New theories about free energy systems => Theory of overunity and free energy => Topic started by: Low-Q on December 24, 2010, 03:32:05 PM

Post by: Low-Q on December 24, 2010, 03:32:05 PM

Hi, all.

Below I have quoted myself from a post in the "Mechanics" section. However, what conserns overunity is MORE energy out than in - which will face a fatal/impossible paradox. A selfrunning device should therfor not be overunity, but a device which harness the potential radiant energy in mass - by partially convert mass into work. Remember Einsteins E=mc^2. 1 gram mass have the potential to power 1500 average households with energy for one year. This may appear to be overunity, but the case is that we can convert mass into energy. This should be the next generation powersource. I have seen the recent Christmas-HHO video. If this is the real deal, this machine converts mass into energy, and not a device which give more energy than it takes. If that is true, and if all the exhaust (water) are recycled, it will take probably millions of years to convert 1 litre of water into energy for this machine.

Anyway, below is my thoughts about overunity, and why overunity are impossible.

Hi all,

I have been thinking of what would happen if we one day could realize overunity. I think this event will face a fatal paradox. The biggest problem is radiant feedback, and mass-feedback. Like travelling back in time, this event will also face the same fatal paradox.

The paradox can be explained in two ways.
1. The mad scientist paradox. The scientist successully travels 30 seconds back in time. In his pocket he have a gun. He decide to kill himself while looking at himself loading the gun 30 seconds earlier. How could he possibly be able to travel back in time if he was dead, and how could he possibly be dead if he was able to travel back in time?

2. Radiation will follow him back in time, and multiply - not only his mass will be multiplied, but the radiation which followed him too. This will create a feedback which will increase extremely fast, and finally destroy itself.

So, if we manage to create overunity, there must be added some mass or energy, from the future, and into the system that will increase forever. Mass and energy are the same thing, but in different forms, and would be possible to be supplied in only one way - By letting energy and mass travel back in time, so it can be added into the system again , and again, and again.

What happens if we could travel back in time? Another me, or duplicated mass of an object, will mean a double mass and energy of myself or the object. From where are I suppose to provide the mass to move myself back in time to face myself? If I do this one time, it will continue to happen until the universe are saturated with mass and energy.

Another question, from where do we provide the mass and energy to achieve overunity if we are not suppose to travel back in time? And what would happen if we manage to find it? The answer is quite obvious: It would require a feedback loop of energy and mass between presence and past. Inside this feedback loop, the energy and mass would multyply into the infinite, so it would in an instant destroy itself in a pretty ugly way.

So, in my opinion, the chase for overunity will last forever - no one will ever find it. However, mass itself contains almost limitless of energy if we manage to convert mass into radiant energy. Converting mass into radiant energy are probably the only way to achieve "overunity".

This is how I see it, but if you guys have any opinions, please post any comments here. How are we suppose to harness free energy in the most safe way?

Vidar
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 24, 2010, 09:46:14 PM
Um, what you are describing is a time travel paradox, not an overunity paradox and you took that paradox strait from that TV program on Discovery.  ;) I don't see why you think an overunity device would require power coming from the future. If a device is unable to use any kind of outside source to achieve overunity including through time and space then I guess it's still not technicially an overunity device. IMO I don't think a free energy device can exist if it isn't recieving power from somewhere whether it be from Earth's gravity, electromagnetic field, or aether. As for tapping energy from the future that's just silly. I guess I'm still new on the scene but I can tell the difference between abstract fantastical thinking and grounded theories. Can I have some of what you've been smoking? ;D
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: rama1 on December 25, 2010, 01:39:13 AM
Um, what you are describing is a time travel paradox, not an overunity paradox and you took that paradox strait from that TV program on Discovery.  ;) I don't see why you think an overunity device would require power coming from the future. If a device is unable to use any kind of outside source to achieve overunity including through time and space then I guess it's still not technicially an overunity device. IMO I don't think a free energy device can exist if it isn't recieving power from somewhere whether it be from Earth's gravity, electromagnetic field, or aether. As for tapping energy from the future that's just silly. I guess I'm still new on the scene but I can tell the difference between abstract fantastical thinking and grounded theories. Can I have some of what you've been smoking? ;D
??? why does everybody say there,s no such thing as over unity when a simple cog or gears produces over unity " the power to turn the wheel once with a cog & gears the wheel will turn more times with same amount of power. magnets can push & pull why not use that energy for good & the magnet wont need re-magnetising for around 4 hundred years in that time more power can be made then what it take to re charge the magnet full stop there,s no defying physics "the laws of physics need to be updated thats all
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 25, 2010, 05:48:23 AM
I didn't say that overunity wasn't possible but I guess that depends on what you define overunity as. So far I haven't seen an overunity device. I've seen "toys" that can maintain motion for an indefinite amount of time but they don't give off any extra power. That's the "over" in overunity.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Low-Q on December 25, 2010, 11:10:38 AM
It is from the program on Discovery I got the idea of how overunitity are not possible. Because an overunity device give more energy than it takes, there must occour a feedback some time. This feedback will destroy the device quite fast. I am seeing this overunity paradox in the same way as the time travel paradox, because they are doing exactly the same thing. Taking energy and mass, and travels back in time with it, in a time where that energy and mass already exists, and add it up. From where else are we suppose to get that extra energy?

Regarding the gears, the energy transmission are not overunity, even if one gear rotates faster than the other. The faster RPM are compensated with lower torque, so the total energy are conserved. No overunity at all.

Regarding the text file "2012", what are that suppose to mean? Dooms day? Give me a break ;D

Vidar
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Liberty on December 25, 2010, 03:26:59 PM
Overunity is commonly experienced nearly every day.  Most employees of companies are expected to produce more than they cost.  If they didn't, the company wouldn't be profitable...

Magnetism is produced on a constant basis.  It comes from an energy source that is constantly present.  The question is how do we tap into the energy it has, so that it is useful outside of it's natural system?

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Gwandau on December 26, 2010, 01:37:01 AM
Of course there is no such thing as over unity.

But we still may produce results which looks like over unity,
like a magnet motor that may run for hundreds of years,
or a HHO-system that makes us run cars on water.

But this is not over unity, it's just a somewhat more efficent way
than we've hitherto been capable of in harnessing matter and energy.

I recommend you all to read "Energy From The Vacum" by Tom Bearden.

It is all about our depth of understanding, and nothing about over unity.

Anyone explaining a water driven car as over unity just expresses his
lack of understanding in addition to a conformity with the orthodox scientific outlook.

So you are perfectly right as far as I am concerned, Vidar.

The name of this forum is of course just a nice teaser, a perfect artistic touch to a

Gwandau
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 26, 2010, 01:57:52 AM
Don't say "of course there is no such thing as overunity" since the truth is the opposite, that is, of course, there is overunity.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 26, 2010, 04:46:48 AM
I'm not sure why or how anyone can say that there is an overunity "device" already in existence. ??? If there was then they would have already won the overunity prize.

Overunity in the sense that is explained in the prize critirea is still technically not overunity. It's basically just a device that doesn't use conventional means; i.e. petro, wind, solar, etc, etc to create free energy or rather energy at low cost. This is definitely possible and has probably been achieved already but I'm afraid that either the inventors were silenced or they silenced themselves.

Now overunity in the sense defined by others means that the device creates more power than it uses but it doesn't use any outside power or material to continue working. That would be like having a ciruit that uses a 9v 1.5A battery to get things started but it's output is greater than 9V 1.5A. Or there is no battery involved and a simple crank or lever starts the machine and it outputs power without ever stopping. Machines or rather toys that spin indefinetly aren't an overunity device unless there is an actual output that can be used to do something else besides keeping the toy going.

IMO a gravity wheel is the most likely winner of the prize unless we can tap the power from the aether. I wouldn't call it an overunity device but rather a free energy device. I just won't argue the point because I'd like that prize money. ;)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: CTG Labs on December 26, 2010, 02:30:54 PM
Hi,

Surely power where cogs are concerned is the product of torque and rpm?  If cogs are used after a motor to lift a heavy weight then torque is increased but speed is decreased but the power output  as the product of the two remains the same.

Please could you explain what I missed and where the overunity is in a simple cog?

Regards,

Dave.

??? why does everybody say there,s no such thing as over unity when a simple cog or gears produces over unity " the power to turn the wheel once with a cog & gears the wheel will turn more times with same amount of power. magnets can push & pull why not use that energy for good & the magnet wont need re-magnetising for around 4 hundred years in that time more power can be made then what it take to re charge the magnet full stop there,s no defying physics "the laws of physics need to be updated thats all
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: turbo on December 26, 2010, 04:34:46 PM
Yes we are back and ready for 2011 !!!  :)

You are right dave low rpm high torqe vs high rpm low torque input stays the same.
There is no overunity in a coq.
And by the way a gearbox is actually grossly ineffecient.
Alot of energy gets lost due to friction.

M.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: osiris on December 26, 2010, 04:50:51 PM
I'm not sure why or how anyone can say that there is an overunity "device" already in existence. ??? If there was then they would have already won the overunity prize.

Overunity in the sense that is explained in the prize critirea is still technically not overunity. It's basically just a device that doesn't use conventional means; i.e. petro, wind, solar, etc, etc to create free energy or rather energy at low cost. This is definitely possible and has probably been achieved already but I'm afraid that either the inventors were silenced or they silenced themselves.

Now overunity in the sense defined by others means that the device creates more power than it uses but it doesn't use any outside power or material to continue working. That would be like having a ciruit that uses a 9v 1.5A battery to get things started but it's output is greater than 9V 1.5A. Or there is no battery involved and a simple crank or lever starts the machine and it outputs power without ever stopping. Machines or rather toys that spin indefinetly aren't an overunity device unless there is an actual output that can be used to do something else besides keeping the toy going.

IMO a gravity wheel is the most likely winner of the prize unless we can tap the power from the aether. I wouldn't call it an overunity device but rather a free energy device. I just won't argue the point because I'd like that prize money. ;)

after your post of nonsence ... i will garentee you will recieve no money !

:P

and you better the hell know what your talking about or ill eat you ! FRENCH FRY

osiris
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Gwandau on December 26, 2010, 05:06:49 PM
Don't say "of course there is no such thing as overunity" since the truth is the opposite, that is, of course, there is overunity.

Omnibus,

I think you misunderstand me, over unity as a description of more energy out than in
is from my point of view a misconception.

