Quote from: webby1 on October 06, 2012, 12:58:09 AM
Alrighty, it seems as tho it is time for simple questions.

What, in sciences is due diligence?  Is it making a mathematical model that does nothing but use the understood mathematics?? or is it in actually building that item in question.  Well what has been stated here is that the only due diligence needed is to state what is currently understood,, not build and test but just COUNT on what WE think WE know.

Simple thing is, the more we know, the more we know we do not know.

Any person out there care to disagree???

Webby1,  you made a very wise remark,
Similar to saying, I always bake bread with white flour,  and I can not understand why I never get a whole wheat bread out of the oven.

Some more in a similar context......

International diplomacy is starting to become quite important on an international forum. Something we technical people are not very good at.  I am sure Wayne can attest to that when looking back at the topic history of the last 171 pages.

I might have been mistaken on the understanding of the function of this forum. The reason that I read the posts or write posts on this forum is to read, share, other viewpoints different to my own, to receive new idea’s, new possibilities as related to the topic. I would assume that most other people share the same understanding.

Posting on this forum is becoming quite a hazard, when posting an opinions, idea’s and the like, do we need to prove without doubt before we utter an opinion or theory?  I can see that to get a full thesis would be great, but is that the only way.

Wayne’s idea’s and IP are given to you for free without warranties of any kind for you to enrich your technical life with.  I gave you my viewpoint on Wayne’s system,  I have somewhere some calculations from a few months ago that prove the same thing.  But pls do me a favor and put some figures into xls and see for yourself, that is the best proof you ever going to get.

PLEASE DO NOT BELIEVE what anybody says or writes, not just on this forum alone, TV, internet…ect.  Cross validate any interesting information, ONLY YOU ALONE can do that.  Don’t expect others to do that for you.  That has been Wayne’s conviction all along.  Everything starts with a good idea, the more revolutionary the outcome is , the more revolutionary the idea was.

Fletcher, Amolago, I do not disagree with you doing basic physic’s buoyancy tests,  the references ware intended to home you in, since I just feel you are wasting your time, but if that feel good to you and you need no advice, that is also fine with me.  And the same goes also for Seamus’s 4 enclosed walls.  I was looking forward to some questions instead than for example the outright disputing of the “symmetry” dictionary descriptions as a matter of speaking.

I have shortened this mail somewhat to stay diplomatic,  in closing I choose only to include this,   I would imagine it all comes down to an outlook difference alike to an physicist and an inventor, settler and explorer, engineer and inventor, employee and entrepreneur,  tourist and adventurer.  We should allow all people their own freedom within their domain of vision and that should be respected (this is not the same than agreeing to), but the conduit to find out more is through asking questions, not by outright denials.  (remember that Einstein quote from some posts back)

Since none of you have any questions, I have no problem to stay in the background

Regards, Michel

Dear Skeptics and the like,

Several people have appeared on this forum (inventor included) and given you their version (as they see it) of a system that can do OU (assumed from the gneral viewpoint). They explained the workings, physical  details,  understanding of the system in the only way they can of the phenomena.  I am sure you understand what has been described.

Until now you haven't been able to produce any sensible validation why the system can not work. Produce some reasonable proof to support your objection or stop calling yourself's skeptics worth any salt.

Your posts do not match the reason that you still hang around this forum

Do keep in mind:  This is an commercial system with IP that are not all openly declared, so do your work well.

Concerned member

Quote from: Red_Sunset on October 06, 2012, 03:07:10 AM

Posting on this forum is becoming quite a hazard, when posting an opinions, idea’s and the like, do we need to prove without doubt before we utter an opinion or theory?  I can see that to get a full thesis would be great, but is that the only way.

Wayne’s idea’s and IP are given to you for free without warranties of any kind for you to enrich your technical life with.  I gave you my viewpoint on Wayne’s system,  I have somewhere some calculations from a few months ago that prove the same thing.

But pls do me a favor and put some figures into xls and see for yourself, that is the best proof you ever going to get.

