OU - Reproducability why is it so hard? A New Perspective!

[acerzw]

<<<UPDATE 27 Oct 2007 - I have now added a 'short path' version of 'What is Reality?' that is for intuitive people who just 'know' when something 'feels right' and is true! See further down for more info. >>>

There is one thing I must state very clearly at the beginning of this thread:

Please approach what is written here with an open mind and before you post, please take time to understand the ideas in the document attached to the end of this post...

This thread is intended to be positive! Help keep it so!

A couple of simple request to posters...

If you have more to add to a point you have already made, I would ask you to amend your original post if it does not alter its context within the thread (and thus make a later poster look like an idiot!) It saves space and makes the information content of the thread higher per post.. I adopt this practice so you may find if I have posted an answer to you that it might grow in time...

If you reference another posters ideas or information for the first time in this thread, please credit them by name and highlight their name in blue, credit where credit is due, also others can then research the original source posts.



Question: Why is it so hard to reproduce OU devices and effects even when clear and seemingly simple instructions are available?

Answer: Obviously part of the problem might be down to inventors concealing some vital details, yet even when a simple device is reproduced different people get different results, some of which could be down to their skill, but maybe there is 'something more' to the problem than that!

This question and its answer have been bothering me for some time. Why is it that it is so hard to replicate OU devices? What is the 'something more' that might be contributing to the problem?

Once we do some research, follow our intuition and examine both scientific facts and other information available a simple yet radical answer becomes apparent! That 'something more' is your mind and your beliefs!

Ok, so this sounds crazy, but is it really that crazy! Quantum Physics and other science now acknowledge the importance of the observer, the observer is part of the system they observe, there is no such thing as a 'closed' system as is required to apply the Laws of Thermodynamics (which have proven violations as listed by Tom Bearden anyway).

So in order to help you understand what I am saying here, I am posting a document that aims to prove to you that what I am saying is true or at least very very probable. A tall order indeed! But then after 25 years of general research into the nature of 'Reality' and with my recent discovery that it makes me an experienced Phenomenologist maybe there is a chance.

So please find attached a copy of 'What is Reality?'. Its scope is somewhat broader than what is required for my purpose here, however rather than remove the parts that are not relevant to my purpose here I will instead direct you to the relevant section, and leave you to read the other sections if you wish to.

The relevant pages are 1 to 28...

<<<UPDATE 27 Oct 2007 - I have now added a 'short path' version of 'What is Reality?' that is for intuitive people who just 'know' when something 'feels right' and is true! This cuts the document down to the bare minimum, removing much of the supporting evidence that more conventional thinkers will need to understand. If you don't like the short path version I encourage you to read the more detailed version, as it contains real evidence to support the central idea. >>>


The non-relevant parts are about how to apply what has been learnt in order to improve your lot, rather in the spirit of such books as 'The Secret'...

I acknowledge the copyright of all whose work is reproduced within, via the bibliography at the documents end. I may update the document from time to time with the results of new research.

Acerzw, living in another reality.... 



So let the discussion begin, does your mind and those of others affect your OU experimental results? I have presented my case, so now I will let you be the judge of that...

[goddylla]

This is one of the most interesting threads that I've seen anywhere on the net.
I've made no attempts thus far to produce an overunity machine, so I'm afraid that I can't contribute there, but I agree vehemently with the thesis of this paper that you posted and your intent of applying it's (the paper's) content to the various OU endeavors of the members of this site.

The key to all of this is creativity. Look what Hutchinson was able to accomplish (although rarely duplicate) through his creative play.....because that's what it is. Why else would a single guy fill a small apartment to the brim with random electronic tech unless they loved it and were Playing with it?
When asked to duplicate, Hutchinson's results were dismal or sparse at best.

The only thing that really changed was intent of will. Same objective, completely different circumstances of consciousness during the act of propagation.

Once again, thanks for the paper and the thread. It's a breath of fresh air.

[acerzw]

The only thing that really changed was intent of will. Same objective, completely different circumstances of consciousness during the act of propagation.

@goddylla, thank you for your very productive comment... (love the avatar BTW)

The above quote from your post is a very concise description of what I am trying to convey "completely different circumstances of consciousness during the act of propagation" which is as you say a result of the "intent of will" of the individual concerned. However I am going a little beyond that, I also believe that there is a 'group' effect at work also i.e. the beliefs of others working on the same OU device or even just thinking about it will have some effect. With a background element of everyone on the planet, who is aware of OU, belief's on the matter.

Hence the more who believe in something the more likely it will be induced into becoming 'Reality'... which on a global scale does not bode well in terms of peoples belief in catastrophic climate change and terrorism... (note I am not saying climate change isn't a problem, it clearly is, but suggest that we are making it worse by inducing it be so through our fear of it...)

Hutchinson is an interesting case in point, I think in his case, his play, single minded and very focused intent, and his vehement self belief and belief that he could discover stuff that the 'Government' or others had concealed, plus his extreme self imposed isolation all added to his ability to overcome the dampening 'consciousness field' created by others around such devices working...

Your point about Hutchinson's own ability to reproduce his work shows that the effect of 'play' or enjoyment bears further consideration... it resonates with the idea in the 'The Secret' of joy being an important factor.. there is much evidence that emotion acts as a force multiplier or enhancer... hence I do make a brief mention of emotion in my paper... perhaps I will expand it in due course...

It is also a good point about him being asked to duplicate his results, being asked to duplicate something you did for fun removes the 'joy' of discovery from the equation and thus turns it into a 'chore'. So the force multiplier is lost and the dampening field overpowers the individuals intent!

This would lead to the conclusion that in order to replicate an OU device successfully you must enjoy the experience and believe that it will work...

Acerzw

[Nastrand2000]

You may also note that Tesla kept an isolationist viewpoint. And look what he achieved. Not relying on preconceived notions (or proofs of said notions) about what is, but what can be.
Jason

[acerzw]

Yes, this effect can work on many levels and does combine with, and can therefore be masked by, more 'conventional' social effects...

Acerzw