Still, there are true effects that actually gives us more energy than we seemingly are
putting into the system, like running a car on water, or a magnet motor.

But it just looks to us like there is more energy out than in, which is due to our present
inability to understand the true sources behind electromagnetism and other forces.

Everything has a source, and it is this source that the so called over unity comes from.

Over unity does not arrive from nowhere, which those two words imply.

But if you define over unity as something where we are getting more energy out than
the amount of measurable input, I of course agree.

But mankinds ability to masure the energy spectrum is extremely primitive and most
certainly only covers a very small fraction of it.

Hope you understand what I am trying to convey.

Gwandau
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 27, 2010, 05:25:37 AM
after your post of nonsence ... i will garentee you will recieve no money !

:P

and you better the hell know what your talking about or ill eat you ! FRENCH FRY

osiris

That's funny but directed in the wrong direction!!! Lucky for you that we will never meet. Besides I'm not really interested in making any money on this kind of project. You on the other hand only enjoy wasting people's time. We can either agree to disagree or you can continue to ramble on, I don't care. We'll see who's laughing in the end.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Low-Q on December 27, 2010, 02:01:16 PM
Don't say "of course there is no such thing as overunity" since the truth is the opposite, that is, of course, there is overunity.
This might be true, but then I would suggest to redefine the meaning of over unity, and how we understand the term. Like the railtrack my 3 year old son was playing with, he started to take track-pieces from the other end to extend the track, but was ofcourse very frustrated that the railtrack was impossible to complete due to lack of enough rails in his play-box. In this particular case, over unity would be to create the mass to make more rails out of nothing. Over unity, more energy/mass/stuff/whatever out than you put in? Impossible untill further notice ;)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo on December 27, 2010, 03:07:46 PM
The true question is, if a device tap into something unlimited like Aether, Time, Gravity, magnetism, whatever you want, can you we call this devices an "overunity device" ? A device can tap into an unlimited source forever, this device is not OU any well... the overunity is APPARENT !!!

A mathematical exemple of this: if divide Infinty/5 = Infinity, if my device can tap 1 KW in an Infinity source, the result is I have 1 KW * Infinity = Infinity KW (over an Infinity of time yet)...
I can also tap an Infinity of power for an Infinity of time the result is Infinity !!! (Infinity*Infinity = Infinity).
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 27, 2010, 04:14:26 PM
The true question is, if a device tap into something unlimited like Aether, Time, Gravity, magnetism, whatever you want, can you we call this devices an "overunity device" ? A device can tap into an unlimited source forever, this device is not OU any well... the overunity is APPARENT !!!

A mathematical exemple of this: if divide Infinty/5 = Infinity, if my device can tap 1 KW in an Infinity source, the result is I have 1 KW * Infinity = Infinity KW (over an Infinity of time yet)...
I can also tap an Infinity of power for an Infinity of time the result is Infinity !!! (Infinity*Infinity = Infinity).

Nevertheless, it's not an OU device.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Gwandau on December 27, 2010, 05:04:47 PM
Nevertheless, it's not an OU device.

Exactly!

Even if you could tap the vacuum infinitesmal, powering our whole planet
with a zero point energy power plant for ever , it's still not over unity.

It is just a very nice way of using the omnipresent energy around us.

Gwandau
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 27, 2010, 05:12:59 PM
Exactly!

Even if you could tap the vacuum infinitesmal, powering our whole planet
with a zero point energy power plant for ever , it's still not over unity.

It is just a very nice way of using the omnipresent energy around us.

Gwandau

And therefore is of no interest from scientific point of view.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 27, 2010, 08:23:12 PM
And therefore is of no interest from scientific point of view.
please present your credentials showing you to be the appointed voice for what is interesting to science... ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: spinn_MP on December 27, 2010, 09:18:26 PM
Lol...
Wilby, it seems that Omnibot is stepping on your nerves lately?
:P
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 27, 2010, 09:30:38 PM
Lol...
Wilby, it seems that Omnibot is stepping on your nerves lately?
:P
another off topic assumption from the spinner... imagine that. ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 27, 2010, 09:50:05 PM
Now, who the clowns are this time. Don't blame it on Omnibus.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: spinn_MP on December 27, 2010, 09:57:19 PM
another off topic assumption from the spinner... imagine that. ::)
Wilby, you are definitely starting to sound like a "broken record"...

Oh, you already knew that? Sorry.

(hurry up to google "broken record", and all the possible relations...)

So, on the funny farm, all is well?
Good to know.

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 28, 2010, 02:39:41 AM
It's great that most of us are in agreement on the proper definition of overunity but I still think that a free energy device that taps into an unlimited source of energy is still going to be an interest to science.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 28, 2010, 03:17:42 AM
It's great that most of us are in agreement on the proper definition of overunity but I still think that a free energy device that taps into an unlimited source of energy is still going to be an interest to science.

Such a device is trivial but will have practical application. Any device that taps into a known or unknown (to be discovered or unused so far) energy source is not an OU device.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 28, 2010, 04:04:46 AM
Such a device is trivial but will have practical application. Any device that taps into a known or unknown (to be discovered or unused so far) energy source is not an OU device.
you keep using this word 'trivial'... i do not think it means what you think it means.

from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivial
Quote
trivÂ·iÂ·al
Definition of TRIVIAL
1: commonplace, ordinary
2a : of little worth or importance <a trivial objection> <trivial problems>
b : relating to or being the mathematically simplest case; specifically : characterized by having all variables equal to

so are you meaning definition 1 and are saying that such a device is commonplace, ordinary? or are you meaning definition 2a and are saying such a device is of little worth or importance? or are you using an alternate definition?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 28, 2010, 04:19:03 AM
Both.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 28, 2010, 04:24:57 AM
Both.
tu stultus es. since this device ("a zero point power plant powering our whole planet") is commonplace, ordinary, why are they not being used everywhere?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 28, 2010, 04:42:09 AM
tu stultus es. since this device ("a zero point power plant powering our whole planet") is commonplace, ordinary, why are they not being used everywhere?

There is no such thing as zero point energy. This is a deficiency in quantum mechanics which should be fixed as well as a number of other deficiencies in that otherwise beautifully crafted mathematical system.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 28, 2010, 04:45:54 AM
Such a device is trivial but will have practical application. Any device that taps into a known or unknown (to be discovered or unused so far) energy source is not an OU device.

Okay, so finally having enough power to levitate off the ground and into space is still going to be trivial? Besides ending the use of fossil fuels and bringing power to areas of the planet that has none this is one of the logical uses of these untapped sources of energy. We would finally be able to afford to lift tons of equipment into space and colonize the entire solar system. If that's your idea of trivial then what in the hell do you want?

Let me make clear that I don't think there could be such a thing as an OU device within the true definition of the term. I believe that low cost or almost "free energy" devices will become more common in the future. The science behind most of these devices will still be of interest to science even if the methods used to create this energy becomes well known. We're always going to be trying to improve on designs like we have been doing with internal combustion engines. These devices may not be comparable to cold fusion but then again cold fusion may not be needed anymore if the proper device such as a gravity wheel is created.

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 28, 2010, 04:51:00 AM
I've explained it more than once -- OU in its true sense (producing energy without it coming from a pre-existing energy reservoir) is possible and is proven definitively. As to the technical developments you're mentioning, they are non-trivial in engineering sense but they are foreseeable. Anything foreseeable is trivial and doesn't constitute a step ahead in our understanding of nature which is the subject of the scientific exploration.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 28, 2010, 04:52:20 AM
There is no such thing as zero point energy. This is a deficiency in quantum mechanics which should be fixed as well as a number of other deficiencies in that otherwise beautifully crafted mathematical system.
then your comments are irrelevant as that is the device under discussion as per gwandau in reply 17 and ar-el-es in reply 24... ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 28, 2010, 05:31:19 AM
I've explained it more than once -- OU in its true sense (producing energy without it coming from a pre-existing energy reservoir) is possible and is proven definitively. As to the technical developments you're mentioning, they are non-trivial in engineering sense but they are foreseeable. Anything foreseeable is trivial and doesn't constitute a step ahead in our understanding of nature which is the subject of the scientific exploration.
Please explain or post a link to where the evidence for OU is and I'll change my mind.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 28, 2010, 05:33:17 AM
Please explain or post a link to where the evidence for OU is and I'll change my mind.

This I can only do at an official presentation, not here.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 28, 2010, 05:34:41 AM
then your comments are irrelevant as that is the device under discussion as per gwandau in reply 17 and ar-el-es in reply 24... ::)

That discussion is nothing else but a speculation. There isn't and there cannot exist a device utilizing zero point energy.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Low-Q on December 28, 2010, 03:10:37 PM
There is no such thing as zero point energy. This is a deficiency in quantum mechanics which should be fixed as well as a number of other deficiencies in that otherwise beautifully crafted mathematical system.
If I remember correct, zero point energy are understood as the lowest possible energy state - where there are absolutely no action in any atoms, no spinning electrons etc. Also absolute vacuum are described as a form of zero point energy. The "beauty" of zero point energy is the potential enormous energy difference up to non-zero point energy sources such as any matter in any temperature above the absolute zero K.

This is an example taken from Wikipedia (Which have some flaws sometimes):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 28, 2010, 03:30:11 PM
This I can only do at an official presentation, not here.
translation: you have called out omnibus so he must refuse since he cannot provide what is asked.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 28, 2010, 03:35:01 PM
That discussion is nothing else but a speculation. There isn't and there cannot exist a device utilizing zero point energy.
more delusions of grandeur from omni... look omni, we all (well, most of us) know that there is no way you could have such knowledge, and for you to tell us what cannot exist is simply evidence of your megalomania. the name omnibus doesn't make you omniscient no matter how many times you click your heels and say 'there's no place like home'... ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: skidmark on December 28, 2010, 03:35:41 PM
Just a dumb question. Within overunity devices there must be maintenance or otherwise they will wear out or lose their value. Every part or piece will return to nature one day. Is this maintenance counted as input energy?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Low-Q on December 28, 2010, 04:01:12 PM
I've explained it more than once -- OU in its true sense (producing energy without it coming from a pre-existing energy reservoir) is possible and is proven definitively. As to the technical developments you're mentioning, they are non-trivial in engineering sense but they are foreseeable. Anything foreseeable is trivial and doesn't constitute a step ahead in our understanding of nature which is the subject of the scientific exploration.
This is true, but are you really sure there hasn't been a miscalculation somwhere, some missing elements in the "equation" which will eventually prove that OU isn't possible after all?