Fletcher, Amolago, I do not disagree with you doing basic physic’s buoyancy tests,  the references were intended to home you in, since I just feel you are wasting your time ...

Regards, Michel

Red .. there is a very big difference between expressing & sharing opinions & ideas v's making a declaration of OU demonstrated [the warrantie] - in Wayne's case it is the gravity only force equivalent of a device 'boot strapping' it self upwards gaining PE, so when such a claim is made by whomever the claim moves to another dimension of scrutiny from discussion or opinion or idea.

My objection Red is that Amolago was attempting to reconcile a floatation buoyancy test experiment against his spreadsheet analysis model to launch forward from & better understand your more complex concepts in turn - whilst it is a waste of both our times to have done so where were 'the inner circle' to help him thru this basic stuff so he could move on knowing his model was predictively accurate, at least for ordinary floatation & buoyancy ?

Quote from: Red_Sunset on October 06, 2012, 03:41:56 AM

Dear Skeptics and the like,

Several people have appeared on this forum (inventor included) and given you their version (as they see it) of a system that can do OU (assumed from the gneral viewpoint). They explained the workings, physical  details,  understanding of the system in the only way they can of the phenomena.  I am sure you understand what has been described.

Until now you haven't been able to produce any sensible validation why the system can not work. Produce some reasonable proof to support your objection or stop calling yourself's skeptics worth any salt.

Your posts do not match the reason that you still hang around this forum

Do keep in mind:  This is an commercial system with IP that are not all openly declared, so do your work well.

Concerned member

Actually I/we didn't make any claims so the onus isn't on any of us - I for one will happily wait till they are available off the shelf so to speak [if it ever happens] & be happy to admit I was wrong & short sighted - I'll have plenty of company.

Quote from: fletcher on October 06, 2012, 04:07:28 AM
Red .. there is a very big difference between expressing & sharing opinions & ideas v's making a declaration of OU demonstrated [the warrantie] - in Wayne's case it is the gravity only force equivalent of a device 'boot strapping' it self upwards gaining PE, so when such a claim is made by whomever the claim moves to another dimension of scrutiny from discussion or opinion or idea.

My objection Red is that Amolago was attempting to reconcile a floatation buoyancy test experiment against his spreadsheet analysis model to launch forward from & better understand your more complex concepts in turn - whilst it is a waste of both our times to have done so where were 'the inner circle' to help him thru this basic stuff so he could move on knowing his model was predictively accurate, at least for ordinary floatation & buoyancy ?

Hi Fletcher,
With regards to Wayne's invention, technically he shouldn't be on this forum because he and his IP represent a commercial company and their would always be a conflict of interest between both when it comes to a full open declaration.  He was persuaded by Stefan to introduce his invention here,  and the rest is now history....
But at the same time I am happy he did, because I learned more from his invention than the overall "overunity forum",  in the past I popped in from time to time to see what is new. I never had a login, neither posted.
  This topic introduction can be seen as a problem or an advantage (depends how you look at his approach), for Wayne it was a  challenge how someone else can figure out his invention, the quicker you realized this the more benefit you had. 
The challenge he presented was actually reverse engineering,  I loved the challenge,  my gutt-feel made me belief he had something, it didn't matter to me if it was not everything he claimed (it turned to be all true as he said, in the end). Once you tap into the inventors objective and logic he follows, it comes quite easy to follow through, you will even spot what he is hiding. He declared what he wanted, you think he should have thrown his whole IP on the forum, than I don't think you understand business clearly, he is not looking for competitors.

Please keep my pointers with regards to Amolago investigation as they were intended "homing pointers", to guide you into the right direction . Lets not take it out of context, there was never any mal-intent intended, my apologies if it came across that way.

I believe in what is written in the physics books and its laws, even after exploring Wayne's two circumnavigation processes, that were recently expanded to 3 processes, each process notably different from each other but all exploiting gravity (not necessarily buoyancy).
Wayne expanded our understanding of the physic's processes, he did not make any redundant or untrue.

Michel