The Conspiracy Of Overunity And Overunity Reasearch

[tinman]

Chet is it your belief that atoms continuously dissipate energy?  We have lots of experience with things being able to remain in a given energy state for a long, long time.  Their energy does not increase and it does not decrease.  I'll give you a very simple example of something changing energy states: 

I have removed the silly rock on the table comment,as it was totally irrelevant-no motion with a rock on the table from our reference point.

Please refer to another thing(mass)that can remain in an ever changing constant motion without dissipating energy. Please also show another mass that has both an electric field and a magnetic field without an external energy input requirement.

[MarkE]

I have removed the silly rock on the table comment,as it was totally irrelevant-no motion with a rock on the table from our reference point.

Please refer to another thing(mass)that can remain in an ever changing constant motion without dissipating energy. Please also show another mass that has both an electric field and a magnetic field without an external energy input requirement.

Examples of objects that are in motion:  The earth to our sun, our solar system to the CoG of our galaxy, etc, etc, are in constant orbital motion.  They will continue to do so for billions of years.  Higher quality Class II material ceramic capacitors can be charged and will retain their charge for a decent period of time before they self discharge.  The dielectric materials are ferroelectric.  Charging them with a an electric field results in a magnetic moment.

I have removed the silly rock on the table comment,as it was totally irrelevant-no motion with a rock on the table from our reference point.

This really betrays that you wold do yourself a service to read some of those books you so disdain.  Motion does not mean energy dissipation.  Acceleration parallel to the direction of motion requires or releases work from a moving object.  No acceleration parallel to the direction of motion and the object remains in its energy state just as surely as the rock on the table remains in its energy state.

[tinman]

@Mark

Good answer, I always found it odd how one group of people seeking answers to the most fundamental questions such as those at the CERN particle accelerator are called scientists however other groups of people asking the same questions are called philosophers. It is odd that whenever I ask the question there is no response or the person simply avoids the question altogether such as you have here. I find it confusing, I ask a very simple question, what is an electric field fundamentally?, and all the very intelligent and knowledgeable people stop in their tracks like a deer stuck in our headlights.


AC

The reason they dont answer AC,is simply because they have no idea. They will fight and argue as to how correct they are,and that your ideas are total rubbish,but as we have seen so many time's,they have no answer them self. It's just a !im right,and your wrong! arguement with nothing to back up there claim. There best is-well it dose what we expect it to do. This is another rubbish claim,as devices were built around the effect's,the effects wernt built around the device.
The magnetic field is a very good example,they know all about it because your computor work's
In actual fact,the computor was designed to work with the already present magnetic field. So what they did was to build an ICE that runs on gasoline,but cant explain what the gasoline is

The best bit is that they ask you!insist! that you believe in the current modle of the magnetic field,even though they cant explain what it is that produces the physical force within the field-->aint that a hoot--please come for a ride in my plane--i dont know why it flies,but it dose  Funny thing is,most who fly on planes actually dont know how they fly.

Here is something interesting i read not to long ago.
It is a fact that magnetic dipoles and magnetic fields cannot exist without there being some directly associated electron related charge flow-spin-circulation, as via atomic-molecular orbit or flow via a conductor, coil or plasma etc.

So how can it be stated that an already radiated electromagnetic 'wave' propagates with an associated transverse magnetic 'field', when electromagnetic radiation is known to not be a stream of electrons (current) travelling at the speed of light, whilst additionally, at no point along the 'wave' is there any circuit through which charge can circulate or flow in order to generate a magnetic field?

There is no answer to that question;  and thus I personally cannot any longer accept that there is any sinusoidal alternating transverse magnetic 'field' component accompanying the propagation of a radiated electromagnetic 'wave'.

This guy has done years of bench work,and can back up all his data with actual measurements of actual devices. he go's on to say that he believes that it is not electromagnetic waves we are dealing with,but more of a photon wave of different spin ratios.

Of course this will be dismissed by those that think they know better,but as usual,have nothing to offer as to why there modle is better.

[tinman]

[/b].    The dielectric materials are ferroelectric.  Charging them with a an electric field results in a magnetic moment.
].  Acceleration parallel to the direction of motion requires or releases work from a moving object. 

Examples of objects that are in motion:  The earth to our sun, our solar system to the CoG of our galaxy, etc, etc, are in constant orbital motion.  They will continue to do so for billions of years

Sorry Mark,but that dosnt count,as we know that these motions were set into place via a force acting apon them.

Higher quality Class II material ceramic capacitors can be charged and will retain their charge for a decent period of time before they self discharge.

And the ever changing motion in this example is?

This really betrays that you wold do yourself a service to read some of those books you so disdain.  Motion does not mean energy dissipation[/b

A change in direction of any moving mass requires energy-where dose this energy come from that constantly changes the direction of the atom-which has mass?.<--from the books Mark

No acceleration parallel to the direction of motion and the object remains in its energy state just as surely as the rock on the table remains in its energy state.

That is correct,the rock remains at a constant,while the Atom's motion constantly changes direction.

[tinman]

Oh P.S

The earth to our sun, our solar system to the CoG of our galaxy, etc, etc, are in constant orbital motion.

It's not actually an orbital motion,it's more a helical motion
You can orbit a mass that is in constant motion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU

And this one shows our journey through the galaxy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4V-ooITrws