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

GDPR and DSGVO law

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

User Menu

Google Search

Custom Search

Author Topic: Should “energy” be redefined?  (Read 4353 times)

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5031
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #15 on: November 02, 2020, 12:29:12 PM »
US5252176

e= m x c?
Nernst Waermetheorem

Bethe-Weizsaecker- or CNO-  Zyklus/cycle involved ?

How much Joule/calori per Watt ?

US8059946
+ the citing documents study from  espacenet and google f.e. CN application the description

and Henson/Cletus Williams devices  internal process ( hypothetical description ) comparison



Focus,focussieren / expansion/compression time/space in volume and velocity and speed

specific difference between Raumzeit/Space-Time and Zeitraum/Time-Space



Beside Physics- Nobel-Award in Stockholm same important  in Germany for Theoretical Physics the " Max Planck"-Medaille and for Experimental Physics the "Stern-Gerlach"-Medaille


Really entertaining is the discussion between Dr.Werner Heisenberg and Dr.Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker 1966
             Theme : "Quanten-(Welt)Modell "included " ure  "-Nano-Welt-Atome--point of view



A little Nernst thermochemistry ( light effect ) + Heisenberg's magnetism and Bethe-Weizsaecker Zyklus quantitativ paaren with DD271578 to DD272727 and we get a huge 'focal point'-power source !

Orbital solar farmes sending by 'focal point' photonic energy to earth receiver,  photon to heat to electric converter

maritim saltwater to water/salt to hydrogen/oxygen decomposition platforms

industrial torch

or as military device (s-)melting weapons : vaporizer,plasmonizer
« Last Edit: November 02, 2020, 06:21:34 PM by lancaIV »

Offline seychelles

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2020, 02:06:40 PM »
GRAVITY IS THE REAL ENERGY MECHANISIM IN THIS UNIVERSE. MOST ENERGY IS GENERATED BY
BLACK HOLES. EVERY GALAXIES HAVE A BLACK HOLE IN THEIR CENTRES. IT IS THERE TO RECYCLE THE OLD STARS AND PLANETS
AT THE SAME TIME THEY CREATE A SWIRLING IN ETHER THAT CREATE TIME. TIME IS RATE OF CHANGE . OR MOVEMENT THROUGHT SPACE.
EVERY STARS ARE THE ASS HOLES OF THE BLACK HOLES. ENERGY IS EQUAL TO MASS TRAVELLING TWICE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. ALL THAT THE
BLACK HOLES GOBBLE IS ACCELERATED TWICE FASTER THAN LIGHT ALL THE ELEMENTARY MATTERS IS DISASSEMBLED ATOMICALY TO HYDROGEN  HELLIUM. LITHIUM. BERYLIUM ECT.

Offline lancaIV

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5031
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #17 on: November 02, 2020, 02:18:07 PM »
Natural chemical/physical  versus enforced    elementare " Halb-Wert-Zeit" = elementary decay

Related Mendelejew(- Meyer) Period-System/-Tafel,-Tabel

Related ' atomic chemistry':
Jean Pierre Marie Chambrin REACTOR TO TRANSMUTE THE MATTER f.a. as WO8204096
from elements,stable to isotopes,un-/stable


1 input calori 100 x ,1000 x,100 000 x   multiplyer : dependence = ' ... cooling ..." from the device and internal process

 ::) Btw : is gravitation force linear straigth ,curvativ,ccw or cw ?

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #18 on: January 02, 2022, 04:51:13 PM »
GRAVITY IS THE REAL ENERGY MECHANISIM IN THIS UNIVERSE. MOST ENERGY IS GENERATED BY
BLACK HOLES. EVERY GALAXIES HAVE A BLACK HOLE IN THEIR CENTRES. IT IS THERE TO RECYCLE THE OLD STARS AND PLANETS
AT THE SAME TIME THEY CREATE A SWIRLING IN ETHER THAT CREATE TIME. TIME IS RATE OF CHANGE . OR MOVEMENT THROUGHT SPACE.
EVERY STARS ARE THE ASS HOLES OF THE BLACK HOLES. ENERGY IS EQUAL TO MASS TRAVELLING TWICE THE SPEED OF LIGHT. ALL THAT THE
BLACK HOLES GOBBLE IS ACCELERATED TWICE FASTER THAN LIGHT ALL THE ELEMENTARY MATTERS IS DISASSEMBLED ATOMICALY TO HYDROGEN  HELLIUM. LITHIUM. BERYLIUM ECT.