I also did read the HHO thread, where you offered a member a link via PM to some text you have written about OU (If I remember correctly). Could you please provide those links, either here or via PM to me? I promise not to discuss the content. I'm just curious - as always.

Vidar
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 28, 2010, 07:54:19 PM
more delusions of grandeur from omni... look omni, we all (well, most of us) know that there is no way you could have such knowledge, and for you to tell us what cannot exist is simply evidence of your megalomania. the name omnibus doesn't make you omniscient no matter how many times you click your heels and say 'there's no place like home'... ::)

No, you don't know. You don't know the essence of what's being discussed let alone what my qualifications and knowledge are. You can't judge such things because you don't have the competence to do so. Yours is just blabber to pass the time.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 28, 2010, 07:55:54 PM
translation: you have called out omnibus so he must refuse since he cannot provide what is asked.

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Gwandau on December 28, 2010, 11:15:51 PM
Hey you guys, this is becoming a really agitated discussion. :D

The smell of hurt egos are bouncing all around the walls in this topic. ;)

As far as I am concerned, scientific discussions are far better off if one stays aloft of personal attachement.

There is no such thing as zero point energy. This is a deficiency in quantum mechanics which should be fixed as well as a number of other deficiencies in that otherwise beautifully crafted mathematical system.

Quantum mechanics is a somewhat misleading word, since this is still only a theory,
and although it is an appealing theory, it still struggles with a lot of contradictions

Repeatable empirical experiments on the other hand are undeniable proof.

The indisputable fact that Helium does not become solid at zero degrees Kelvin
does indeed prove the existence of Zero Point energy.

measurements of "persistent current," a small but perpetual electric current that
flows naturally through tiny rings of metal wire even without an external power
source, adding to the proof of a universal underlying energy field.

Then we have the so called Casimir Effect, also empirically verified.

These examples are all known and accepted by contemporaray science,
and the theoretical physicists backing up the Quantum theory are having
severe problems incorporating these proven findings into their theory.

Remember: Zero Point energy is empirically proven, Quantum mechanics is but a theory.

Gwandau
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 12:00:07 AM
Casimir effect is the straw they've been hanging onto ever since quantum mechanics came into being. Those trying to justify funding related to quantum mechanics are desperately seeking experimental confirmations and that's one of the few possible experiments to offer. Unfortunately, it is as problematic nowadays as it was at the beginning. We see here what problems even simple and ostensibly straightforward experiments are posing let alone such at the limits of our experimentation capabilities. Like I said, zero point energy is non-existent as a real phenomenon, no matter how certain groups are trying to puch it.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 29, 2010, 08:22:14 AM
Omnibus, putting all of the facts and theories aside there is an issue here that only digs you a hole everytime you try to prove a point. By continuing to refuse to back up your claims without any sort of evidence or reference material you only make it impossible for anyone to take you seriously. When I first came to this forum I thought you were a level-headed individual but now I feel you only preach because it gives you something to do. It's a form of entertainment for yourself similar to whatever IST gets out of his nonsense. I highly doubt that there is any kind or formal discussion, debate, of conference that you would actually show up at. Your excuse is just another tactic to delay the inevitable. I would rather not make an enemy out of you but unless I see you say something constructive what is your reason for wasting your time here?

Now back to the real issue here!

Overunity by it's clearest definition so far, (decided on by the people here I guess), is impossible. Slapping a bunch of resistors, diodes, capacitors, batteries, transistors, electromagents, wires, and whatever else anyone decides to use isn't going to make a device that can produce more power than it uses without tapping into a known or unknown power medium. Whatever law of physics it exploits will still make the device just the same by definition as another device that exploits another known law of physics such as gravity. Sure, there may other strange things that we can find out about physics but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to utilize what we have available. Until I start seeing these devices in use we should not focus on trying to create or contemplate other devices whose sole purpose seem to make you want to say "Hummph".

Even our own definitions on free energy and antigravity is confusing. With free energy there may always be a cost in it's construction and upkeep but as long as you aren't using something you you have to replace on a constant basis like fossil fuels it could be considered as free energy. Solar energy and wind turbine could also be considered as free energy if the devices were much cheaper to produce and much more efficient. With antigravity you could classify the common airplace wing as an antigravity device because it does work against gravity. It seems as if ourselves or the media has placed in our minds that a free energy device creates energy like an overunity device, (and doesn't cost a penny to maintain I guess), and that antigravity is something that generates the exact opposite of gravity, (whether that be anti-graviton or anti-mass particles).

My point here is that by using the definitions that some of the people here use; free energy and/or overunity is impossible. Hell, from what I can tell you can easily replace the word free energy with overunity but you would all probably complain because there is still upkeep associated even with an overunity device. So either way free energy is impossibe IF you go by that definition.

I'd still rather call a gravity wheel or TPU a free energy device because of it's source. The same goes for how I would still call a lifter or even an extremely poweful electromagnet an antigravity device if it still causes you to fly through the air.

The fact of the matter and part of the reason I brought anything up in this topic is because of this:

"If your device is more a mechanical or chemical ( e.g. rotational, electrolyis or cold fusion-type, etc. ) device,
you must build also into it the converter to get electrical DC power out of it, so it is producing at least a contineous
1 Watt of free electrical DC power without using any fuel other than water or air. Your device must not be
powered by an outside source, such as wind, solar or received radio energy and must work 24 hours / 7 days a week / 365 days per year long.
The output power must stay constant and must not fall down after some time.
It must only have a â€žfuelâ€œ or â€žmaintainance costâ€œ per year of less than
0.001 US\$ = 0.1 UScent PER GENERATED KILOWATTHOUR
including "fuel-", repair-" and maintainance costs.

3.It can be powered by radioactive decay, but the used materials must not be harmfull and must be easy
to get in every city and must not be special parts which are difficult to get or hard to produce and must
not be highly dangerously radioactive or unlawfull to posess.
It also must not use any very expensive or forbidden and/or banned
radioactive materials, which are hard to get for the average guy
and are dangerous to handle and pose a threat for the environment.

Also if it used water as the "fuel", it should not use more than 1 Liter
of normal tap water per day.

It also must not put out any dangerous pollution stuff and
must not be harmful to the environment."

Taken from:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.0

So until we can vote and decide on the proper meaning to these terms we will only waste a lot more time than we already have!!!
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 08:46:20 AM
Tell me why should I bother to explain the issues of OU to you? What will this contribute to the advancement of the field? You should know that I don't give a damn what someone with no clear credentials and leverage for impact to improve the sorry state of OU research thinks as to whether or not I'm level headed. Try to understand, someone comes out of the woodwork and demands explanation of something who knows how much he's capable of understanding. Even in the best instance, supposing he does understand, that's a partisan approach and is really mean when you think clearly about it. We're fighting here against tremendous odds and the least anyone involved in OU research needs is to be distracted by random individuals. Hope you understand there's nothing personal in what I'm saying. I am speaking as a matter of principle.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 09:22:55 AM
Now, on the issue here. I don't know know how to impress on you strong enough to rely also on standard scientific texts rather than just read what some people write here and thus form your opinion about OU. First thing that you should understand clearly is that science, thermodynamics in particular, does not take into account the energy spend to produce the engineitself  and its upkeep when carrying out the energy balance. So leave that part alone. Whether or not a machine is expensive to produce or it needs maintenance is not a matter of consideration when deciding that it is an OU machine.

Another point which I'd like to stress is that we can speak of overunity only when the work of the machine is not at the expense of an existing energy reservoir. Any machine depleting such pre-existing energy reservoir, no matter how large that reservoir is, is not an OU machine. Wind turbines are not OU machines, tidal generators, solar panels, batteries fueld by radioactive elements and so on are not either. One should not confuse the practicality of a machine, its improved efficiency or the fact that its energy production comes out to be free, for what an OU machine is.

That said, it should also be clear tht there are machines which are true OU machines, that is, producing energy which has not earlier been a part of a pre-existing energy reservoir. So far, such machines can only produce discrete amounts of excess energy (free energy, that is; energy produced without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir). These machines can have practical application but the society at large wants to see machines which produce excess energy continuously. Such machines, for instance, would be gravity machines. Gravity machines, when working such will be made, will be true OU machines (unlike solar, wind etc. machines, as I explained). So this is the main focus of our fight -- to ensure engineering conditions for such machines, which are possible to exist in principle, to find their concrete engineering expression of a working device.

I have explained the above more than once in various forms. Now, what part of it do you not understand?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Doctor No on December 29, 2010, 11:07:11 AM
I^m always astounded, how peoples in XXI century dumb are. Gravity and time was already good researched after I World War. It even don^t needs a complicated research and maths. Even most dumb anthaghonists of free energy have already say that forces exists and gravity is also nothing other as force. So what is really free energy? Free energy simply saying, are gravitons freed from they normal working positions. The only things to have free energy are: 1. knowledge that is possible to free gravitons 2. How to do it 3. What power they really posses. And thats all.   Or simpler: it is normal process which takes place without our knowledge- automatically. It propels us through the space and time.  This force which push us forward and is really born in our body intern and each other body too (try to withstand this force in accident f.e.:-().                                This is antigravity. A second force which brakes us in time and space is gravity. Isn^t true how simple it is?                                            In pre War Germany free gravitons were called tachyons or "Reine Kraft" -pure force.                                           Although all about gravity was than after I War invented and intended for civilian purposes to lift of country from misery to produce cheap electricity and heat, to cure peoples (Volk) cheap and speedy (schnell) and for new, no fuel burning transportation it had all changed after resolving first practical problems.  When after first experiments was known how powerfull tachyons are, all was hidden till time national socialism came to power.  It was purposed to give answer (Antwort geben) Frankreich, England, and the rest.                  This is already history.               Today only 3 parties have this power (alphabetically): Poland, Russia, US.                          Please imagine how will next war look soon, when a bomb of Hiroshima volume can 500 MT yield to give?:-)  Dr Adolf Nowak                                 National Socialists Polish Workers Party                                     www.nsppp.bloog.pl
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 08:20:34 PM
Now, on the issue here. I don't know know how to impress on you strong enough to rely also on standard scientific texts rather than just read what some people write here and thus form your opinion about OU. First thing that you should understand clearly is that science, thermodynamics in particular, does not take into account the energy spend to produce the engineitself  and its upkeep when carrying out the energy balance. So leave that part alone. Whether or not a machine is expensive to produce or it needs maintenance is not a matter of consideration when deciding that it is an OU machine.

