Cookies-law

Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

Poplamp

poplamp

CCTool

CCTool

LEDTVforSale

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

OverUnity Book

overunity principles book

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

movieclipsfree

movie clips free

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 81766
  • *Latest: hartz

  • *Total Posts: 486656
  • *Total Topics: 14314
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 205
  • *Total: 207

Facebook

Author Topic: Another half baked idea.... or is it?  (Read 15240 times)

Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« on: July 22, 2007, 03:45:04 AM »
Hi all,

I am new around here so I thought it would be better to drop my little bit of conjecture into half baked ideas. Then if peeps think it is a load of bull, I guess it is in the right place  ;D

Why is over unity not really over unity?

I guess by now, everybody knows there are grand unification theories all over the place virtually bursting the net at the seems. Some plausible and some just so crazy your have to wonder what they are smoking.

So why should what I have to say be any different to those ideas.

1. This is conjecture, not a theory
2. This is only and increment of measurement. (not a set definition for the structure of the universe)
3. This does not require you to re-write current accepted laws of physics.

A GUT that allows over unity and does not re-write the laws of physics?

Has this grabbed your attention.......? if not then I guess this will be a bit of dull read for you, maybe I can suggest some funny videos over on www.youtube.com to pass your time whilst the non single cell amoebas  have a read of this post. I am sure they will let you know when they are finished :)

Only joking, but seriously, don't feel compelled to read this just to dis the contents as you will find it is not quite so easy to attack as you may think. (Not that it this adds the slightest shred of validity to it, but I have been trying for over 25 years to disprove it, with no luck, it's a tough little nut to crack, the reasons will become apparent as you read on).

Zero point, Physics stumbling point.

As a young child at school I first heard about this issue of how finite physics just gets thrown out of the window when we reach zero point. The analogy that the teacher presented to our class of 8 year old's was;

"How do you have a physical object less than zero, and how would you measure such a thing"?


The fellow students piped up with the usual answers, which where easily pronounced as being wrong by the teachers counter arguments.

Just sort of daydreaming I flicked through the math's text book and came across the simple image describing scale. Basically it was tree, a man and I believe it was a dog. With a line going from the top of the tree, to the man, the dog and so on to the ground.

Not quite sure why, but I reached for my pencil and my ruler and started to draw a line vertically, Half between the tree and the man, and the same between the man and the dog.

Then out of the blue I blurted out, what if zero, was only our zero?  (meaning in terms I know use, what if this was only a relative zero point and not absolute zero?).

The teacher look at me very oddly.

Realising I had just said that aloud. I paused for few seconds and said it again. Louder this time.

"what if zero, was only our zero?"

The teacher asked me to explain......

So a thought for few more seconds and looked at what I had drawn. Then said.

"What if the zero point, is only a horizon"?

"Only one of many such scale horizons"?

"If you numbered each scale region from horizon to horizon (scale universe to scale universe) to the largest number possible","You could use all measurements in each scale in the same way as you do now".

I then held up the picture (forgetting in that moment that I had just defaced one of the school text books).

The teacher was not annoyed about this, but instead the colour just drained from her face.

It was at that moment that I realised I had discovered something rather unusual, being a child I did not realise just how much this simple discovery would shape my entire life and my understanding of our universe.




Time Density and Mass (TDM)


No that is not a contradiction in terms, Time density is rather different than the relative term of mass. For the sake of explanation I will describe few term which I have had to create for TDM since nothing existed that I was aware of at the time to describe these things.

Pseudo Superlimunal = This refers to the theoretical velocity when comparing two or more scale universes as an external observer.

Subluminal= This is an existing term referring to a relative velocity which is less than that of light in vacuum.

TDS= Time density signature, this is the specific scale, density and or resonant frequency of an object if you where to take every possible type of matter/energy and line it up from infinitely small to infinitely large. In reality doing so would actually be an absolute void (Absolute zero point) but that a bit steep of learning curve for the moment so I will leave that to the side.

EVF= Electromagnetic Vortexial Form, this is 3 dimensional electromagnetic energy, the importance measuring the other dimension rather than just a wave form will become apparent.