Does E=mgh in the Earth’s gravitational field?


We certainly can measure and compare potential energy across a field gradient
This one being vectored upwards
Such knowledge allows for the use of pulleys and levers.
We consider it to be conservative.


But what if there are two fields, with different properties?


One defined as an acceleration force with a time constant.
The other defined as a constant force, irrespective of time.


How does this change the scenerio?
What is the potential energy of an object suspended within these two fielda?


———————————————




Now - when we use our hands, we apply constant force
When we lift something, we can hold it still with constant force
Defined by the objects weight. Irrespective of time.


Gravity, on the other hand, accelerates the object every second


Why is it then, that our constant force can balance out the acceleration force?


——————————————


Pause now to think about this.


——————————————-


Here in this video:


Is shown a simple pulley & lever system
With the addition of a magnetic repulsion field at the fulcrum


Here is demonstrated that two opposing E=mgh energy quanties
are not equivalent when one of them interacts with two different fields.


The weight on the left being 57 grams lighter than the weight it is lifting
The same distance.




https://youtu.be/xOBZsCWMDzI
(video shared by {edit} Synchro1)


—————————————————


Gravity is accelerating the two masses, and the constant force is applied at the fulcrum


This is the inverse of the archer quinn device, where in the constant force is applied at
the near horizontal, and gravity accelerates at the at end of the lever.


—————————————————-


Now think about the situation after the motion:


We have an extra 57 grams lifted to a height (defined arbitrarily by the mechanics)
and this requires 57 grams added to break the heavy mass free.


Note that the additional 57 grams only needs to be lifted the radius of
the effective magnetic interaction.*


The mass now has an E=mgh in excess of the input of 57 grams at whatever height we choose
minus 2x the radius of the magnetic interaction on your h value.






Floor

  • Guest
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #19 on: January 02, 2022, 05:15:07 PM »
' ' '
« Last Edit: January 02, 2022, 10:30:05 PM by Floor »

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3595
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2022, 10:50:47 PM »
Now let's look at the inverse:


I Use the Archer Quin device as an example because the mechanism is identical
Just the opposite


the pushing magnets offset (most of) gravity, if we assume these to be the same magnets
in both devices, the force required to enter the field, as well as the pushing force resultant
remain the same.


In this case, the leverage comes from the radius of the wheel, rather than the double-lever
but they are exactly the same, mechanically speaking.


The pulling magnet offsets slightly more than the rest of gravity, but less than the
gravitationally induced momentum of the leveraged mass.
Thus it breaks itself free to fall again
the force required to break free is (by design) less than 1/2 of the rotational force.
(less than) The other half being designed to accommodate the Bloch wall entering the lower field.


This balance is as delicate as the proportional 2 weights in the Russian device.
For many of the same reasons


gravity is conservative
magnetism is conservative


But the two are NOT equivalent.
What we can extract is precisely the difference between the two, motion over time per mass







Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 603
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2022, 08:44:22 AM »
Hey Smokey, LTNS.


Gravity and magnetism are both functions of what you would call Einsteinian relativistic spacetime, or Maxwellian Aether if you prefer, I don't care. What I mean by the term "are functions" is literal. Neither one exists by itself, no more than are the concepts of amperage/voltage/resistance. They happen when a specific energy type flows and reacts with the surrounding medium. Mass itself is another function in that sense, and so is inertia. I am finding that constants themselves are usually even just functions. Hint, if the equation to figure something involves something else...


The problem is 1000AD thinking, when solid material meant solid, concerning 2022AD when we know that everything solid is actually, energy packets, strings and field interactions. There is no such thing as solid, as the concept itself is both extremely subjective and horribly outdated. Virtual particles are just unstable packets. Here they are, then poof, they are gone.


