Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) 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:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. 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

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83803
  • *Latest: Johnal

  • *Total Posts: 520254
  • *Total Topics: 15504
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 10
  • *Total: 11

Author Topic: The paradox of overunity  (Read 78200 times)

Offline Low-Q

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2838
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #135 on: May 12, 2011, 09:58:22 AM »
Just think, at those field strengths pulling virtual particles into reality and then becoming real particles, you would have all the infinite particles required to have infinite fuel.

also, getting back to the heat expansion of the universe, yes I believe you are correct.

but, both the infinite Universe and also the Big bang 'both' are supported by the C.M.B or cosmic back ground radiation theory, I just believe in the infinite Universe theory. recycle, recycle, recycle infinitely.

However I do believe the Universe is both infinite and expanding in all directions infinitely in infinite space. there are many reasons or factors that contribute to the expansion of the Universe. one being bound virtual particles, if a heavenly body has the required field strength to convert the virtual particle to a real particle. This is true Over-unity because the power source is making matter from the vacuum of space but you'll need a minimum of 1,016 Tesla to do it. the virtual particle has to be captured in this field strength so it can not pop back out of existence.

once the virtual particle is bound for a certain amount of time it will convert to a real particle and will stay in this existence.

see, Science and or Physics don't like to deal with infinity in math because it can not be proven, so they deal with a known number, what is known and not what they can not see or shall never see.

Jerry 8)
One thing that bugs me is the size of the universe. If it is infinitely big, can we then consider ourself as existing objects? All known matter would be litterally nothing, zero, compared to an infinite universe. So my second theory, is that the univers are not infinite - but very big. At least limited to any relative distance between the closest and the farthers objects. Background radiation is probably reflected energy from "invisible" gasses. Energy that comes from all stars in the universe. Because if we look at the emtiest space with the Hubble telescope, and we are able to see radiation, this would mean that there is an energy source coming from that direction. The question is whether this energy are coming directly from its origin, or if it is just reflections from the stars. The emty space are not that emty even if it appears to be. And do we really know all about the universe to conclude that the so called background radiation comes from the big bang? How can we measure the age of radiation?

Vidar

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #135 on: May 12, 2011, 09:58:22 AM »

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #136 on: May 12, 2011, 03:22:20 PM »
Interesting Jerry

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #137 on: May 12, 2011, 03:28:04 PM »
One of the problems about big bang theory (in its early stages) was that there should have been abundant light supporting the theory. However, it was soon realised that predicted (ostensibly absent) electromagnetic radiation was indeed there. If you turn on your TV set when it is not connected to cable, you may see static. About 1% of that static is residual electromagnetic radiation from the big bang. In other words we can actually see it. For more details look up BBC iplayer on www.bbc.co.uk. The program is called "Everything and Nothing". Fascinating.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #137 on: May 12, 2011, 03:28:04 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #138 on: May 12, 2011, 03:32:12 PM »
"first, there was no thing. then it exploded."

that pretty much sums up the lunacy of big bang THEORY... ::)

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #139 on: May 13, 2011, 12:53:44 AM »
"first, there was no thing. then it exploded."

that pretty much sums up the lunacy of big bang THEORY... ::)

We have been taught that "ex nihilo, nihil fit" (from nothing nothing comes).

I reasonably believe this to be an error of the most serious kind.

All things have opposites and cannot exist without them. In reality they are different (yet opposed) aspects of the same phenomena.

All particles in physics are now understood to have mirror opposites ("no-things" to match every "thing".

One cannot have stars without a void to hang them in. There would be no point of reference.

Accordingly I reasonably believe "ex nihilo, totem fit". From nothing, everything comes".

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #139 on: May 13, 2011, 12:53:44 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #140 on: May 13, 2011, 04:52:16 AM »
All things have opposites and cannot exist without them. In reality they are different (yet opposed) aspects of the same phenomena.
assumption.

All particles in physics are now understood to have mirror opposites ("no-things" to match every "thing".
particle theory is nothing more than that... a theory. and where is the higgs boson on which the whole house of cards (theory) rests? this monstrous, yet oh so elusive 'particle'.

One cannot have stars without a void to hang them in. There would be no point of reference.
what evidences do you have to support this?