Fawcett and drain principle= (For the British readers, please excuse the Americanism,  I know lot of peeps from Stateside of the pond and this saves a lot of time explaining what a tap and plug hole is) This is a very important principle of each finite universes structure, without it the universe as we know it would be a closed loop (well actually it is a closed loop, but again that is a bit of a steep learning curve for this stage in the explanation)

TDM States:

Question: What are TDM states?


Answer:
Quite simply they are nothing more than an increment of scale related measurement based upon the definition of our finite universe. A glorified tape measure if you prefer that term.

Our current relative finite universe in this theoritical mathematical structure is defined as TDM state 0 , this spans from the smallest definable measurable unit of energy (highest relative density)  to the maximum possible physical state where light can no longer propagate in this finite universe (lowest relative finite density).

Question: How many TDM states are there?

Answer: Infinite possible scale versions of the finite universe. (TDM states).

Question: How are they arranged?

Answer: Have you ever seen a Russian doll? (see picture) where you open it up to find one just alike but smaller inside it, then open that one to find another even smaller and so on?  Well in the same way each TDM state exists at the relative zero point (horizon) of one and the absolute lowest density of another. (inside each other)
 
(http://giftaroo.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000002/RD105_lg.jpg)


As and example of just 15 TDM states:   

TDM-7, TDM-6, TDM-5, TDM-4, TDM-3, TDM-2, TDM-1, TDM-0, TDM1, TDM2, TDM3, TDM4, TDM5, TDM6, TDM7

Relative absolute velocities in each scale (TDM state) and the pseudo superluminal velocities when compared with the original TDM state zero by an external range of observation to that of the finite universes.

Increasing density TDM states

TDM state      Relative velocity    Pseudo Superluminal velocity

    0               0 to C                     0 to  C

    1               0 to C                     C to 2C

    2               0 to C                     2C to 3C                                   

    3               0 to C                     3C to 4C

    4               0 to C                     4C to 5C

    5               0 to C                     5C to 6C

    6               0 to C                     6C to 7C

    7               0 to C                     7C to 8C

Decreasing density TDM states

TDM state      Relative velocity    Pseudo Superluminal velocity

    0               0 to C                     C to 0

    -1             0 to C                      0 to -C

    -2             0 to C                     -C to -2C                                   

    -3             0 to C                     -2C to -3C

    -4             0 to C                     -3C to -4C

    -5             0 to C                     -4C to -5C

    -6             0 to C                     -5C to -6C

    -7             0 to C                     -6C to -7C

As you can see each in each finite universe in its relative scale the given object is actually subluminal (less than light velocity) when compared to matter/energy that is of a similar scale, yet when compared with other non relative scales of interaction it has a pseudo superluminal velocity (Faster than light) velocity. In this way TDM can both conform to classical physics in each relative scale and also allow for easy interpretation of FTL velocities without defying the laws of physics.

 

As one common argument still exists in TDM, ?nothing can exceed light velocity?, As to do so would cause it to be subluminal in another TDM state. (I.E the resistance acting upon it causes compression that increases its Time density signature (resonant/oscillation frequency) to that of objects in another scale range of observation and interaction).

 
So for an example if a unit of force was the energy required to compress an object to such high density that on our relative scale range it was zero.

What would happen if you applied 6.5 units of energy per volume of compression force upon that object?

I am sure you can work out the classical physics terms of how this is impossible, most people in that frequent this forum will very familiar with that conundrum and that would take more energy than exists in our universe, in classical physics on its own you would be correct, but you are still left wondering where did all that theoretical energy go as it would be 5.5* greater than the energy needed to destroy the universe.

In TDM I can say its is interacting 0.5 along the curvature of space time in TDM state 5 and travelling at subluminal velocity of 0.5C. but when compare to its original TDM state zero its has a superluminal velocity of 5.5C

If you want to know, I can show you how you plot that?

Also that if you scale that state back up to our own Universe you can work out the exit co-ordinates in our finite universe. Yes I am talking about plotting the so called folding of space time ;-)

By now you are scratching your head? thinking I am a crackpot or your jaw has just hit the floor. If you really do not want to know about this then just put this down to few minutes of wasted time and read on in the forums.

If you Want to hear more...