BUT THAT VIOLATES THE CONSERVATION OF ENERGY LAW! GASP! -- No it doesn't, it means that the scientists involved have disregarded the source of the energy, namely spacetime. The virtual particle -- real for the entire time it existed -- was converted, not created at inception nor destroyed at deconstruction. Particles themselves are energy based, basically speaking, a self propagating bubble of spacetime filled with a specific energy type, that would either resemble two BB's touching, or a 'cheerio' shaped object with a center point, not a hole. It is either a linear or a full toroidal resonant single wavelength folded back upon itself inside a chamber of spacetime, and I lean towards toroidal myself due to spin characteristics. (Best explanation I can give at this moment in time.)


Should the term be revised? Physicists who practice Theoretical Physics still debate the issue themselves, to this very day. The issue is not "cut and dried" as some would like to believe.


Some Physicists view it as a "thing", while others contend it is the "carrier or container" for a "thing". I personally call both energy and work self referencing circular logic tripe. In the simplest explanation, energy is the ability to do work, and work is the expenditure of energy over time and distance, when you remove the flowery BS that is applied by Physicists to explain the matter avoiding this principle.


Heck, the Physicists in question can't even recognize negative acceleration in certain instances, rofl. No, I don't have much respect for sophistry posing as intelligence anymore if you caught the sarcasm.


They can't even realize that their testing methods for COP are horribly inefficient (waste heat all over the place, whether talking electricity, flame generated heat, etc., to get the supposed caloric comparison for unity), so why expect them to get something right as simple as a good definition?


ROFL!


I find myself getting cantankerous and less tolerant of illogical BS in my subjectively old age.


To quote one physicist "...There is enough energy contained in one cup of spacetime to boil all the oceans on earth to steam." He has a clue as to what 100% thermodynamic efficiency actually is, whether he knows it consciously, or not.


Paul Andrulis

Offline jdejean99@gmail.com

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Should “energy” be redefined?
« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2022, 01:53:43 PM »
Our universe abides by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Free energy also abides by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What doesn't abide by the 2nd law of Themrodynamics is the Mainstream Gravitational ASTRO Physics model. The truth is the Big Bang never happened. The universe is very much alive. Every galactic center Plasmoid is connected to the universal current, every Star is connected in parralel to their galactic center Plasmoid, every planet is connected to their star. This is proven and has been for decades. This was common knowledge for the Ancients. But the CIA and FBI have done everything they could to muddy the waters and prevent anyone and everyone from drawing the realization between the 2. FREE ENERGY IS EXCLUSIVELY A RESLUT OF EARTH CONSTANTLY BEING FED BY THE GALACTIC CURRENT THROUGH THE NORTH AND SOUTH POLE WHERE THE EARTH THEN TRANSMUTES WHATEVER POSITIVE ENERGY IT CAN INTO MATTER SUCH AS LAVA, WHERE THE NEGATIVE ENERGY THEN EXITS THE EQUATOR AND GOES BACK TO THE SUN.

Again this has been proven/rediscovered since the early 1900s. The reason they didn't want you to know is because of the situation we are in right now .... We have come to the end of this 12,000 year Solar Magnetic cycle and over the next 10-29 years we will come to the creshendo of the magnetic excursion which will be accompanied by a Solar Micronova, just as we have seen with our 2 closest stars facing the galactic center(which luckily are really close to each other) both in the past 2 years.

To give you a quick yet definitive and undeniable proof of this reality I will refer you to Dr. PIERRE ROBITAILLE who is an MRI Pioneer and can be found on YouTube "Skyscholar". Dr. Robitaille proved with direct visual observational analysis ie Spectroskopy, that the Sun has a condensed matter liquid metallic Hydrogen surface. This can only exist if the universe is Electro-Magnetic as every single scientific observation ever has hinted at.
.Mainstreamers are the conspiracy theorists, as they follow a 100+ time debunked and fudge factor laced conspiracy theory that is gravity physics..... Electro-Magnetic Universe doesn't need no fudge factors and never has, nor does it need a 2nd law of physics, black holes, dark matter/dark energy, etc. All the fudge factors are just proofs of how far off gravity theory is from the true nature of our universe....

Whoever though that a big gaseous ball that came from dust could have synchronic cycles such as the magnetic excursion we are seeing right now and the resulting weakening Magnetic Shields on the Sun and all the planets simeautaneously with dust ball formed planets that orbit it? Whoever thought planets could orbit a star just with Gravity/A pull force???

This is all ties back to the elites removing and destroying the cap stones of the pyramids, to blind humanity of the true nature of our universe and of our own true nature!