now I am thinking of divorcing my wife, sending the kids to military school, dropping the dog off at the pound and start a rock-n-roll band. You get your money for nothing and the chicks are free.
I say the hell with free energy, it?s time to start burning some energy. A Rum and Coke with no ice will get the ball rolling.
I hope the wife doesn't read this. ;D
nightlife, or whoever
fuck you
sdanielmsev, come on now. You got to have a little fun once in a while.
I actually like reading your postings. You are some what like me provided you are you say you are. We add a different prospective to this forum do to our lack of education in physics. You will find a lot of my postings to be way off to the far left but I hope they may bring a new light to those who pay attention. I have posted a lot of interesting findings here as well as I have posted a lot of idiotic theory?s I have. I am out side of the box. Actually, I may be considered as being way out side of the box. Don't let any of my postings discourage you from being a member of this forum. You may find some of my postings of interest but then again, you may find the majority not to be.
There are a lot of very smart people here that bring a lot of experience and research with them. I may tend to ruffle some feathers here and there but there is a method to my madness.
I am a auto mechanic who owns shop, towing company and a night club. I have just shut them all down to focus on creating a more reasonable form of energy as well as to start a non profit organization for teenagers. I honestly do a lot of research. It may not tell by my postings but you have to remember that I am always out side of the box.
house painter;
good night and GOOD LUCK
To nightlife from house painter
I have read a few of your other posts on this website, and have seen a different side of you that probably was what made me so defensive. Peas in a pod. Like minded peolple sometimes have a hard time distinguishing between friend , foe, or just like minded people in these forums. I made two posts and both were belittled, which may be the test to see if I really should be in the discussion. So, I will keep an open mind for the moment, So, I say to you, I apologize.
to nightlife
Omit where it says tha made me so defensive, and I hope it makes sense
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
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
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