Accordingly I reasonably believe "ex nihilo, totem fit". From nothing, everything comes".
what evidences do you have to support this?

Offline SchubertReijiMaigo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #141 on: May 13, 2011, 11:03:34 AM »
Beware with the Big Bang Theory, it's a Theory not a certitude, Creil effect can explain the Redshift of the stars, so no more expansion or very fast expansion...
PS: Creil effect is a Redshift of the light when she is travelling through some particule and giant cloud of gas in the univers...
The Big Bang Theory does not take into account the Creil Effect...

So it's possible that our conception of univers is in part false or entirely false !!!

And in a philosophic view, where does this matter/energy coming from ? From nothing ? So this an indirect proof you can create something out of nothing (which is prohibited by our current physics). It look like the biblical creation (the original explosion), for this, this is a red flag here...

So, I don't understand what I have missed here !?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #141 on: May 13, 2011, 11:03:34 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #142 on: May 13, 2011, 04:35:37 PM »
assumption.
particle theory is nothing more than that... a theory. and where is the higgs boson on which the whole house of cards (theory) rests? this monstrous, yet oh so elusive 'particle'.
what evidences do you have to support this?
what evidences do you have to support this?

I accept big bang theory and quantum theory are only theories, not facts.

But I stand by the assertion "ex nihilo totem fit" (from nothing everything comes).

If you take a contrary view, you can end up in hot water. If for example you argue that a super-cognate made the universe, this can be seen as representing a logical regression because if all things came from "something" we then have to explain not only the existence of the universe, but also how that something that made the universe came into being as well.

Any theory we may have about what caused the universe to spring into being, whether scientific or philosophical, is ultimately theoretical physics.

Logical regressions (postulating a causam interveniens) are still physics, but not very good physics.

Some physicists (the head of Fermilab and many at Cern) maintain that gravitons (theoretical particles thought to impart the force of gravity) exist in a parallel dimension. A dimension only capable of being observed at very high Tesla values (in high magnetic force fields). So I may well be wrong in saying ex nihilo nihil fit if in reality the nothingness I speak of is instead a parallel 'something' capable of observation only in high Tesla fields.

The whole history of human thought is a history of error. The probability I constitute the first exception is remote. 

When I said "One cannot have stars without a void to hang them in. There would be no point of reference" you justifiably responded:

"What evidence do you have to support this?"

I argue that stars cannot exist unless surrounded by space. I suggest space would not be capable of identification in the absence of stars. I hypothesize they are interdependent. That you cannot have one without the other.

If stars and only stars existed, or if empty space and only empty space existed, how would you know?

You cannot see white ink on white paper. Without a point of reference, without contrast, how would we know?

We know from Einstein that matter and energy are the same things in different forms (E=Mc2). The same stuff in different states. All useful machines are open systems that allow both matter and energy to transcend the system boundaries.

Stars must also have system boundaries. If they did not they would not be able to radiate electromagnetic energy (because everything surrounding them would be homogeneous mass and electromagnetic energy.

So there must be a contrast between any system and its environment (marked by the system boundary). If you remove the void of space from the periphery of a star, it ceases to be a star.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 05:39:48 PM by quantumtangles »

Offline allcanadian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1317
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #143 on: May 13, 2011, 07:01:54 PM »
@quantumtangles
Quote
But I stand by the assertion "ex nihilo totem fit" (from nothing everything comes).
I think part of the problem with this theory relates directly to the term "nothing", if there is nothing in empty space then why does some 30000 metric tons of extraterrestrial dust fall to Earth each year? If there is nothing out there in empty space then how can all of this dust be falling on not only the earth but every astronomical body?.

As well we could relate your statements here to the same line of thought-----
Quote
Stars must also have system boundaries. If they did not they would not be able to radiate electromagnetic energy (because everything surrounding them would be homogeneous mass and electromagnetic energy.
So there must be a contrast between any system and its environment (marked by the system boundary). If you remove the void of space from the periphery of a star, it ceases to be a star.


