Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



The TPU uncovered? (A PROBABLE technique.)

Started by pauldude000, April 09, 2008, 08:35:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

pauldude000

@aleks

First, I thought you asked me to desist......

The link is classical wiki, in that the author of this article is a wannabe. You want to know what is amazing?

Two quotes from this article:

"Though these principles guided his future research and experiments, Tesla did not announce his theory until near the end of his life after he had been disillusioned by the war efforts. The Dynamic Theory of Gravity neither appears nor is mentioned anywhere in standard Tesla informative sites and reportedly, is still classified and unavailable under the FOIA."

"Tesla's theory put him in direct contrast with the re-emerging Relativity theory, which is that energy does not directly originate from matter or vice versa, but that matter behaves as a medium for forces to act upon or to act through, and that without matter there is no Energy (nor Force) and vice versa (he said a body without force is like a body without a mind)."

Notice that in the first sentence from the introduction this individual (the writer) states that the theory was announced, but no information is available, hinting that the government is withholding the info and it is "classified". The writer states later that no mathematics have been provided whatsoever.

Yet he seems to supposedly have all this information at his fingertips to write the rest of this massive article. Note the second quote, in which he writes essentially exactly what Tesla's theory is, and goes in depth in explanation, even quoting SWAMIS as reference......

Come on.....

This reminds me of the radiant energy horsepucky where people supposedly quote Tesla as to what radiant energy is, when he states what it is in a patent quite clearly. See patent #685,957 "Apparatus for the Utililization of Radiant Energy"

AVAILABLE HERE->http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/index.html

Amazingly enough, Radiant Energy has a name today, it is called ionizing radiation. (Ultraviolet, X-Rays, Alpha, Beta, & Gamma particles, etc...)

What IS amazing is how many people "quote" Tesla.

Many of Tesla's views were correct, so were many of Einstein's. I agree with parts of both's views. BOTH were just men.

Paul Andrulis 
Finding truth can be compared to panning for gold. It generally entails sifting a huge amount of material for each nugget found. Then checking each nugget found for valuable metal or fool's gold.

pauldude000

@aleks

I just noticed something from your last post. Who, besides you in your reference, stated that "mass is matter"? Mass is NOT matter. I was explaining that mass is a  FUNCTION or ASPECT of BOTH energy AND matter. (I implied that it is a shared function, IE a field effect.)

Paul Andrulis
Finding truth can be compared to panning for gold. It generally entails sifting a huge amount of material for each nugget found. Then checking each nugget found for valuable metal or fool's gold.

Grumpy

@ Paul,

Don't be foolish now.

Cross-reference of Alek's terminology puts him in rock-throwing distance of the grail.

Radiant energy may often be referred to rays and such, but what Tesla discovered was far more important than mere "rays".
It is the men of insight and the men of unobstructed vision of every generation who are able to lead us through the quagmire of a in-a-rut thinking. It is the men of imagination who are able to see relationships which escape the casual observer. It remains for the men of intuition to seek answers while others avoid even the question.
                                                                                                                                    -Frank Edwards

aleks

pauldude000, many books and articles that discuss Tesla's legacy have a lot of flaws in their reasoning and flow of facts. Some refer to the fact that many works of Tesla were siezed by government. So, lack of the whole picture is a normal state of things - no need to accuse anybody.

As Grumpy noted, radiant energy is not just "small particles" from the Sun (now known as neutrino) nor some other EM radiation. It's clear that Tesla referred to "radiant energy" in at least one very different application: Wardenclyffe tower where I think Tesla wanted to produce a powerful dynamically-changing electro-static field varying at a predefined frequency that could reach the whole world - for both communication and powering applications. It's far beyond EM radiation. It's a key to both gravity control and true overunity (energy from aether). One important aspect to note is that this had to be a UNIT electro-static field. It's not that this tower wanted to positively or negatively charge every bit of surrounding matter as in conventional understanding of charge (which is quantized by charge of electron). Unit electro-static field has its own charge.

aleks

Quote from: pauldude000 on July 01, 2008, 07:54:54 PMI just noticed something from your last post. Who, besides you in your reference, stated that "mass is matter"? Mass is NOT matter. I was explaining that mass is a  FUNCTION or ASPECT of BOTH energy AND matter. (I implied that it is a shared function, IE a field effect.)

Well, in the first place I myself had a hard time to distinguish between the two. Also have a look here what our children are tought: http://www.nyu.edu/pages/mathmol/textbook/mass.html "Mass is the amount of matter an object has."

I stumbled to this dated work: http://www.timestar.org/mass.htm So, even at that time ordinary bla-bla-ing assumed that mass is matter, and the authors insisted this is incorrect. They also give an idea that electrons can change their mass - it only differs from my view is that I think electrons should collide with something in order to convert their kinetic energy into transient mass.