Another point which I'd like to stress is that we can speak of overunity only when the work of the machine is not at the expense of an existing energy reservoir. Any machine depleting such pre-existing energy reservoir, no matter how large that reservoir is, is not an OU machine. Wind turbines are not OU machines, tidal generators, solar panels, batteries fueld by radioactive elements and so on are not either. One should not confuse the practicality of a machine, its improved efficiency or the fact that its energy production comes out to be free, for what an OU machine is.

That said, it should also be clear tht there are machines which are true OU machines, that is, producing energy which has not earlier been a part of a pre-existing energy reservoir. So far, such machines can only produce discrete amounts of excess energy (free energy, that is; energy produced without depleting a pre-existing energy reservoir). These machines can have practical application but the society at large wants to see machines which produce excess energy continuously. Such machines, for instance, would be gravity machines. Gravity machines, when working such will be made, will be true OU machines (unlike solar, wind etc. machines, as I explained). So this is the main focus of our fight -- to ensure engineering conditions for such machines, which are possible to exist in principle, to find their concrete engineering expression of a working device.

I have explained the above more than once in various forms. Now, what part of it do you not understand?
regarding these "machines which are true OU machines, that is, producing energy which has not earlier been a part of a pre-existing energy reservoir"... where is your proof or even a shred of evidence that said machines do not "deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir"? you have shown no evidence nor proof, only assumptions and conjecture...

and now you are claiming gravity is infinite?? LMFAO this gets better every time you post omni...
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 09:16:23 PM
regarding these "machines which are true OU machines, that is, producing energy which has not earlier been a part of a pre-existing energy reservoir"... where is your proof or even a shred of evidence that said machines do not "deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir"? you have shown no evidence nor proof, only assumptions and conjecture...

and now you are claiming gravity is infinite?? LMFAO this gets better every time you post omni...

I have shown conclusive proof to that effect.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 09:24:55 PM
I have shown conclusive proof to that effect.
LOL no you haven't. you have shown nothing that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir. furthermore, your statement demonstrates that you do not even know what constitutes a proof... ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 09:29:59 PM
LOL no you haven't. you have shown nothing that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir. furthermore, your statement demonstrates that you do not even know what constitutes a proof... ::)

It's not up to you to judge.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 09:50:04 PM
It's not up to you to judge.
irrelevant. you still have shown nothing that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 09:57:31 PM
irrelevant. you still have shown nothing that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir.

On the contrary, it is exactly relevant to say it is not up to you to judge. So you may relax and try to find something else to do instead.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:02:29 PM
On the contrary, it is exactly relevant to say it is not up to you to judge. So you may relax and try to find something else to do.
no it's irrelevant because you originally said you had shown "conclusive proof to that effect", to which i replied you haven't and gave a cogent argument to that effect. you then engaged in a logical fallacy, known as a red herring, with your irrelevant and evasive response which was, "It's not up to you to judge". this statement by you does not address the merits and points of my argument that you have not shown "conclusive proof to that effect" whatsoever.

try a cogent argument next time omni... if you know what one is.  ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:08:16 PM
no it's irrelevant because you originally said you had shown "conclusive proof to that effect", to which i replied you haven't and gave a cogent argument to that effect. you then engaged in a logical fallacy, known as a red herring, with your irrelevant and evasive response which was, "It's not up to you to judge". this statement by you does not address the merits and points of my argument that you have not shown "conclusive proof to that effect" whatsoever.

try a cogent argument next time omni... if you know what one is.  ::)

You don't understand that it's irrelevant what you've said or what you haven't said on this topic. Irrelevant, get it?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:10:15 PM
You don't understand that it's irrelevant what you've said or what you haven't said on this topic. Irrelevant, get it?
denied. logical fallacy, red herring... again. and you have demonstrated you don't know what a cogent rebuttal is... again. ::)

let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:13:31 PM
denied. logical fallacy, red herring... again. and you have demonstrated you don't know what a cogent rebuttal is... again. ::)

let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir.

The above is crap. How much longer are you going to fill this thread with crap?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:14:25 PM
The above is crap. How much longer are you going to fill this thread with crap.
the above is another red herring. until you cease with the logical fallacies and provide such evidence or proof.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:15:31 PM
until you cease with the logical fallacies and provide such evidence or proof.

You can't judge either way even if I provide evicence. So, drop the subject.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:18:39 PM
You can't judge either way even if I provide evicence. So, drop the subject.
another logical fallacy... LOL ::)

"It's not up to you to judge." even if you could provide evidence, which you cannot, which is why you continue avoiding the merits of the argument with the logical fallacies... ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:19:27 PM
another logical fallacy... LOL ::)

"It's not up to you to judge." even if you could provide evidence, which you cannot, which is why you continue avoiding the merits of the argument with the logical fallacies... ::)

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:20:19 PM
that's another logical fallacy. and that's not for you to judge...  ::)

I have shown conclusive proof to that effect.
where?  nowhere that's where.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:23:44 PM
that's another logical fallacy. and that's not for you to judge...  ::)
where?  nowhere that's where.

It's for me to judge if I am to show evidence. I'm not crazy to be bothered by random individuals on the net who have shown no evidence of credentials and a filling threads with crap contributing nothing to the discussion.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:25:52 PM
It's for me to judge if I am to show evidence. I'm not crazy to be bothered by random individuals on the net who have shown no evidence of credentials and a filling threads with crap contributing nothing to the discussion.
another red herring, with an appeal to authority mixed in, how quaint... LOL i got all day omni, keep digging.

let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir despite your claim that you have.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:29:53 PM
another red herring, with an appeal to authority mixed in, how quaint... LOL i got all day omni, keep digging.

let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir despite your claim that you have.

I have all day too to tell you this is not your place. Go find other amusements.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:31:47 PM
I have all day too to tell you this is not your place. Go find other amusements.
continued use of  logical fallacies will get you nowhere and just serve to demonstrate your incapacity for logical, rational discourse. address the argument with a cogent rebuttal and i might.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:33:44 PM
address the argument with a cogent rebuttal and i might. continued use of  logical fallacies will get you nowhere and just serve to demonstrate your incapacity for logical, rational discourse.

You are incompetent to judge the validity of this particular claim so go find something else to do. Don't fill the thread with gibberish.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:35:53 PM
You are incompetent to judge the validity of this particular claim so go find something else to do. Don't fill the thread with gibberish.
denied. logical fallacy, red herring also known as: smoke screen, wild goose chase. (a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. the basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic).

let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir despite your claim that you have.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Gwandau on December 29, 2010, 10:37:14 PM
Hey dear participants in this energetic discussion, :D

I believe we are out in real deep waters here.

How on Earth would it be possible to ascertain that there is no pre-existing energy reservoir fueling the OU device?

I mean, just the fact that we do not detect any presence of an energy source does not
prove that there is no source.

What is not known does not exist???

To prove the total absence of a source, you need to know everything there is to know about our universe which of course is impossible,
and most certainly for a primitive species like the human race, who just have started fiddeling with the uppermost top of the iceberg of knowledge.

So the present level of this discussion seems a bit futile.

Gwandau
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:38:10 PM
denied. logical fallacy, red herring (a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. the basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic).

let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir despite your claim that you have.

That's gibberish. You'll get this response every time you post here.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:40:23 PM
Hey dear participants in this energetic discussion, :D

I believe we are out in real deep waters here.

How on Earth would it be possible to ascertain that there is no pre-existing energy reservoir fueling the OU device?

I mean, just the fact that we do not detect any presence of an energy source does not
prove that there is no source.

What is not known does not exist???

To prove the total absence of a source, you need to know everything there is to know about our universe which of course is impossible,
and most certainly for a primitive species like the human race, who just have started fiddeling with the uppermost top of the iceberg of knowledge.

So the present level of this discussion seems a bit futile.

Gwandau
indeed. similar to the question of whom will be standing at point infinity to say 'yup, it's perpetual...'  ;)

of course omni is claiming that he has ascertained that there is no pre-existing energy reservoir fueling the OU device... which, as you described, is obviously ludicrous. so here we are, trying to teach omni what a cogent reply is.

thanks for yours.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:45:57 PM
That's gibberish. You'll get this response every time you post here.
no that is a cogent response. i called your fallacies out for what they are and restated my position. your continued use of logical fallacy as a response and your continued refusal to present said evidence or proof will now be accepted as a tacit admission that you cannot provide said evidence or proof.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:47:25 PM
your continued use of logical fallacy as a response and your continued refusal to present said evidence or proof will now be accepted as a tacit admission that you cannot provide said evidence or proof.

This above is spam.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:49:44 PM
This above is spam.
let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir despite your claim that you have.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 10:51:10 PM
let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir despite your claim that you have.
spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 10:53:55 PM
spam
denied. logical fallacy: red herring.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 11:01:55 PM
denied. logical fallacy: red herring.
spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 11:03:12 PM
spam
denied. logical fallacy: red herring

you've made some grandiose claims omni, and been called on them... the record shows all of this. your behavior is unacceptable. i will be notifying stefan of this.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 11:44:58 PM
denied. logical fallacy: red herring

you've made some grandiose claims omni, and been called on them... the record shows all of this. your behavior is unacceptable. i will be notifying stefan of this.
spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 11:49:44 PM
spam
denied. logical fallacy: red herring

let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir despite your claim that you have.

I have shown conclusive proof to that effect.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 29, 2010, 11:56:47 PM
denied. logical fallacy: red herring

let me refresh your memory omni. you have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir despite your claim that you have.
spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 29, 2010, 11:59:52 PM
spam
denied. logical fallacy: red herring

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 12:03:53 AM
@Ar-el-es,

The most interesting thing in the link you gave: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.msg129890#msg129890 is that @xpenzif is one of the contributors. His contribution of \$3,500 is the third largest. I don't understand how these things happen. Remember, he was selling his screw motor on ebay for around \$70 which him being a poor college kid would have helped him. And, suddenly, \$3,500 donation. His parents must have helped or there is something else. I wonder if Stefan did actually get the money or this was just a pledge.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Ar-el-es on December 30, 2010, 01:51:23 AM
Gravity machines, when working such will be made, will be true OU machines (unlike solar, wind etc. machines, as I explained). So this is the main focus of our fight -- to ensure engineering conditions for such machines, which are possible to exist in principle, to find their concrete engineering expression of a working device.

