Quote from: CuriousChris on October 28, 2012, 12:54:19 AM

For OU to be possible it would mean that the conservation of energy law is wrong.

CuriousChris,

You deductions are correct if the concept of Over Unity is taken literally.

But OU is impossible only when taken literally, and I think many people here at the forum are regarding this concept from an angle more related to the possibility of harnessing hitherto unknown dynamics than to the precise definition.

Of course you cannot for example squeeze more electricity out of a system than it's available, but who are you or I to actually know the complete avilability of the dynamics behind the electromagnetical field? 

Frontier research have found indications of a vast presence of virtual electrons oscillating in and out of observable reality, and I recall a recently published paper were two scientists actually did manage to capture such virtual electrons and making them real.
And we have the amazing fluid state of helium in zero kelvin degrees, indicating an underlying omnipresent energy.

So if a device seems to generate more output than is put into it, this only would indicate the access and involvement of energy sources hitherto unknown, amplified by a novel configuration of known and unknown parameters.

It would only look like the theoretical defintion of OU until we see the whole picture,  and the moment we grasp the dynamics, it would seamlessly fit into the termodynamic laws.

Personally I have taken for granted that the titel of this forum has been strictly decorative, indicating the intriguing possibility of making new novel discoveries.

Quote from: Newton II on October 28, 2012, 10:19:19 AM

If OU device is invented and somebody finds a method to magnify its output to infinity.....

A simple example is, make one megawatt  perpetual DC generator and drop it deep into the sea.  It goes on releasing hydrogen into the atmosphere by electrolysis and after sometimes when it catches fire it chars all the life on this earth to death.

Newton II,

As I mentioned above, as far as I am concerned, the OU concept is not to be taken literally, it is rather a symbolic expression of harnessing hitherto unknown dynamics, thus making the conclusion of infinite acceleration of no value.

For example succeeding in creating a vector differential in a permanent magnet motor would not make it magnify its output to infinity, it would be just as bound to limitations as the electrically induced magnet motor. So you really don't need to believe in OU to create a non electrical permanent magnet motor, you "just" have to crack the vector balance of the field potentional affecting the magnets.



@all believers

Those of you in this forum who actually believe in Over Unity per definition are no better than any other believer, religious or non religious.


Gwandau

 

Quote from: Newton II on October 28, 2012, 10:19:19 AM

Law of conservation is accepted because scientists have sofar failed to build a OU device.  Even if scientists build it,  the respective Governments will not allow them to reveal it because it will cause an unrepairable economic loss to the entire world since the economy of entire world has moved too far  in a wrong direction with oil based industries. ( automobile, transportation etc.).

I do not think you understand quite how things work.  We accept the law of conservation of energy because it has always held up.  Every effect and action we have ever observed has followed it.

When you talk about building an OU device, you must understand that there must first be an observable OU effect which the device is to exploit.  We have not seen one, so we cannot even begin to plan the building of such a device.

That is how the scientific method works.  It starts with observation.  In the case of OU, we lack even that first step.

Quote from: Magluvin on October 28, 2012, 01:26:59 PM
Then there is no such thing as lies also?   fools
snip...

Actually, a lie is spread or told with deceptive intent. A person may tell you something which they believe to be true, but which everyone else accepts as being untrue. That person then, is a (perceived) purveyor of an untruth, but not a liar, because, to be a liar, means that you deliberately tell an untruth as opposed to merely disseminating an untruth, whilst believing it to be truth.

Which is why, although I do not consider you to be a liar, I do consider you to be a purveyor of untruth, since you insist on spreading many of the (perceived) untruths of the bible as if they were universally accepted truths, and which you believe to be true.

Quote from: hoptoad on October 28, 2012, 11:05:04 PM
Actually, a lie is spread or told with deceptive intent. A person may tell you something which they believe to be true, but which everyone else accepts as being untrue. That person then, is a (perceived) purveyor of an untruth, but not a liar, because, to be a liar, means that you deliberately tell an untruth as opposed to merely disseminating an untruth, whilst believing it to be truth.

Which is why, although I do not consider you to be a liar, I do consider you to be a purveyor of untruth, since you insist on spreading many of the (perceived) untruths of the bible as if they were universally accepted truths, and which you believe to be true.

I have conversations with friends about God, some believers some not. Once I find that the non believers just dont get it nor want to, I dont go any further, unless they bring it up.

My ex room mate, he died in his room from heart failure 2 weeks before Christmas. We would get into it. One thing he would always resort to was, "how do you know we werent brought here by aliens?" I would say, ok, show me something, anything, that supports that idea. But he never gave me a shred. Not one shred. It stopped there for him every time.

Wasnt ever like what we have going on here.

Whats funny is he had this idea of aliens, and them bringing us here. That would suggest he believes in something he cannot and has not seen, yet the idea of God is not as interesting. 

Mags