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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Over Unity (how to get there}  (Read 24134 times)

Floor

  • Guest
Re: Over Unity (how to get there}
« Reply #45 on: September 25, 2013, 04:35:48 PM »
Humorous:) I'm still smiling.
 

                            Gracius senor

Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Over Unity (how to get there}
« Reply #46 on: December 11, 2013, 09:38:36 AM »
I see energy as just another model rather than reality; say we are sitting watching a statue (perhaps we are bored?) and a steel ball hurtles through our frame of reference colliding with the statue, smashing it to pieces (it's a strange world, you never know) we might say that the energy of the ball transferred to the statue which then converted it into sound (motion of air) heat (motion of atoms and molecules) and an apparent chaotic motion of the now fragmented statue. Personally I would say that a body in motion interacted with another body which resulted in a different motion.

If we calculated all the motion prior to the interaction, and all the motion post interaction we should arrive at the same value; this would be in accordance with both CoM and CoE.

If we could find a way for mass to interact in such a way that more motion resulted than predicted by CoE we could engineer a device to exploit the phenomenon and create an OU system potentially capable of solving many of our energy and pollution issues. I say more motion than predicted by CoE rather than CoM because it seems to me that momentum is not based on a model but on observation of the universe as it appears to be, whereas (to me) CoE is based on a model (energy) rather than reality.

Furthermore, at least in regard to kinetic energy, the literature states :   

 
Quote
the kinetic energy of an object depends on the relationship between the object and the observer's frame of reference. Thus, the kinetic energy of an object is not invariant.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy


'not invariant.' I think that means 'variant', but the non-double negative probably stuck in their mouths. So possibly a device which causes a previously unknown or misunderstood interaction between different frames of reference might be worth a look.

I could shamelessly link to my own such device here, but that might be considered a misuse of the thread. Therefore in conclusion, anyone claiming that OU is impossible had better measure their knowledge and intellect against the complexity of the universe then at least leave the door open to the possibility of a higher level above their own perception.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2013, 01:17:39 PM by Tusk »

Floor

  • Guest
Re: Over Unity (how to get there}
« Reply #47 on: December 11, 2013, 07:34:31 PM »
@Tusk

          thanks, post a link is ok
                                 

                                             thanks again
                                                        floor

Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Over Unity (how to get there}
« Reply #48 on: December 12, 2013, 12:31:47 AM »
Thank you floor, and since it is allowed I'll post two links; the first to a little foray into the realm of perception (which unfortunately most members found overly confronting) and the second to the device itself:

http://www.overunity.com/13079/the-pendulum-bias-paradox-experiment/#.UqjzjSe-g_c

http://www.overunity.com/13102/the-paradox-engine/#.Uqjytie-g_c

If I might add; it must always have been difficult to share new knowledge, history certainly suggests so. I assume that the basic psychology of our species doesn't change that much over time, and it seems relevant to this topic that once an individual gains confidence in their perception of reality it's going to be an uphill battle for anyone attempting to modify it. Therefore one aspect of the 'how to get there' solution must surely involve human psychology, probably with a focus on cognitive dissonance.

Floor

  • Guest
Re: Over Unity (how to get there}
« Reply #49 on: December 12, 2013, 04:57:10 PM »
@Tusk
                     
                Thanks
                   Awesome post

                                   floor

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: Over Unity (how to get there}
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2013, 12:10:48 AM »
tusk has hit the nail square on the head there.what do we really know.what do we reeeaaally know.what IS to know in the first place.gotta ask oneself these questions.

Tusk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
Re: Over Unity (how to get there}
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2013, 03:19:48 AM »
Thanks Floor, profitis. I should probably quit while ahead, experience shows that if I stay on stage too long everyone ends up throwing stuff  :o  Oh well, in for a penny....   

Here's my view on the crux of this issue, in particular the forum problem, which after all is the probable launchpad for potentially viable concepts. We can sort the human race any number of ways, one useful dichotomy for us might be pro and anti OU. It's all very well having a balanced discussion but difficult to move beyond ridicule when the other team recognises no bounds (and may even be earning their living doing so - not saying they are, but it's a possibility).

Another cut might be familiarity with the subject itself; not much point trying to explain an 'outside the box' physics solution to someone who doesn't understand much of what's 'inside the box'. Although I'd rather talk to them than the first lot, provided they keep an open mind and are genuinely trying to grasp the material.

So, there might be a few more but I assume that you get the picture. The obvious solution then, is for a small group of members here to set up another forum; not a replacement for this one, more of a safe house for further discussion away from the trolls, shills and casual onlookers. The group could expand membership selectively, based on the posting history of candidates from this forum (and even other similar forums). Such candidates would receive an invitation rather than apply, and this would ensure that the group maintained an acceptable level of honest interest as opposed to hostile disinterest.

Naturally one of the group (with the appropriate knowledge, skills and resources) would need to volunteer their time and effort to host the forum. Perhaps the others could make a small donation towards the costs involved - I would certainly be up for that. While the working principle of the group would be 'round table', the host would exercise the will of the group in regards to how the forum was run. Anyone hostile to the group and intent on gaining membership for nefarious purposes would need to generate a positive posting history here (or on another forum) with only the chance of selection; a somewhat counter productive exercise IMHO. And win - win for the group, since they would need to maintain that disguise else find themselves quickly exposed and ejected.

The above idea, in principle, could provide a positive and friendly environment for the selection of concepts with real potential and their further discussion and advancement, away from the background noise of general disbelief and the spoiling attacks of those who are, shall we say, philosophically opposed to anything good. And since this is Floor's thread, if he was willing and able to act as the host for such an enterprise I think that would be an excellent beginning.

As for myself, I'd be content if my own thesis (the Paradox Engine) were accepted for further discussion on such a forum, even failing my own personal admittance to the group; in fact, now that I look at it from that perspective, generally when a concept is selected for discussion the author should probably have limited access (rather than full membership) in order to participate and offer supportive information.