If all stars in our universe not unlike our own sun radiate energy throughout the EM spectrum and we know as a fact that this energy propogates outward in all directions then how can any supposedly empty space have nothing in it when we know it must be saturated with EM energy in transition from one place to another?. I find this very confusing because we know as a fact that at no place can there be "nothing" as it must be full of matter or EM energy in transition yet we still say there is "nothing" there.

As well concerning the known universe, we have been given absolutely no reason to believe that it began somewhere or that it must end somewhere and the fact that matter and energy must be conserved should be our first indication that our theories may be incomplete. As well the farther we look outward the more we see as such the facts we have tell us there is no end to how large things may be. The farther we look inward into matter the more we see thus the facts we have tell us there is no end to how small things can be.
I have a theory that follows the logic that despite the reality of what we know we must continually separate and classify things or create imaginary boundaries so that things make sense otherwise we might be overwhelmed by the facts we know. That is we have no conception of things that are infinitely small or large and things which seem to have no beginning or end, they are simply beyond our understanding however just because we do not fully understand something does not mean it isn't true.
As well from another perspective we could say there is no "something" nor is there "nothing" as our limited understanding of these things relates directly to the distribution of matter, that is the density in a given space. I can have a softball in my hand and everyone would agree there is something there however by simply expanding the volume a few thousand times everyone would agree there is nothing there, this does not change the facts only our perception of them because we believe matter is conserved.
As such I think the theories we have relate directly to the limited understanding we have at this time however as we understand more things I believe these theories may change.
Regards
AC

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #143 on: May 13, 2011, 07:01:54 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #144 on: May 13, 2011, 07:32:25 PM »
I accept big bang theory and quantum theory are only theories, not facts.
that's smart. ;)

But I stand by the assertion "ex nihilo totem fit" (from nothing everything comes).
at least you realize that is all it is... an assertion with no evidences to support it.

If you take a contrary view, you can end up in hot water. If for example you argue that a super-cognate made the universe, this can be seen as representing a logical regression because if all things came from "something" we then have to explain not only the existence of the universe, but also how that something that made the universe came into being as well.

Any theory we may have about what caused the universe to spring into being, whether scientific or philosophical, is ultimately theoretical physics.

Logical regressions (postulating a causam interveniens) are still physics, but not very good physics.

Some physicists (the head of Fermilab and many at Cern) maintain that gravitons (theoretical particles thought to impart the force of gravity) exist in a parallel dimension. A dimension only capable of being observed at very high Tesla values (in high magnetic force fields). So I may well be wrong in saying ex nihilo nihil fit if in reality the nothingness I speak of is instead a parallel 'something' capable of observation only in high Tesla fields.

The whole history of human thought is a history of error. The probability I constitute the first exception is remote.
yes, theory it is. and postulations are nothing more than that... postulations, not physics.

When I said "One cannot have stars without a void to hang them in. There would be no point of reference" you justifiably responded:

"What evidence do you have to support this?"

I argue that stars cannot exist unless surrounded by space. I suggest space would not be capable of identification in the absence of stars. I hypothesize they are interdependent. That you cannot have one without the other.

If stars and only stars existed, or if empty space and only empty space existed, how would you know?

You cannot see white ink on white paper. Without a point of reference, without contrast, how would we know?
now you are changing your tune... you said "VOID" and now you have altered it to "SPACE". these two term are NOT synonymous. and then you go on to modify "SPACE" into "EMPTY SPACE"... please, a little consistency. ;) you provided no evidences. just more assumption, speculation and conjecture. edit: so, i cannot see white ink on white paper... the ink is still there... and so is the paper. bad analogy.

We know from Einstein that matter and energy are the same things in different forms (E=Mc2). The same stuff in different states. All useful machines are open systems that allow both matter and energy to transcend the system boundaries.

Stars must also have system boundaries. If they did not they would not be able to radiate electromagnetic energy (because everything surrounding them would be homogeneous mass and electromagnetic energy.

So there must be a contrast between any system and its environment (marked by the system boundary). If you remove the void of space from the periphery of a star, it ceases to be a star.
i don't put much faith into einstein either. his claims are almost as extraordinary as the big bang. i understand what you are trying to say. to describe the behavior of anything, you must also describe the behavior of its environment. supposing 'i walk', and you want to describe the action of walking. you can't talk about my walking without also describing the floor, because if you don't describe the floor and the space in which i am moving, all you will be describing is somebody swinging his legs in 'empty' space. so as to describe my walking, you must describe the space in which you find me. you couldn't see me unless you could also see my 'background', what stands behind me.