Want to know how to quantify gravity? why energy is 3 dimensional and the importance of the electromagnetic vortexialform? And many, many other answers?  Or is that yet more fodder for questions?   

That is the down side of leaning more, you will realise that in the scale of things that really what we know is like a tear drop in an ocean that is our infinite universe....


OK, So I can't go cutting off this post in midstream, without giving you all a taster which could be very interesting to the guys around here.

A little question and a TDM answer that may catch your full attention.
 

If I am travelling along in my car at night time at 100 miles an hour and switch my headlights on, would the photons be travelling at C + 100 mph?

 

Well we all know the classical physics interpretation about how fast light propagates and the various conflicts in mass between SR/GR and QM that this simple question creates as well as the silly philosophical answer that current classical physics returns. Philosophy and physics never do mix well.

But what if I said the photons that the observer of those headlights sees are not the photons emitted by the lights. Would you think I was crazy?

Ok so you probably already think that... so I will pose another question to help explain.

Question: What happens when you gently drop a large heavy stone into a bucket of water that is full to the brim?

Answer: in normal circumstances the water overflows!
 

Remember that?..
 

Now if we treated the photons as being a matter state (since energy and matter and interchangeable), what would happen to particle passing through other objects?

Resistance?

Compression?

Now if I said these particles where compressed proportionate to the resistance and there increased velocity by the vehicle. You may begin to understand. There physical structure becomes too dense to interact with other matter in the current relative scale range (TDM state 0) they cannot physically collide with anything on this scale, However they now interact with matter of a similar scale range in the next higher Density TDM state 1 (as very low density subluminal matter). In doing so TDM state 1 has gained matter, to compensate it expands. Whilst this has been occurring the car and the observer in the original TDM state 0 have followed the normal curvature of space time and increased their density proportion to volume and resistance. So they are now of a scale range that can interact with the lower density particles of the previous TDM state 1 which are being displace, Which in turn are now extremely high density particles on the original TDM state 0. This displaced matter is the photons that the observer see?s coming from the headlights of the car approaching at 100 mph.

 
Now if something was between the lights of the car and the observer to act as a moderator ( An object to cause rapid compression of the photons through several TDM states) how much energy would be returned? oops not supposed to be explaining the time density shift of ZPE yet ;)

I will give you clue, if you use a specific density moderator between your field coils, how powerful do you think your TPU experiments will get?

Study a combination of Faraday ZPE work and that of Dr.Gunter Nimtz's Quantum Electron Tunnelling experiments and you may begin to understand how this moderator alters the TDS more rapidly.

You may also realise that the above actually explains the scattering effect of photons observed in photon slit experiments.

You can read more about TDM here. it is old stuff, http://www.crownedanarchist.com/timedensitymass.htm quite a few typos, it was an email interview I did a few years ago, btw it is seriously long... don't say I didn't warn you.

Should you want to know more. then feel free to post questions, well that's unless the moderators around here don't wan't TDM on the site. If that is the case then feel free to ask me questions in the chat about anything section on http://www.r-force.org , it's one of my sites so the topic can't get booted.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 04:13:48 AM by 13thHouR »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline joe dirt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2007, 05:28:01 AM »
Hello 13th

(love that avatar  ;) )  Welcome to the forum, no such thing as an odd theory here,
  Who can say they know it all, only the megalomaniac ;D ...

I,ll look over the conclusions you come up with, it fits in nicely with a few others I,ve
  been reading through.  Appreciate!

No I Don,t have a mullet
Joe Dirt


Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2007, 04:21:40 PM »
Hi, many thx for the welcome.

I know it all, I'm a megalomaniac!   ;D

Only kidding, actually I am glad I don't know everything, life would be seriously boring.

TDM is more of tool for interpretation, although I offer alternatives to seed ideas that is not the end of it.

Like the a tool maker creates an artist brushes, it is not the toolmaker that creates the masterpieces that those brushes in the right hands can make.

I am just the tool maker.


Of the few ideas I do seed in TDM, it does show some interesting alternatives of explanation that literally makes terms like over unity obsolete. Although in any single Finite scale universe (TDM state) the basic laws of thermodynamics still exist. By removing the blinkers that limits our range of obervation TDM if only in a theoretical model gives us an interpretation of the whole picture instead of just a tiny part of it as we currently see.