I have explained the above more than once in various forms. Now, what part of it do you not understand?

Now this is where it gets confusing again. I thought you said that any device that derives it's power from an outside isn't a true OU device? A gravity wheel doesn't fit that definition which is why I'm trying to clear this up. I still don't see why you would classify a gravity wheel as such and exclude all of the rest even though in principle they all recieve their power from an outside source. If it's because you think that the gravity of Earth is an unlimited source of energy? I wouldn't be surprised that the devices does effect the Earth's gravity much like how dams have affected the speed of the Earth's spin. I really hope this isn't the case and logically I don't see it happening but we still don't understand gravity enough to say that it wouldn't.

Even Gwandau's post, which seems to have gone unnoticed, kind of picks up on that.

Hey dear participants in this energetic discussion, :D

I believe we are out in real deep waters here.

How on Earth would it be possible to ascertain that there is no pre-existing energy reservoir fueling the OU device?

I mean, just the fact that we do not detect any presence of an energy source does not
prove that there is no source.

What is not known does not exist???

To prove the total absence of a source, you need to know everything there is to know about our universe which of course is impossible,
and most certainly for a primitive species like the human race, who just have started fiddeling with the uppermost top of the iceberg of knowledge.

So the present level of this discussion seems a bit futile.

Gwandau
@Ar-el-es,

The most interesting thing in the link you gave: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=5707.msg129890#msg129890 is that @xpenzif is one of the contributors. His contribution of \$3,500 is the third largest. I don't understand how these things happen. Remember, he was selling his screw motor on ebay for around \$70 which him being a poor college kid would have helped him. And, suddenly, \$3,500 donation. His parents must have helped or there is something else. I wonder if Stefan did actually get the money or this was just a pledge.

I recently arrived at this forum less than a week ago so I don't know anything about the guy but I do find that awfully strange. I'm not sure why you brought that up unless it's somehow supposed to make me look foolish? That's why I copy and pasted the part that I posted because that's the section of the prize's requirements that makes this whole discussion somewhat confusing.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 02:50:00 AM
@Ar-el-es,

First, om the gravity machine. please understand that gravity is not energy. Gravity is force and force is not energy. Once that sinks in, you would be able to understand why I consider gravity machines as true OU machines.

On @xpenzif. I don't know where it came from that by being amazed at @xpenzif's pledge it somehow meant that I was aiming to make you look foolish. What is this all about? The @xpenzif story is just like the onging @Roobert33 one. @xpenzif's motor was called a "screw motor" because the rotor was made of rows of flattened screws. As in the current case, even more so, everybody jumped in to replicate it and vids of replications were flowing one after another every day (to no avail). At one point @xpenzif took down his vid just like @Roobert33 did, although the former stayed a bit longer. Then, it popped up on ebay and somebody bought it for somewere around \$70 and nothing more was heard ever since from anyone. The idea, however, is pretty interesting and it should be explored further alongside the current one as well as Sjack Abeling's (which is a purely gravity wheel). There was another good idea earlier, that of Walter Torbay from Argentina, and that should also be looked into more, although it is quite a bit more complicated to replicate. In a word, @xpenzif is one of the legends in this forum and his appearance in Stefan's list of pledgers is a real surprise. Again, I wonder if Stefan really got that \$3,500 from him or that was just a pledge? Soory if there was any mixup on that issue.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 03:03:44 AM
By the way I just finished reading Keith Richards' book 'Life' and besides learning that one of his early dogs was called Syphillis he, turns out, has had a rock group of his own (outside of The Rolling Stones) called X-pensive Winos. So, now it becomes clear whereoaur own @xpenzif got that cool handle (I like it better than the name of the group).
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 03:11:03 AM
First, om the gravity machine. please understand that gravity is not energy. Gravity is force and force is not energy. Once that sinks in, you would be able to understand why I consider gravity machines as true OU machines.

i, like the rest of us i'm sure, would surely enjoy seeing your designs for a "gravity machine" that doesn't use gravitational potential energy (which, as a form of energy appears by all evidences to be subject to coe). once that sinks in...
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 03:37:59 AM
i, like the rest of us i'm sure, would surely enjoy seeing your designs for a "gravity machine" that doesn't use gravitational potential energy (which, as a form of energy appears by all evidences to be subject to coe). once that sinks in...

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 03:38:36 AM
nice cop out... ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 04:36:15 AM
nice cop out... ::)
spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 04:53:18 AM
spam
denied. logical fallacy: red herring

i, like the rest of us i'm sure, would surely enjoy seeing your designs for a "gravity machine" that doesn't use gravitational potential energy (which, as a form of energy appears by all evidences to be subject to coe).

and don't forget, you still have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 04:54:37 AM
denied. logical fallacy: red herring

i, like the rest of us i'm sure, would surely enjoy seeing your designs for a "gravity machine" that doesn't use gravitational potential energy (which, as a form of energy appears by all evidences to be subject to coe).
spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 04:55:33 AM
spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 04:59:45 AM

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 05:01:12 AM
spam
denied. logical fallacy: red herring
again your response does not address the substance of my post whatsoever.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 05:06:17 AM
denied. logical fallacy: red herring
again your response does not address the substance of my post whatsoever.

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 05:40:12 AM
spam
no, that is a cogent response. i called your fallacies out for what they are and have repeated restated my position. your continued use of logical fallacies will get you nowhere and just serve to demonstrate your incapacity for logical, rational discourse. address the argument with a cogent rebuttal.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 05:44:11 AM
no, that is a cogent response. i called your fallacies out for what they are and have repeated restated my position. your continued use of logical fallacies will get you nowhere and just serve to demonstrate your incapacity for logical, rational discourse. address the argument with a cogent rebuttal.

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 05:45:39 AM
spam
yes, i think everyone would agree that you are spamming... you can stop now. ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 05:59:43 AM
yes, i think everyone would agree that you are spamming... you can stop now. ::)

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 06:03:25 AM
spam
yes... we get it. you're spamming...  ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 06:04:08 AM
yes... we get it. you're spamming...  ::)

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 06:05:26 AM
spam
we know omni... ::)  we get it, you're a spammer. give it a rest.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 06:12:27 AM
we know omni... ::)  we get it, you're a spammer. give it a rest.

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 30, 2010, 11:10:43 AM
spam
we know guy... we get it. you're a spammer, you can stop now. ::)

once again ::) i, like the rest of us i'm sure, would surely enjoy seeing your designs for a "gravity machine" that doesn't use gravitational potential energy (which, as a form of energy appears by all evidences to be subject to coe).

and don't forget, you still have shown no evidence nor provided a single proof that indicates these alleged OU machines do not deplete a pre-existing energy reservoir
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: exnihiloest on December 30, 2010, 11:52:39 AM
@Ar-el-es,

First, om the gravity machine. please understand that gravity is not energy.
...

False. The energy density of a gravity field is D=gÂ²/(8*pi*G).
It is the same as for the electric field (1/2*Ïµ0*E2) or the magnetic field (B2/(2*Âµ0)).

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 30, 2010, 04:03:53 PM
False. The energy density of a gravity field is D=gÂ²/(8*pi*G).
It is the same as for the electric field (1/2*Ïµ0*E2) or the magnetic field (B2/(2*Âµ0)).

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: exnihiloest on December 31, 2010, 12:29:14 PM
False. The energy density of a gravity field is D=gÂ²/(8*pi*G).
It is the same as for the electric field (1/2*Ïµ0*E2) or the magnetic field (B2/(2*Âµ0)).

spam

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478472/projection

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 31, 2010, 04:44:27 PM

spam

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/478472/projection

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Doctor No on December 31, 2010, 06:15:56 PM
For energy of free gravtons please check chapter 3 a. 4 of russian "Energy of vortex". I have it in english, in week try to find this and publish here.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: mr2 on December 31, 2010, 08:44:57 PM
It's good that it is not any possibility of overunity.
There's only COP > 1.

Those of you that is lesser minded may believe so, explaining yourself with fancy formulas, being well formulated and even makes a "believable" demo. But you'll never proove it. Just words. Always words.. Time will "kill" you in any test.

There will always be another energy added to a selfrunning device.

So; there will not be any paradox of overunity.
And there is NO Santa Claus...
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 31, 2010, 08:48:06 PM
It's good that it is not any possibility of overunity.
There's only COP > 1.

Those of you that is lesser minded may believe so, explaining yourself with fancy formulas, being well formulated and even makes a "believable" demo. But you'll never proove it. Just words. Always words.. Time will "kill" you in any test.

There will always be another energy added to a selfrunning device.

So; there will not be any paradox of overunity.
And there is NO Santa Claus...

The above only shows you're confused about the issues under discussion in this site. You're entitled to your uneducated opinions but you may wanna keep them to yourself. It's useless to utter them publicly.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: mr2 on December 31, 2010, 08:49:10 PM
The above only shows you're confused about the issues under discussion in this site. You're entitled to your uneducated opinions but you may wanna keep them to yourself. It's useless to utter them publicly.

You are so predictable.. :)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 31, 2010, 08:51:35 PM
You are so predictable.. :)

Of course. You too. Like I said, however, keep your uneducated opinions to yourself.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: mr2 on December 31, 2010, 08:53:36 PM
Of course. You too. Like I said, however, keep your uneducated opinions to yourself.

And by the way.. been "educated" is not always correct.
A very good example is the doctors in the 1800 saying you will explode in speeds over 100 km/h.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: mr2 on December 31, 2010, 08:56:42 PM
Of course. You too. Like I said, however, keep your uneducated opinions to yourself.

And for my amusement.. you socalled "educated" people is the "lesser minded" I mentioned..
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: mr2 on December 31, 2010, 09:13:03 PM
Of course. You too. Like I said, however, keep your uneducated opinions to yourself.

... can't even explain inventions that is NOT overunity..

Plain stupid...
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 31, 2010, 09:26:36 PM
... can't even explain inventions that is NOT overunity..

Plain stupid...

You're characterizing yourself. How long is your incoherent rant going to continue?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 31, 2010, 09:28:18 PM
You're characterizing yourself. How long is your incoherent rant going to continue?
spam  ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Omnibus on December 31, 2010, 09:29:24 PM
spam  ::)

spam
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: mr2 on December 31, 2010, 09:31:13 PM
You're characterizing yourself. How long is your incoherent rant going to continue?

