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



Dark matter...i think i know what it is...check it out

Started by christo4_99, October 01, 2008, 12:15:14 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Rosphere

Quote from: ChileanOne on October 03, 2008, 05:48:36 PM
...I don't buy the concept of "Dark Matter" because it arises completely from a misleading cosmological model that says that the only force important in the shaping of the universe is gravity....

I agree.

Is it not strange that all of the known elements have 'electrons'?

There is not one known element that has no 'electrons.'

I am these days inclined to view all of the known elements as standing waves within an energy aether.

Thinking this way, what do we now make of the 'electron shells' surrounding each elemental nucleus?

What function does this electron shell play; does it help keep this standing wave standing and the nucleus intact?

What would happen to the nucleus if we could strip away the entire electron shell; would the nucleus become unstable?

Are these what we call positive ions--are any positive ions completely devoid of an electron shell?

Would an electron-shell free nucleus then change it's fundamental standing wave frequency and become a standing wave of a smaller atom and create for itself a new electron shell to interface the aether and seek a new stability?

Conversely, if we could pile an excess of electron shells upon a nucleus would it's fundamental standing wave frequency shift to the next larger stable standing wave?

If we could completely remove electron shells from or infinitely stack electron shells onto atoms then could we become alchemists?

(Sorry for my digression.)

christo4_99

btw...i am not actually disputing the speed of light per se but instead the density of the universe...saying that the reaction of dark matter which is moving faster than light with electrons is creating light wherein the massless becomes massive...and also saying that the universe is expanding from all points simultaneously like a standing wave that only reacts to diffuse disturbances like high energy collisions...

christo4_99

implosion and standing waves are the most fascinating phenomena in the universe as far as I'm concerned,and they don't rely on "magic" to function...standing waves are two sides of the same coin...implosion is simply moving something faster than the environment can react and the environment abiding to itself...if you have a spherical implosion it creates it's own spherical standing wave...kinda cool to think of....I'll even go so far as to say that the Bedini and Bearden inventions are devices that cause electrical implosions(causing negative pressure(defecate) then switching off the "classical" pathway for the circuit to restore itself)

christo4_99

on:light from a moving source has the same velocity as light from a stationary source.the reason for this is simple but not what Einstein thought.if you accelerate matter against resistance to it's terminal velocity(that is the velocity at which resistance = impetus + inertia) it is then moving as fast as it can adding more accelerated mass to it will not increase it's speed because at this point the energy and the mass are equal...in other words the two masses are subject to the same laws...before terminal velocity it is possible to add the two vectors together to form one total speed up to the point of unification of mass but not beyond it...adding light to light or light to speed does not increase speed because light has reached it's terminal velocity...it is like using the greatest force possible to accelerate matter and then expecting the same force added coherently to result in even more speed...and to elaborate for this thread in general:if there is not any resistance on the light(if space is empty) then light would succumb to vectored forces of inertia and impetus...as far as the comparison is concerned: light is like matter that has reached it's terminal velocity and adding more matter at terminal velocity has no affect...adding more light at it's innate terminal velocity has no affect...in other words force is limited but potential is unlimited...if you remove the restraints (resistance,attraction,diffusion) then the light would continue to accelerate

christo4_99

nature found a way to trap a reaction of implosion and a standing wave that doesn't lose any energy