(http://cubemedia.gamespy.com/cube/image/article/641/641969/sonic-gems-collection-20050815041904944.jpg)

Look at this picture of rather well known game. Most people would assume they see all the picture.

Now look away and say everything you just seen!

Did you notice that you did not take as much on board as you thought you did.

Now if I say look at Sonic.  Then look at the robot.  Have you noticed how although there is other information in the picture, that is just becomes superfluous background content. 

Now try and concentrate on everything in the picture at the same time.

Even in picture as small as this, it is not so easy to do.

Modern Physics is somewhat like this, it takes just one thing that we can concentrate on and know about and ignores the rest.

However unlike you as the observer of this picture. Currently we can't step outside of the finite universe and, Point to it and say  "Look.........there is more"!

So how do we solve this?

TDM's approach is to take a single item, like sonic in that picture, to concentrate only on that and scale it up and down. So that it can be a picture composed of varying scales of sonic, to create a simulated facsimile of the universe that is very close to the overall picture.

For those familiar with the term fractals, TDM is scale related fractal universe.

Another way of explaining current physics way of looking at things.

Take a box room. Drill a hole in the wall, now start a ball bouncing around that room and from your limited view point looking through the hole in the wall, observe where the ball appears and disappears from your line of site.

Add several balls and as the observer looking only through that tiny hole in the wall, their paths will make no sense to you as you cannot know what is occurring in the rest of the room.

TDM changes your range of observation to that of the whole room, so that you can see the balls are not just appearing from no where, you are not actually gaining something from nothing. Its just balls bouncing around the room. However if you stick with the single finite range that is the observer looking through the hole in the wall, and drop another ball into the room via that hole, should it collide with one of the existing bouncing balls.  Outside your range of observation (elsewhere in the room) you will suddenly see it come shooting past a much higher velocity in the range you can see.

So to you as the observer looking through the whole in the wall, this simple bouncing ball has just achieved over unity.
 
So is Over unity energy from nothing?

Well as I have explained it really depends upon how you look at it, we exist and interact in the finite universe that is the observer looking through the whole in the wall. So to us, the answer would be yes.

However as the theoretical external observer who can see beyond the zero point of our scale range of observation (each horizon), it is still the same simple laws of physics in respect of interaction of objects.

TDM is an increment of measurement that allows us to give theoretical physical values to less than zero. To treat such scales in relative terms. Yet unlike so called magic numbers, quantum wave packets etc, TDM is fully reversible back to our scale.

This reversibility from the theoretical to the physical is what makes the TDM approach so unique. However I strongly believe Nikola Tesla used a similar process in his experiments. As he had too much precision in what he did for it to be pure trial and error.

Some of you will be already familiar with the Einstein-Rosen Bridge http://www.krioma.net/articles/Bridge%20Theory/Einstein%20Rosen%20Bridge.htm or the The Multiverses of Dr David Deutsch. http://www.qubit.org/people/david/ so TDM will not sound that odd too you.

Take the latter and add scale, density and numeric values to the infinite multiverses and you will be part of the way to understanding TDM. However Unlike Dr David Deutsch work, TDM does not violate the laws physics in any way.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 04:37:57 AM by 13thHouR »

Offline BEP

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 1322
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2007, 05:14:05 AM »
Excellent read!

Yes, everything is relative to the observer and yes, there is no such thing as overunity - to few. When so called OU happens - the observer, not able to think beyond the horizon, will consider it overunity.

The danger is when someone shoots too many balls through that little hole and too many shoot back.

Thanx


Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2007, 07:31:52 AM »
I guess you understand about the cascade of the house of cards effect then  ;)

So you may be able to understand why I have been sitting on this for few years. Waiting for others to voice their opinions  enough so that it does not stand out too much from the crowd.

A knife is a useful tool as well, but in the hands of the wrong person it can kill.


As you may have guessed I am not seeking fame and fortune, as long as I have enough to get by I am happy, this is more about giving others the usable tools to let them at least think outside the box.