Hehe.. When you give a proof of overunity.. running it self for some months..
Even as "educated" as you think you are?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on December 31, 2010, 09:38:40 PM
spam

that's omni... behind the counter.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: mr2 on December 31, 2010, 09:41:41 PM

that's omni... behind the counter.

Is it you that learned omni a new word today? "SPAM"??
They haven't learned it at kindergarden yet...
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Doctor No on December 31, 2010, 10:25:38 PM
It's good that it is not any possibility of overunity.
There's only COP > 1.

Those of you that is lesser minded may believe so, explaining yourself with fancy formulas, being well formulated and even makes a "believable" demo. But you'll never proove it. Just words. Always words.. Time will "kill" you in any test.

There will always be another energy added to a selfrunning device.

I assure You that above is completely right!:-] It exists nothing as we say: Free Energy. What pushes us through time and space and bounds with all Universe, is time exactly saying. All You have to do is:1. Time is an absolute value-it exists independent whatsover we do, we can not change its direction or catch, but 2. when we know p.1 we can only to find a method to jump on this stream to make us flow through time and space-with overlight speed.   Sorry to say, but cos of strategic reasons i can not explain You details.  Have You ever heard my Son about journeys in time?:-]      I can only remind You, that Nature is best builder. What we can only do is, to see how it builds things allround us and try to make also. Or You think that eat from super market, fuel and other sc high technologies are above Nature?:-)                                               Go to forest and try to catch qualm with Nature.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Low-Q on January 22, 2011, 01:19:24 AM
Well this thread has got longer since I last visited it...

We can hereby definitely confirm that over unity are impossible. There is no reason why nature should do this. There has never been prooved, not by anyone, that over unity exists. Those who claims so, have done some miscalculations after having overlooked important details.

Omnibus' proof are a so called SMOT.
A SMOT is a ramp with a given incline, with a bar magnet on each side which is toed in on the top. A steel ball are by hand put at the bottom of the ramp. When the ball are released, it rolls upwards towards the strongest magnetic field. At the end, the ramp are terminated, and the ball falls down back to the same level as it started.

Some people do not understand how the ball can escape the magnetic field which pulled it upwards in the first place. Well, the reason are simple:
The incline reduces the required force to pull the ball away from gravity. The energy are conserved by spending more time to let the ball roll up the ramp.
At the terminated end, the ball face a vertical decline, and the magnetic force are not strong enough to keep the ball from falling.

This is like pusing a 1 ton car up a sligh hill, versus pushing the car vertically stright up.

Omnibus' point is that the steel ball are lifted to a given hight, by the magnets alone, and therfor it gains a given potential energy from nowhere.

This is just partially true. The next part will make his SMOT trivial:
When the hand are moving the steel ball towards the ramp (With the magnets), the ball will be repelled away from the magnets until it is close enough to get "sucked" into the magnetic attraction at the very bottom of the ramp. This proof of repelling forces in front of a SMOT, is tested, made video of, and posted on overunity.com. This repelling force, will over that distance the hand are moving the steel ball towards the SMOT ramp, take energy.
That taken energy is what Omnibus have overlooked, and that energy are also the reason why a SMOT cannot be over unity, and cannot be looped into a continous over unity device.

Vidar
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: teslaedison on May 11, 2011, 08:47:38 PM
Hello Guys,
That are doing a great work but I would love to put my two sense into the pot if I may because I did an experiment with just distilled water by itself with the use of Paper clip and stainless steel spoon so if you are interested in how I did it by Tesla's AC with Edison's DC working together please contact me below at bottom of this message.

PS : Here is a video showing white pure H2 and O2 white cloud gases below

You are not giving the totall account of Dr. Randell Mills processes which he says that the electrons are round shape disks when it comes to a positive proton that the electron wraps around it as a bubble so go check his explanation to what I totally believe is true web site below:
www.blacklightpower.com

PS if you have any questions about this to please contact me at any time so I can explain his processes which will evidently become the new wave of energy for the future of all of mankind !!
Sincerely,
Thomas C.
Cell Number: 309-660-4627
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 11, 2011, 09:48:06 PM
At a magnetic field of 1,016 Tesla, virtual particles are sucked into our existence and bound in the field so they are forced to become real particles.

Magnastars have magnetic field strengths of up to 1,011 Tesla, just short of the required field strength but may fluctuate.

the large question is, where do these virtual particles come from? I'll let you decide.

it is also a reason why the Universe is expanding.

also, at around 1,500 to 2,000 Tesla magnetic field strength these virtual particles might flow into existence like a river! strictly hypothetical though.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Low-Q on May 12, 2011, 12:18:26 AM
At a magnetic field of 1,016 Tesla, virtual particles are sucked into our existence and bound in the field so they are forced to become real particles.

Magnastars have magnetic field strengths of up to 1,011 Tesla, just short of the required field strength but may fluctuate.

the large question is, where do these virtual particles come from? I'll let you decide.

it is also a reason why the Universe is expanding.

also, at around 1,500 to 2,000 Tesla magnetic field strength these virtual particles might flow into existence like a river! strictly hypothetical though.

Jerry 8)
I have a theory about the expansion of the universe:
Any hot object expands its surroundings. Take a dynamite. Sure it will expand instantly when detonating. The same applies for the universe. As long there active hot stars, the universe will expand due to the heat. Gravity are weaker than the expansion made by the heat. Therfor the universe expands - even accelerate. It will expand untill there is a few stars left. Then the collaps will start.
Then guess what; another big bang?
:)

Vidar
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 12, 2011, 12:55:54 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)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles on May 12, 2011, 02:24:47 AM
We cannot get more energy output from isolated or closed systems than input.

But we can do so from open systems (where both mass and energy pass through the system boundaries).

This is because external energy from the environment is available to open systems.

If this were not the case, life itself would not be possible. All forms of life are open systems...converting external resources.

Short-term localised decreases in entrophy happen simply by virtue of being alive (though there are never overall decreases in net entrophy).

I see myself as part of a community dedicated to sharing information about open system energy ideas, against the backdrop of an energy crisis so serious for future generations I cannot fully grasp the seriousness of it.

It does not matter if we are in error. Better to share information, consider it more fully, and improve our knowledge as we go along.

The "paradox of overunity" is this.

Many scientists best equipped to solve the energy crisis are most assured of what they are most ignorant. They are terrified of seeming foolish, and never venture to add fresh thinking.

Many live in fear of ridicule and accordingly are without value when it comes to contributing innovative ideas.

On the other hand, many of the most inventive amongst us lack scientific training, and though intrepid, relentless  and utterly fearless, lack the background to check the maths and physics fully before publishing ideas.

Far better that the self taught persevere in contributing, than that the highly trained remain silent in fear of ridicule.

This is the real paradox of overunity. That those who can...do not, and that those who cannot...do.

Together....yes we can.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 12, 2011, 03:58:30 AM
It is best to leave out your equation of a God in your equations. God theory will only mess it or you up. stick to your known logic so you are not listed as a crackpot. God has not been proven by Science and or Physics so don't use unproved data to explain a theory.

otherwise, you will remain a crackpot not just in my eye but in the mainstream.

but hey! if you can deal with that then please indulge.

besides, your God would not lift a finger for anyone in fear that he/she might get replaced! you are on your own. this is pure common sense, deal with it.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 12, 2011, 05:56:20 AM
We cannot get more energy output from isolated or closed systems than input.

But we can do so from open systems (where both mass and energy pass through the system boundaries).

This is because external energy from the environment is available to open systems.

If this were not the case, life itself would not be possible. All forms of life are open systems...converting external resources.

Short-term localised decreases in entrophy happen simply by virtue of being alive (though there are never overall decreases in net entrophy).

I see myself as part of a community dedicated to sharing information about open system energy ideas, against the backdrop of an energy crisis so serious for future generations I cannot fully grasp the seriousness of it.

It does not matter if we are in error. Better to share information, consider it more fully, and improve our knowledge as we go along.

The "paradox of overunity" is this.

Many scientists best equipped to solve the energy crisis are most assured of what they are most ignorant. They are terrified of seeming foolish, and never venture to add fresh thinking.

Many live in fear of ridicule and accordingly are without value when it comes to contributing innovative ideas.

On the other hand, many of the most inventive amongst us lack scientific training, and though intrepid, relentless  and utterly fearless, lack the background to check the maths and physics fully before publishing ideas.

Far better that the self taught persevere in contributing, than that the highly trained remain silent in fear of ridicule.

This is the real paradox of overunity. That those who can...do not, and that those who cannot...do.

Together....yes we can.

this is called the war on energy, the first one to have it will rule the world, so far, there is no one energy ruler except that of nuclear as the most efficient of energy production per ratio. period! not even oil can contend with nuclear efficiency let alone anything on this site.

defending the Universe is not easy at all.
Jerry
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 12, 2011, 06:10:52 AM
We cannot get more energy output from isolated or closed systems than input.

But we can do so from open systems (where both mass and energy pass through the system boundaries).

This is because external energy from the environment is available to open systems.

If this were not the case, life itself would not be possible. All forms of life are open systems...converting external resources.

Short-term localised decreases in entrophy happen simply by virtue of being alive (though there are never overall decreases in net entrophy).

I see myself as part of a community dedicated to sharing information about open system energy ideas, against the backdrop of an energy crisis so serious for future generations I cannot fully grasp the seriousness of it.

It does not matter if we are in error. Better to share information, consider it more fully, and improve our knowledge as we go along.

The "paradox of overunity" is this.

Many scientists best equipped to solve the energy crisis are most assured of what they are most ignorant. They are terrified of seeming foolish, and never venture to add fresh thinking.

Many live in fear of ridicule and accordingly are without value when it comes to contributing innovative ideas.

On the other hand, many of the most inventive amongst us lack scientific training, and though intrepid, relentless  and utterly fearless, lack the background to check the maths and physics fully before publishing ideas.

Far better that the self taught persevere in contributing, than that the highly trained remain silent in fear of ridicule.

This is the real paradox of overunity. That those who can...do not, and that those who cannot...do.

Together....yes we can.

Real particles in this existence are closed particles, virtual particles are not, they are open to influence at a certain magnetic power ratio. virtual particles pop in and pop out of existence but if you can make them stay and become real then we are talking.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Low-Q 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
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles on May 12, 2011, 03:22:20 PM
Interesting Jerry
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles 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.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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... ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles 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".
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: SchubertReijiMaigo 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 !?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles 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.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: allcanadian 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
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles on May 13, 2011, 09:47:03 PM

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,

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Gwandau 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.

