The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[winner]

In other words, more often than not, we arrive at a certain conclusion because of the way it is put rather than because of the words that were used to convey it.

Yes! In fact, in training for my work, I learned that about 85% of the information we absorb from a *telephone* conversation is from the tone of delivery, not the words.

So we get a certain feeling from delivery. In writing, we can also get some impressions from sentence structure, vocabulary, analysis of handwriting style, etc. As Hans observes, "we arrive at a conclusion." How we arrive at this conclusion is of course dependent on our personal biases, mood of the moment, past experience, etc. In coming to our conclusions, in pursuit of truth, we must all overcome these barriers.

I believe that overcoming the ego and keeping an open mind are the keys to understanding.

Though I am new to this bulletin board, I have read many of the heated discussions. I am very, very impressed by the many members here who are tolerant of the words, forgiving of personalities, and willing to look past the words and first impressions to find something good and worthy.

This "New Approach" topic is exactly the kind of "thinking outside the box" that will get us where we want to go!

[nightlife]

Another reason why is because we are not teaching properly. This next link will explain what I am talking about in one respect.

http://www.amasci.com/emotor/stmiscon.html

[hansvonlieven]

G'day winner,

Welcome to this little discussion of ours. I think you have really understood what is being tried here. The idea is to expand our consciousness by creating additional linguistic tools. Language determines the way we think. There are many groups out there that are are at the moment stuffing around with language to change consciousness, the political correctness lobby being one of them. We know this can be done. My point is why don't we do something positive with language that will enable us to program into the future and come up with a technology that does not leave such a devastating footprint as the current one does.

Hans von Lieven

[BEP]

I'm no master of linguistics but I have found in order to understand any speaker correctly you must consider their frame of reference.

Example: To almost all folks from the US up means North but it can also mean to the higher level of something. Many Germans will point South when they speak of up. Why? I think because that is UP. The Alps are that way.
When I read a very old patent this is very apparent. The Cook patents refer to magnet wire and helices. Magnet wire, as we know it today, wasn't invented until well after the patents. Until then it was literally ferromagnetic or some alloy that had iron or tin in it. A coil was a single conductor wrapped onto some form. A helix was multiple conductors wrapped together on that form. Sometimes the coil or helix was what we would consider an exo-core.

When Tesla speaks of high frequencies he is talking about what we consider ELF and VLF. Even documents from a few decades ago cause similar problems for the reader.

No matter what the information is it is only what the listener/reader perceives it to be.

[hansvonlieven]

Honestly, I do not think it is a matter of language or thinking.  We need an effect that contradicts the known laws of physics.  All you need to so to have mainstream science pay attention is point to one such anomalous effect and really prove it up.  Isolate that one thing and focus on it and do extensive experimentation.  Then, once that is proven, you can make a device based on that, and it will all make sense.

Where people go wrong is they try to present a whole device and claim that it works and not really explain what the anomalous effect is that makes the thing work.  Well, based on known laws of physics, no device can be truly overunity, so these devices get dismissed right away, and the inventors get labelled crackpots.  The fact that the devices invariably turn out to be under unity does not help matters.

So anyway, that is the problem with overunity as I see it.

Sorry shrugged to have taken so long to respond to this post of yours, but your first two sentences illustrate precisely one of the major points of my argument and requires a well reasoned response. There is an inbuilt contradiction in what you say.

You say: Honestly, I do not think it is a matter of language or thinking.

And then follow with: We need an effect that contradicts the known laws of physics.

That second sentence shows clearly why our thinking has to change, for it demonstrates the major flaw in our current thinking that keeps us trapped in the mental circle we are stuck in. Of course, the idea is enticing. All we have to do is to disprove Newton?s laws of thermodynamics or Helmholtz with his Conservation of Energy and we are home. Perpetual motion, here we come.

To date no-one has done this in spite of many claims, such as Milkovic, who tells us that his device contradicts Newton (it doesn?t) or the SMOT which is said to violate CoE (which it doesn?t either).

This perpetual search for a phenomenon that contradicts those two fundamentals of physics as we know it has led nowhere.

We need to look outside the trodden path and only a new direction in our line of thinking will enable us to do this.

Hans von Lieven