Then who knows what they can create  ;)

The one thing to remember in this area of physics, no matter what you are taught, there is no right or wrong, just the plausible and seemingly less plausible. If I said the universe was compose of big pink fluffy bunnies you would say I was mad, as that is less plausible. Yet in the nature of an infinite space time continuum, logic states that somewhere that has to be the correct interpretation. Now if it was scale density related  bunnies, you would have TDM  (yep it works with any definable object  ;D )




Great oaks from little acorns grow......
« Last Edit: July 23, 2007, 07:52:17 AM by 13thHouR »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2007, 07:31:52 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2267
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2007, 07:12:24 PM »

I will give you clue, if you use a specific density moderator between your field coils, how powerful do you think your TPU experiments will get?


Quartz?  or something that changes state? - just guessing...

EDIT: Maybe a rotating magnetic field would change specific density.

Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2007, 10:10:12 PM »
Quartz is a possibility however it generates its own resonant frequency when electrons are discharged across it. Quartz is more suited to being the emitter than the moderator. although at specific frequencies Quartz does make a good magnetic gate (blocking the normal ion field).

Moderators in most applications tend to be silicon, carbon, in the case of thermal/fission reactions then graphite is used.

I am in the process of creating some graphics that will explain the EVF which will make this easier to understand.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2007, 10:10:12 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2267
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2007, 11:01:47 PM »
Silicon or carbon - why not water?

-------------------------

It is well-known in UFO circles that "quartz has it's uses" and that space and everything in it can be expanded or shrunk.

An Earthy example of this is the "Oregon Vortex" site where one can see this shrinking first hand.  Then there are the pictures in the books by UFO abducties of little Greys in the palm of the hand.

-------------------------

Universe is 12 dimensions, by the way - no more, no less.  At least this is what "they" explained to Wilbert Smith.  They is whoever he was talking to with his "Smith" coil.


Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2007, 01:59:34 AM »
H20 has a higher proportion electrostatic rather than covalent bond, cool if you want oxygen and hydrogen  separation, but as moderator it absorbs too much of the signal energy. That plus I think you would rather that it stay as protium. With the micro black holes that are being created, it will progress through deuterium,tritium, quadium, pentium, Hexium, Septium, Muonium etc.

You are trying to create over unity not a hydrogen fusion bomb. :o


I try not to get into the whole UFO thing, Well that is an issue for elsewhere.

Warning RANT MODE ON!   ;D ;D ;D

On another note you can interpret the universe in as many dimensions as you choose, but there is one little problem, when you go to just 4 you are predicting infinite scale relate dimensions of the previous 3. So in finite terms there are 3, in pseudo observer terms there are 4.

If you count the inverse as Einstein did then there are 7. You really do not need more than this as this spans infinity.

I do not laugh at other peoples interpretations, but I do laugh at their justifications for this.

A little explanation.

3 = Finite universe.

4th is pseudo observer interpretation, out side looking at multiple scale version of the finite 3 dimensions.

7=  3 finite, 1 time, -3 finite  dimensions,  which represents both the finite and negative finite possibilities linked by a pseudo dimension of time. Einstein, knew about the opposite arrow of time long before Hawking did, then again Hawking and I never did see eye to eye. OK the guy did wonders to bring science to the average person, but he never earned the Lucasion Professor of Mathematics title. As everything he published was done elsewhere before. At least the likes of Sir Isaac Newton did the ground work to earn that title.

btw that little interview that Prof. Stephen Hawking gave few years ago at the White House along with President Clinton, I was the student who asked him a question about the pea instanton that he could not answer. surprising what you can do with cloned IP address and an anonymous proxy  ;) 

Oh well if he was going to steal the idea, he could have at least pointed out that it was only the smallest definable object in our finite universe and that there are infinite possible smaller or larger versions. Then he would have been welcome to claim it as his own, but he chose to quote it wrong, so in my book that made him an open target.

Getting back onto the topic of dimensions, I use the old adage,

"if it works, don't fix it".
 
Peeps tend to only create extra dimensions to allow for their ideas to work, it does not mean they are wrong, but if you have to re-write physics to make your idea work you are kind of on an up hill struggle.

You should see the crap I have had said to me over the years, and TDM does not re-write any of the laws of physics.