    * Most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite.
          o The Apocrypha of Arrakis
« Last Edit: May 13, 2011, 07:57:58 PM by WilbyInebriated »

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #145 on: May 13, 2011, 09:47:03 PM »
Thank you for your fascinating post Allcanadian. I really enjoyed reading it.

I think you are right to point out that I lack the apparatus to understand limitlessness because I am a survival mechanism.

As a survival oriented animal, I am good at identifying medium sized things moving at medium speed. But am oblivious to the very large, the very small, the very fast and the very slow.

You may also have explained our inability properly to understand time.

Einstein once referred to time as being "that persistent delusion".

If as you say, we get overwhelmed by oceans of data and thus focus on small clusters of data, the same thing may happen if we try to understand time.

Time may be defined as the interval between events.

If it is correct to say there has only ever been one event which happened 13.7 billion years ago (eg the big bang or some other description of the event) it follows that it is still happening (the universe is still expanding) and that we are part of it rather than outside it (as we are inside the universe).

Accordingly, if only one event has ever occurred, a continuous and enormous event, we would necessarily fragment the grand event up into a superabundance of smaller events we are capable of understanding.

So human thought may be a form of ignorance, in that by focusing on only one aspect of the grand event at a  time, we necessarily exclude all other aspects of the event, and in so doing exclude more than we can ever include during our thought processes.

Thanks also to Wilbyinebriated for your comments. In response, I will say only this:

I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

Kind regards,


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #145 on: May 13, 2011, 09:47:03 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Gwandau

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 363
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #146 on: May 13, 2011, 10:40:50 PM »
Hi everybody,

The posts have reached a conciderable depth since touching the subject concerning "something" versus "nothing.

Great reading!

I would like to get your opinion about my following statement:

If regarding the concept "nothing" as an absolute concept, is it really possible for "nothing" to claim any volume?

I mean, if there was absolutely nothing between two particles, how could it even be any volume existing between the particles.

To me that would be a contradiction, since volume itself must consist of something just as real and existing as matter
in order to give it the properties called volume.

So the same instant there was nothing between two particles, the distance between the particles would cease to exist.

As far as I am concerned, "nothing" is just a word for a "something" that we can´t perceive.

Gwandau

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #147 on: May 14, 2011, 03:59:51 AM »
I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

Kind regards,

actually, i never asked you to explain it... i asked for evidences of your assertion (from nothing everything comes). you provided none. ;)

let me try another way... why have you started with the arbitrary assumption that it all began with nothing? why have you started with the arbitrary assumption that it had a beginning?

Offline quantumtangles

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #148 on: May 14, 2011, 06:29:27 AM »
I do not know what caused the first dense kernel of matter to exist. Applying occam's razor (using the simplest possible explanation) it always existed.

If we don't apply occam's razor, we end up hunting for what 'caused' the first particles to exist, and then what 'caused' the things that caused the things that caused the first particles to exist etc.

A never ending logical regression (as is all causality if one overlooks the fact there has only ever been one event which began 13.7 billion years ago and is still happening).

Logically the simplest explanation is best.

1. The simplest explanation is that matter and energy always existed.

2. For reasons unknown to me, in the first few moments of what became the universe, density and thus magnetic field strengths were enormous. Perhaps trillions of Tesla.

3. These unimaginably powerful magnetic fields may have converted 'no thing' or void into matter and energy. Which is to say magnetic forces may have drawn particles from other dimensions into existence. Both Cern and Fermilab are now investigating this possibility.

4. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The particles that came from 'no thing' (from another dimension) could be disappearing, perhaps going back from whence they came. That may be why the books don't balance.

It is interesting to speculate. More interesting than arguing (unless you have been paid in advance).

Offline fritznien

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
Re: The paradox of overunity
« Reply #149 on: May 14, 2011, 08:16:13 AM »

quantumtangles you should read up on big bang theory.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
give you a better idea of what it is and why.

 

OneLink