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 canÂ´t perceive.

Gwandau
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated 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?
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles 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).
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: fritznien 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.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 14, 2011, 12:33:49 PM
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).
thanks for attempting to answer my direct questions.

first off, lets clear up your misconceptions about 'occam's razor'... it IS NOT "using the simplest possible explanation". occam's razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. for instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place... which big bang does not do. nor do any of the other THEORIES for that matter.

now to your second paragraph, please refer to the actual definition and note that PROPER application of 'the razor' is something you have not done.

the "fact" you talk about being overlooked is not a fact. it is an assumption.

logically the simplest explanation is not categorically "the best", you are still thinking occam's razor means something other that what it actually means.
1. incorrect. that may be the simplest assumption...
2. you have no evidence of this.
3. now you're getting the idea... using words like may, or in my opinion, etc. is the correct way to go about discussing these matters (matters of inference). i'm well aware of what cern and fermilab are wasting funding on. ;)
4. are you claiming to have knowledge of every action? maybe they do and maybe they don't. my personal opinion is that this existence is teaching us lessons in duality. but it's just an opinion.

sure it's interesting to speculate, just don't play off your speculations as facts or 'laws'. now, you can learn from that or if you have been "paid in advance", you can continue to offer up assumptions, speculations and conjecture as factual .  ;)

edit: spelling.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: allcanadian on May 14, 2011, 03:04:34 PM
@WilbyInebriated
Quote
first off, lets clear up your misconceptions about 'occam's razor'... it IS NOT "using the simplest possible explanation". occam's razor is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects. for instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place... which big bang does not do. nor do any of the other THEORIES for that matter.
I would agree, when I first learned of "occam's razor" because it was being quoted so much I did some research and was not surprised that most everyone had taken the initial statement completely out of context. What does this mean--the simplest explanation is the best one?, to me it implies that we can just throw our facts out the window and logic with it and rely on simplicity which is a little disturbing. As well we could say selecting a hypothesis with the fewest "assumptions"-- ie..(A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof) implies we are selecting a hypothesis with the greatest proof, proof relating directly to facts.
I think some also make the mistake of thinking that a lack of facts is proof of something such as in the case of OU. That is some claim that they have never seen a working, proven, OU device and this is proof that it is impossible. Well no, I do not think so because a lack of proof is not proof of anything other than we have no facts or proof. This does not prove it is impossible it only proves they have no facts or proof and I'm not sure how anyone could jump to the conclusion that a lack of facts is a fact of anything as none are present, lol, it is all very confusing at times.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 14, 2011, 03:32:25 PM
@WilbyInebriated I would agree, when I first learned of "occam's razor" because it was being quoted so much I did some research and was not surprised that most everyone had taken the initial statement completely out of context. What does this mean--the simplest explanation is the best one?, to me it implies that we can just throw our facts out the window and logic with it and rely on simplicity which is a little disturbing. As well we could say selecting a hypothesis with the fewest "assumptions"-- ie..(A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof) implies we are selecting a hypothesis with the greatest proof, proof relating directly to facts.
I think some also make the mistake of thinking that a lack of facts is proof of something such as in the case of OU. That is some claim that they have never seen a working, proven, OU device and this is proof that it is impossible. Well no, I do not think so because a lack of proof is not proof of anything other than we have no facts or proof. This does not prove it is impossible it only proves they have no facts or proof and I'm not sure how anyone could jump to the conclusion that a lack of facts is a fact of anything as none are present, lol, it is all very confusing at times.
Regards
AC
as usual, well said. :) i too see it misused so much, it gets under my skin. kind of like that flawed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument. ::) or people using one theory to invalidate another, ala milehigh, when he's not just making outright assumptions ;)

i know this is 'preaching to the choir' for you but for the rest, a few salient quotes from the wiki:

"Even if Occam's razor is empirically justified, so too is the need to use other "theory selecting" methods in Science. Such other scientific methods are what support the razor's validity as a tool in the first place. This is because measuring the razor's (or any method's) ability to select between theories requires the use of different, reliable "theory selecting" methods for corroboration."

"In the history of competing explanations this is certainly not the case. At least, not generally (some increases in complexity are sometimes necessary), and so there remains a justified general bias towards the simpler of two competing explanations. To understand why, consider that, for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing explanations with ad-hoc hypotheses. Ad-hoc hypotheses are justifications which prevent theories from being falsified. Even other empirical criteria like consilience can never truly eliminate such explanations as competition. Each true explanation, then, may have had many alternatives that were simpler and false, but also an infinite number of alternatives that were more complex and false."

"In science, Occamâ€™s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models." (emphasis mine)

"In the scientific method, parsimony is an epistemological, metaphysical or heuristic preference, not an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result. As a logical principle, Occam's razor would demand that scientists accept the simplest possible theoretical explanation for existing data. However, science has shown repeatedly that future data often supports more complex theories than existing data. Science tends to prefer the simplest explanation that is consistent with the data available at a given time, but history shows that these simplest explanations often yield to complexities as new data become available. Science is open to the possibility that future experiments might support more complex theories than demanded by current data and is more interested in designing experiments to discriminate between competing theories than favoring one theory over another based merely on philosophical principles."

"When scientists use the idea of parsimony, it only has meaning in a very specific context of inquiry. A number of background assumptions are required for parsimony to connect with plausibility in a particular research problem. The reasonableness of parsimony in one research context may have nothing to do with its reasonableness in another. It is a mistake to think that there is a single global principle that spans diverse subject matter."

"As a methodological principle, the demand for simplicity suggested by Occamâ€™s razor cannot be generally sustained. Occamâ€™s razor cannot help toward a rational decision between competing explanations of the same empirical facts. One problem in formulating an explicit general principle is that complexity and simplicity are perspective notions whose meaning depends on the context of application and the userâ€™s prior understanding. In the absence of an objective criterion for simplicity and complexity, Occamâ€™s razor itself does not support an objective epistemology." (emphasis mine)

"The problem of deciding between competing explanations for empirical facts cannot be solved by formal tools. Simplicity principles can be useful heuristics in formulating hypotheses, but they do not make a contribution to the selection of theories. A theory that is compatible with one personâ€™s world view will be considered simple, clear, logical, and evident, whereas what is contrary to that world view will quickly be rejected as an overly complex explanation with senseless additional hypotheses. Occamâ€™s razor, in this way, becomes a â€œmirror of prejudice.â€"

to be quite honest, human knowledge is eyeballs deep in muddy water.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: allcanadian on May 15, 2011, 12:24:20 AM
@WilbyInebriated
Quote
kind of like that flawed "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" argument.  or people using one theory to invalidate another, ala milehigh, when he's not just making outright assumptions

I guess this would depend on what we consider extraordinary, at one point in time the claim that the world was round or that man could fly in a machine was considered extraordinary but this changed as time passed. I find everything concerning nature extraordinary as well as what we call "life" in every form it may take however I find nothing extraordinary about Free Energy as it is obvious we are literally swimming in a sea of energy. That is we know for certain that there is a huge amount of energy bound in matter and in transition through any given space.
I think part of the issue with the critics of free energy is that they are stuck in the past, that is they are still tring to relate everything to Thermodynamics and Entropy which is misleading. For them everything is dead or dying as Entropy dictates and they have essentially ignored the process of life or Syntropy whereby things concentrate energy and grow. Imagine that a process which concentrates energy and grows which in turn concentrates even more energy, it should be no surprise that they literally are what they call impossible which is priceless.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 15, 2011, 11:42:39 PM
All we have is 'observed' evidence of a known classical system, we know little about the quantum mechanical world and we may never know all that there is to know about the 'observed' Universe.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 16, 2011, 06:36:34 AM
there was a man who sat each day looking out through a narrow vertical opening where a single board had been removed from a wooden fence. each day a wild ass of the desert passed outside the fence and across the narrow opening â€” first the nose, then the head, the forelegs, the long brown back, the hind-legs, and lastly the tail. one day the man leaped to his feet with a light of discovery in his eyes and he shouted for all who could hear him: "it is obvious! the nose causes the tail!"

* stories of the hidden wisdom from the oral history of rakis
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles on May 18, 2011, 04:28:32 AM
For clarification concerning my assertion (ex nihilo totem fit...from nothing everything comes) it just so happens that a BBC program entitled "Everything and Nothing" by Professor Jim Al-Khalili was broadcast on the BBC today, and it is available on BBC iplayer.

Splendid timing.....rather like God actually making an appearance to settle an argument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/

It will only be on BBC iplayer for a few days before they remove it.

Your response (wilbyinebriated) may or may not be interesting. I expect it will be argumentative rather than explanatory.

It must be difficult for you to see the big picture if you fixate on pixels.

Try zooming out now and again. You will see a lot more.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 18, 2011, 06:06:44 AM
the link you gave appears to be missing, here it is on you-tube:

As I stated, virtual particles can not escape a magnetic field of 1,016 Tesla, Magnastars are on average 1,011 Tesla magnetic field strength, I would speculate that at the center cluster of every galaxy that the magnetic field strength far exceeds the needed magnetic field strength and that every galaxy is expanding because it is making virtual particles become real particles by binding them to reality.

it is also well known that black holes have now been theorized to make anti-matter and that anti-matter to matter reactions are the cause of Gamma-Ray jets that spew from these heavenly bodies(Kerr black holes).

The simplest black hole has no spin and no magnetic field. This is called a Schwarzschild black hole. A black hole that has a field but no spin is called a Reissner-NordstrÃ¸m black hole. One that has both a magnetic field and spin is called a Kerr black hole.

also, just to be clear about the expansion of the known universe.

there is a center of the universe, every single body in the known universe is its own center of the universe. this also means, you are also the center of the known universe just as the speck of dust on your living room furniture or the little microscopic mite crawling on the sidewalk that you payed no attention to.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 18, 2011, 08:23:28 PM
For clarification concerning my assertion (ex nihilo totem fit...from nothing everything comes) it just so happens that a BBC program entitled "Everything and Nothing" by Professor Jim Al-Khalili was broadcast on the BBC today, and it is available on BBC iplayer.

Splendid timing.....rather like God actually making an appearance to settle an argument.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00zwndy/Everything_and_Nothing_Nothing/

It will only be on BBC iplayer for a few days before they remove it.

Your response (wilbyinebriated) may or may not be interesting. I expect it will be argumentative rather than explanatory.