It still makes me laugh that so many people concentrate on Superstring Theory, although in reality it has no practical usage outside the study of complex wave form interaction. This is yet another bit of mathematical conjecture that requires you to have capped multiple dimensions, I wish somebody would point out to them once they exceed 3 that it amount goes infinite.  ;D

Actually I did, and the wife of one of the top researchers in the field booted me out of the superstring theory forums 

I guess she did not like the blatantly obvious being pointed out. ;D ;D ;D

Anyway this is not my sounding board of the silly arguments in the physics community. I leave them to their little mathematical brainteasers in string theory and patting each other on the back for a pointless job well done. Personally I get on with the practical work in the ultra high energy field and create tools which other people can use. Not some stupid thing that ends up in some MENSA book of puzzles or fanboy science journals.

Rant mode off

Ah, that feels better  :D :D :D

Now the rant is over, his interpretation may be a bit bogus, but the smith coil is genuinely very efficient.

btw Rotating magnetic fields are EMP carrier waves, more suited to (to use a SC-Fi analogy) crude Star trek type sub space transmissions. Rotate them in 3 dimensions through their horizontal/vertical axis and you get into the GEMP area that I defined elsewhere in these forums. As this sets up a multi scale mobius type path of any given point on that spinning object. A 3 dimensional Gyroscope in simpler terms. It becomes super heavy in all directions. 

An interesting coincidence,  H.G.Wells had a model of such a device on his desk when he wrote "The Time Machine".

 
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 03:15:31 AM by 13thHouR »

Offline Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2267
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2007, 03:10:14 AM »
Not saying anyone is right or wrong. (Spoke it too definitively.)

12 "parameters" - Chapter IV "The Field Fabric" - Wilbert Smith.  http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm

Dave Lowarance has done a lot of work showing that Smith was correct about many things and has advanced some of the ideas that Smith didn't get to (died of cancer). 
Dave's site is: http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/index.htm
Dave's latest experiments: http://magnetism.otc.co.nz/FieldDensity.htm   (Hmm field density)

Heim Theory also uses 12: http://www.americanantigravity.com/documents/Seculine-Heim-HQT-Brief-Rev-A.pdf

(Dr?scher extended Heim's orignial 6 dimensions.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory

UFO and alien stuff should not be cast aside any more than Hawking lectures.  Varo edition of "The Case for UFO's" has some interesting comments on the universe and fields that are in-line with current ideas even though those comments were made decades ago. 

Take everything with a grain of salt.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2007, 03:10:14 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2007, 03:29:40 AM »
Don't get me wrong about UFO's, heck I lived in UFO central during the 1980's (Berkshire England), it was as normal to me as seeing the sun come up in the morning.

As I said I am not saying Smith was wrong, everybody is entitled you use their own understanding to explain things.

However I deal in practicalities, his ideas although very well thought out, are not reversible, reversibility is the downfall of these theories or conjecture. If you can't reverse it, then the data involved is as meaningless as Hawking's Magic numbers.

Hawking's lectures, hmmmmmmmmm ok for the masses and the fanboy's , no disrespect intended, but to quote relativistic mass when finite classical physics uses invariant and covariant mass is just down right irresponsible.

As an example Not one of Hawking's (how shall I say?....... borrowed equations) used relativistic mass. Yet he dares to create conjecture about ultra high energy states, which are not invariant or covariant they are firmly in Einstein's absolutes of Relativistic Mass.

If you use TDM. then you can use invariant and covariant mass in ultra high energy states, as TDM allows you to work with them as subluminal low/high energy states.

Quite simply a number of his lectures, I have only heard few as I could not bear to listen to any more than that, misleads the listeners into making fundamental mistakes in cosmology.

As I said this is not the place for me to get into rant's about fellow scientists morals. We have more important business to tend to.

I give Hawking the credit he is due, but I also have no respect for what else he does. This guy cost me over ?1,000,000 pay out for the injuries I sustained in a serious RTA 10 years ago. For that I will not forgive him as my children lost out because of it, but I do not let that alter my opinion of his scientific credentials, as I said I give him credit where it is due and serious take the mickey out of him when he deliberately misleads peeps.


