The Problem with Overunity. A different approach.

[laci]

@koen,

   I am minded to exclaim "Jesus Christ" - of course we should not be blinded by established orthodixies of theoretical physics.

Textbook physics is not the Bible.

If you followed a simmering debate amongst the theoreticians (and mainly amongst the maverick ones), you would realize a broad consensus that coventional theoretical physics (the stuff taught at universities) is so seriously flawed that it is untenable.
I am reluctant to use this phrase but it is vivid and apposite: some tracts of accepted theoretical physics is total crap. And the maverics are just as fighting an uphill struggle to get their ideas accepted as we do.  They, too, are subject to being sidelined and ridiculed.
Perhaps we should seek a practical cooperation with some of them, should not we?

   Regards,
               
                  laci

[Koen1]

@koen,

   I am minded to exclaim "Jesus Christ"

what? too much ranting in one post? Sorry 'bout that...

- of course we should not be blinded by established orthodixies of theoretical physics.

Textbook physics is not the Bible.

Well it is to some. Quite often people will come up with objections based on "facts" in their textbooks...

If you followed a simmering debate amongst the theoreticians (and mainly amongst the maverick ones), you would realize a broad consensus that coventional theoretical physics (the stuff taught at universities) is so seriously flawed that it is untenable.
I am reluctant to use this phrase but it is vivid and apposite: some tracts of accepted theoretical physics is total crap. And the maverics are just as fighting an uphill struggle to get their ideas accepted as we do.  They, too, are subject to being sidelined and ridiculed.
Perhaps we should seek a practical cooperation with some of them, should not we?

Yes, and I feel "we" already do a little bit. So basically it's the "cutting edge scientists" and the "over unity crackpots" versus the "establishment"...
But it would be nice if more scientists decided to join "our" side.

[shruggedatlas]

Honestely, 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.

[exxcomm0n]

@ shrugged

While you bring up a salient point with the idea that individual effects of experiments have to be beaten to death with proof, it still doesn't help if you can't relay the steps/processes/expected outcome to an independent researcher so they can duplicate and verify your results.

Look at how hard other threads are trying to decipher the writings of Tesla, Moray, Keely, etc.

Kinda makes me wish Tesla had asked his friend Mark Twain to do a little transcription.

The experimenter need not worry about the terms used to describe what's happening until they are convinced it IS happening successively. THEN he/she needs to discuss the process with peers so points of ambiguity or things that have no words at the moment can be described to the point where you can give a capable person the equipment and instructions and they can duplicate the results.

Isn't that the point where a discovery becomes validated?

It would be frustrating if I had a friend that discovered a yet untapped energy, and I could see his process work, but when I asked him how he did it and then tried to replicate it I failed and he'd point somewhere and say, "That's not a capacitor". when I know it is, that's what he'd told me to use, and that's what it was labeled as when I bought it. His use of capacitor could mean a huge energy tank created with spherical media when my experience with capacitors says they are made up of plates.

At that point an experimenter might wish to completely redo the experiment again with a querying observer so that when the observer doesn't understand a term or action they can ask and then translate for the rest of us.

A tall order I know, but if you want posterity to benefit from your work it should be an integral issue.


P.S. Never is the time when I can write and not have to proof read @ least once as my brain moves faster than my fingers. I'm sure many brains move faster than mouths, but saying something sometimes gives someone a chance to ask a question.

[ian middleton]

G'day all,

This is turning out to better than the Friday night footy game.
Ya know I have replies and ideas that I'd like to put to Hans and Koen ect but I'm struggling for the correct words. Perhaps that highlights Hans original point, don't know.
What I do know for a fact, is, the London underground IS a big hole in the ground. 

Damn you Hans, you'll pay for this. 

ooroo

Ian