It must be difficult for you to see the big picture if you fixate on pixels.

Try zooming out now and again. You will see a lot more.
was there some specific point of evidence? i saw none.

look, quantum, theories ARE THEORIES... i don't know why you can't comprehend that. assumptions are assumption and assertion are assertions... i don't know why you can't comprehend that either. this is the point i have been making. i'm not the one stating assumptions, speculations and non sequitur assertions as factual... you are. and yet you will still find my response as argumentative... ::) what i will guarantee, is that you won't find an explanation from me. unlike you, i am quite aware of the limitations of human knowledge, so i will pass on telling others just how things came into being.

speaking of imaginary godfairies, you get him to come settle this and i will believe your account. ;)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles on May 18, 2011, 10:20:38 PM
Forget petty arguments. Go invent something useful or say something original.

Mediocre scholars have always enjoyed nit picking.

They become furious when confronted with originality, invariably reacting with lists of 'mistakes' so as to demonstrate their superiority in boolean algebraic logic... binary logic... the true or false of the ape.

Imagining this limited limiting 'topos' to be the very height of intellectual sophistication.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 18, 2011, 11:03:38 PM
so that's a no then? there was no specific point of evidence... imagine that... ::)

Forget petty arguments. Go invent something useful or say something original.
that's rich coming from the guy who is parroting someone else's theory... ::)

Mediocre scholars have always enjoyed nit picking.

They become furious when confronted with originality, invariably reacting with lists of 'mistakes' so as to demonstrate their superiority in boolean algebraic logic... binary logic... the true or false of the ape.
is that why you are now engaging in logical fallacies as a response? denigrating me does not lend your position any credence, it merely serves to demonstrate your inability to respond with a cogent rebuttal.

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles on May 19, 2011, 01:13:31 AM
Never get involved in a mud wrestling competition with a pig. You will both get dirty...but the pig will enjoy it.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2010 on May 19, 2011, 01:21:07 AM
I am not and I will not point fingers at anyone here including myself, there are lots of logical and or imaginary arguments that take place on this forum, both exist in the same boat, this forum, there is a problem with that, when one person is more imaginary than logical and when one is more logical than imaginary a conflict of interest takes place. this is where the argument subsides.

the Human brain uses the imaginary part of its brain to invent a conception through imaginary perception, the logical side of the brain determines if it is possible, one hand washes the other here.

never let your imagination get the best of you without proving it to be true in the logical side of the brain that it is true, this is why you were born with a bilobal brain. to test it logically.

the logical side of the brain can not tell a lie to itself, only the creative side of the brain can tell a lie to itself and 'believe' it. the logical side will always know you are lying.

the logical lobe of the brain was built for one purpose, to keep the creative side of the brain in check and the creative lobe of the brain to keep the logical lobe of the brain in check. at some point one of those sides decide to brush off all the pieces of the chess board because they get frustrated and decide to quit.

the imagination is a good thing, it really is but would mean nothing if you did not have the logic to explain it correctly and verifiable(repeatable).

"imagination(creativity) without logic is incomprehensible and logic without imagination is unimaginable". this is the truth. this is my quote and belonged to no one else but I in recorded history, pass it down through history so there may be an understanding.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 20, 2011, 11:39:22 PM
Never get involved in a mud wrestling competition with a pig. You will both get dirty...but the pig will enjoy it.
is that your idea of a cogent rebuttal? ::)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: allcanadian on May 21, 2011, 12:20:05 AM
@Onthecuttingedge2010
Quote
the imagination is a good thing, it really is but would mean nothing if you did not have the logic to explain it correctly and verifiable(repeatable).
I'm not sure I would agree simply because a very long time ago logic would suggest the Earth was flat, that is as far as one could see the Earth was flat therefore as far as the facts and logic were concerned the Earth was flat. You see there is no such thing as "Logic" without people and people interpret the facts as they see fit therefore what we are really saying is that Logic is our interpretation or perspective of the facts we have but not facts of anything in themselves because we do not know.
I mention this because I see many critics using "Logic" to justify their "opinions" and make the deluded assumption that because logic is supposedly infallible so must their opinions be infallible, lol, I hope you can appreciate how insane this is. The insanity goes something like this--- If I always think logically and logic is infallible then my thinking must be infallible--- which is insane, ;D.
In some sense we can replace logic with perspective, If we understand logic is simply a perspective then we can view a problem from many perspectives in order to get a more logical however it should be obvious that more people believing something does not make an answer more right only more popular as history has proven time and time again.
In essence it is a mistake to use logic as a crutch to justify our opinions because we know as a fact it is unreliable due to our history, we and logic are not perfect.
Regards
AC
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: WilbyInebriated on May 21, 2011, 12:55:38 AM
The insanity goes something like this--- If I always think logically and logic is infallible then my thinking must be infallible--- which is insane, ;D.
insane as it is, this is possibly the most oft committed (tight race with ad hominem) logical fallacy...

god is love.
love is blind.
ray charles is blind.
thus ray charles is god.

::) (only because this site has no face/palm smiley)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on May 21, 2011, 06:23:43 AM
Hi guys.

Over-Unity is possible, it was done on the first day of nuclear testing, a nuclear bomb detonation has 30,000 times more energy than what it took to develop it.

this is truth.

do you see where this is going?

this does not include Fusion Bombs let alone Anti-matter bombs.

it is a 'direction' of where you should be and not an absolute of where it will go.

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on May 21, 2011, 06:28:44 AM
@Onthecuttingedge2010I'm not sure I would agree simply because a very long time ago logic would suggest the Earth was flat, that is as far as one could see the Earth was flat therefore as far as the facts and logic were concerned the Earth was flat. You see there is no such thing as "Logic" without people and people interpret the facts as they see fit therefore what we are really saying is that Logic is our interpretation or perspective of the facts we have but not facts of anything in themselves because we do not know.
I mention this because I see many critics using "Logic" to justify their "opinions" and make the deluded assumption that because logic is supposedly infallible so must their opinions be infallible, lol, I hope you can appreciate how insane this is. The insanity goes something like this--- If I always think logically and logic is infallible then my thinking must be infallible--- which is insane, ;D.
In some sense we can replace logic with perspective, If we understand logic is simply a perspective then we can view a problem from many perspectives in order to get a more logical however it should be obvious that more people believing something does not make an answer more right only more popular as history has proven time and time again.
In essence it is a mistake to use logic as a crutch to justify our opinions because we know as a fact it is unreliable due to our history, we and logic are not perfect.
Regards
AC

you didn't read my quote did you?

Jerry 8)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: quantumtangles on May 21, 2011, 07:40:39 AM
is that your idea of a cogent rebuttal? ::)

Not really wilbyinebriated. I was just having a bit of fun. I understand your perspective. We all have different perspectives and I apologise if I descended into ad hominem mode.

I have been working quite hard on an alternative energy project and reacted irrationally to your observations out of fatigue. Apologies  :)
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: Rosemary Ainslie on May 21, 2011, 08:30:11 AM
insane as it is, this is possibly the most oft committed (tight race with ad hominem) logical fallacy...

god is love.
love is blind.
ray charles is blind.
thus ray charles is god.

::) (only because this site has no face/palm smiley)

Very good point Wilby.

Some doggerel - not sure if it's strictly on topic.

If philosophy is logical
And logic mathematical
Then the argument that follows this would be

That philosophy is measurable
Quantifiably discernible
And all determined unequivocally

While numbers metaphysical
Would then become nonsensical
A gross dimensional absurdity

While these thoughts are just conceptual
It may perhaps be practical
To wed these branches from a single tree

Of knowledge.  And though questionable
It still is more than reasonable
To let the thought conceive reality.
Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: HeairBear on May 21, 2011, 02:20:22 PM
GRAVITY!

Title: Re: The paradox of overunity
Post by: pauldude000 on February 27, 2012, 11:55:23 AM
I will break this down as best as I possibly can and as simplified as I can.

First law of thermodynamics. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed"

Second "You cannot get more energy out of a closed system than you put in"

COP "Co-efficient of power or ratio of power in to power out"

Problem: Energy is not power. Power is a ratio of energy over time. Energy = joules..... power = watts

These all tie together with the concept of OU in that OU by definition = COP > 1, or power in > power out...... which as noted by the original poster accurately as not possible. Please don't jump to conclusions just yet. (That has been happening recently.)

For COP > 1, then a valid unaccounted for or 'external' energy source is present but not accounted for, not a case of energy being created.

When accounted for, then COP <= 1. Simple logic.

True OU means there is NO external energy source.

Even people claiming 'crystal power' as the energy source for their device are claiming an external energy source, and are MISCLAIMING OU, due to the common misuse of the term. (I am not even berating them for claiming it either, before someone gets defensive.) If you claim ANYTHING as an outside power source, then you are NOT claiming OU.

Logically, claiming OU is equivalent to the admission of not knowing what the external power source actually is, which would be a better admission than claiming what it is not.

However, to claim OU... AND claim an external power source at the same time is to apply circular logic. You cannot have both at the same time.

Here is some advice.... the phrase "I don't know. I cannot account for the extraneous energy present but I postulate that it might be"...

Do this, and you won't sound like a fake. It seems like everybody wants to automatically state ZPE, mass energy, or whatever.... What becomes quickly evident is that they are hoping or at best guessing ZPE, mass energy, or whatever, and also that they are B.Sing. It immediately throws doubt in ones mind at this point, and the whole concept becomes more and more dubious. It throws the initial claim itself in doubt.

Before anybody thinks this has anything to do with "the burden of proof", "extraordinary claims", etc.... This has NOTHING to do with that. First of all, trials are for a courtroom, of which the term "proof" belongs. Science is not law, and there is no such fallacy as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".  If that were true, then MOST popularly accepted theories would be on trial today. It is selectively applied, and is non-scientific in nature.

The reason for admission has EVERYTHING to do with interpersonal human interaction. You lie to someone, and they tend to think of you as a liar...... It's that simple. Just as you will think that of someone whom lies to you in your own house, face to face. You cannot put much trust in them, and will become skeptical of anything they claim after that point.

It is OK to be both honest and wrong, as it is a common human trait. Saying "I was wrong", is only a bad thing to a person whom has an inflated ego.

I have been wrong many times, and will be again. That is called being human.

Yet no-one can say I intentionally lied to them, and amazingly enough that often earns something called respect. I do not expect agreement, just honest evaluation of what I put forth.