I must stop pushing the sale of TDM and get on with writing it up for peeps here  ;D

Edit: Smith was remarkably close, not sure why he decided upon capping the dimensions? as this knocks down all his other work. I guess he was so determined to comply with classical physics that he forgot that a lot of his work was in an area that classical physics could only predict, not define.

If he had only given classical physics a way to define this, then he would have published TDM, not me. In a way it's sad to see independent thinkers not see their ideas come to fruition. For the ground work he put in on the rest of his ideas, he really does deserve a lot of respect.

I think as I produce the rest of the write ups you will see just how close he was to a working theoretical model.

Oops I sound a bit arrogant there, really I am not, I am thick as two short planks of wood, if i wasn't so stupid I would have just accepted it when they said it was impossible to define a physical object smaller than zero.  ;D
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 05:14:13 AM by 13thHouR »

Offline Grumpy

  • TPU-Elite
  • Hero Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 2267
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #11 on: July 24, 2007, 05:46:10 AM »
Quote
However I deal in practicalities, his ideas although very well thought out, are not reversible, reversibility is the downfall of these theories or conjecture.

Smith was educated in classical electrodynamics so his understanding of concepts in this area were limited to this basis.  The information that was given to him had to be explained in terms that he was familiar with or else it could not be transfered.   He was told that 12 was all that is required and that was it - period.  He was also told that "light just is" - when he inquired about it.  He did a great deal of experimentation as well.   He would have completed his work had he not died - as would Maxwell.  Sad how some great minds go before their time.

As for reversal, since when does time unwind?  Time is occuring in past, present, and future simultniously.  I would think it's very nature forbids it to be reversable. 

I am not a follower of Hawking's theories, but if he has the will to live, so be it.

Tesla had a theory as well, but it will never see the light of day.    Before his death, he spoke about and said that it was complete and scoffed at Einstein's mathematical contraption.  Tesla's impulses were irreversable as well.  I know that is defferent context - couldn't resist.

I get the impression you been able to verify your theory or portions of it through experiments?  (Sorry I saved your posts, but have not studied them all.)


EDIT: http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/smith2.htm

(Smith's letters.)
« Last Edit: July 24, 2007, 06:08:03 AM by Grumpy »


Offline 13thHouR

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 51
    • R-Force.org
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #12 on: July 24, 2007, 08:47:15 PM »
It is hard for somebody who is taught to think in certain way to break out of that mould, however in this case the mould is the domain of classical physics and the area he worked in steps firmly beyond classical physics limitations of the finite.

I understand his dilemma, to observe reactions that GR/SR predict yet not have anyway to explain them with real values that others can use. So he created a model which allowed him to work and log what is was observing.

The downfall as I explained before, unless this new range of observation can be simulated, reversible and not require a whole new understanding of physics from the ground level up.  It is a real up hill struggle to get peers to review the findings correctly. Most just close off on the first mention of extra dimensions.

Reversibility of time:

This is a fundamental requirement of existence. without it we have no finite or infinite universe as it is Newton's equal and opposite effect. (Yep even over unity is a Newtonian law, I know that sounds like a contradiction, but with a wider range of observation these are simple physical interactions).

This is going to screw with your head, the universe is contracting (compressing) so fast that we see the equal and opposite effect of it expanding. It's a bit easier to understand when you look at a rotating propeller on an aircraft, as it starts to spin, you see it spin in that direction, however as it gets faster your will observe it rotating the opposite direction.

OK this is an optical illusion, however at much higher velocities such as the relative velocity of light in a vacuum, you will not only get optical illusions in your subluminal state, you will also get physical illusions of the opposite occurring.

Basically most matter as it exists in our finite universe is subject to resistance. This resistance causes compression. Compression changes density, thus in turn changes the point in space time in which is can interact with matter of a similar density.  Rapid relativistic shifts in density are phenomenon known as Black holes, White holes, Worm holes. In non absolutes terms it is simple case of an object finding its stable point in another objects gravitational field.

On our time line, we become compressed (which appears to be expansion), however on the equal and opposite reverse time line decompression is occurring (which appears to be contraction). If you existed on either then in either way you would not know any difference as this becomes all you define everything by.

Basically a mobious line, a loop that to the observer on it, that travels in a straight line.

(http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/jpgs/P3L.jpg)
 
Much like the ants on that picture. they cannot see a beginning or an end, they see the same path that they travel endlessly, yet in doing so they walk on both sides on of a flat plane switching between forward and reverse time seamlessly.

We have had symbols of the mobius structure around us for thousand of years.

(http://fairwayflyerz.com/thebasket/images/Discraft/FC-MiniYinYang.jpg)

Yes, Yin and Yang is is a mobius loop, translate it back into 3 dimensions and that is what you end up with.

Another example of a rotating mobius loop

(http://www.palmyria.co.uk/illusions/geometry/mobius90solidanim.gif)


As for NT's work being reversible, he measured energy in Centimetres, a measurement of scale. Sound familiar?  ;)
Given that Gabriel Mouton based the metric/decimal system on the length of one minute of arc of a great circle of the Earth (now called a nautical mile, 1852 meters). He also proposed the swing-length of a pendulum with a frequency of one beat per second as the unit of length (about 25 cm). A pendulum beating with this length would have been fairly easy to produce, thus facilitating the widespread distribution of uniform standards.

It is understandable why NT decided to take the metric approach to measurement of energy/density. Although as you say those theories where lost.

Experimentation, now the first sign of crackpot is when they say open your eyes and look around you. The dilemma I have is that with TDM essentially being a GUT. That is exactly what you must do. As it has to be readily observable around you to be a so called Grand Unification Theory.

The unique things about TDM:

1. Do you have to prove a tape measure can measure?
2. Each unit of measurement is all that classical physics can define, so classical physics can't be used to disprove it. (That is the part that has driven me nuts over the years, as we can only create finite experiments, because when we carry out zero point experiments  using finite physical hardware, the reactions can be only measured in a our finite terms. Which is precisely what TDM allows classical physics to do) So the conundrum, how do you disprove it.

btw that is a basic mistake a lot of researchers make, you do build things to show functionality, but with theories/conjecture the object is to disprove it. If nobody can disprove it under peer review, then it becomes an accepted conjecture or theory.

Something is not automatically wrong until you disprove it, its just plausible or less plausible.

3. My whole approach to TDM is to use real world explanations rather than nothing but complex formula's which only a few elite can prove or disprove. I guess I do a Hawking, but in my case with Ultra High Energy physics field of study, I make it accessible to peeps who do not hold professorships in mathematics. I use simple analogies (where possible) or real world things that anybody can observe. Which negates the need for a lot of the experiments.

As an example of such a description

You are Standing on a beach looking out to the horizon on the sea. A Ship 100 nautical miles the other side of that horizon fires a shell.

To you that shell just appears at the horizon. up through then air then lands near you.

In physics terms that Horizon is the event horizon, or our zero point, physics cannot define the ship sitting the other side of it as it is too small for physics to define. So it cannot show where that shell appeared from.

TDM is no different than Gabriel Mouton's increments that we now call nautical miles, except that the increments are horizon to horizon (Event horizon to event horizon in finite universe terms)

Now an interesting twist on over unity. If you have big gun on that beach and fire beyond that horizon, and on the other side of the horizon is a fleet of ships that fire back at you. Is this over unity?

Believe it or not, apply that to the finite universe and the limitations of classical physics on it's own, it really is over unity.  ;D ;D ;D

I guess those doubters reading here, now see how silly the definitions of over unity really are.

However within that, do you need to set up an experiment to know that you can't see the naval frigates over the horizon? Maybe you understand now when I say about negating the need for a lot of the experiments. Unless what you are working on throws its data in the face of existing understanding you do not have to replicate what has already been studied and observed.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2007, 02:45:30 AM by 13thHouR »

Offline armagdn03

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2007, 06:01:15 PM »
 ;D
« Last Edit: February 25, 2008, 03:46:26 AM by armagdn03 »


Offline aiks

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2007, 01:34:22 PM »
... addition to the previous question: should that then enable us to "suck" all of the energy/substance from the the upper/lower level increments of world?
Is there a critical amount of mass/energy for a this one cell to be stable?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Another half baked idea.... or is it?
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2007, 01:34:22 PM »

 

Share this topic to your favourite Social and Bookmark site

Please SHARE this topic at: