Bulbz, "If there is (as you say) "no proof of an electrons existence", how does one explain HHO or Browns-Gas ?. Aren't these produced by applying a voltage, that is said to pull on positive and negative electrons ?."

 I am sorry but it could also be said to pull on a positive vibration and a negative vibration which would make more sense.

 one, "what holds  the vibration together ?"

 Resistance

"What makes it  move  through  some  solids easier than others?"

 Resisistance levels of the solids they pass thru.

 "Why  does electricity  move through  copper much easier  than  through air ?"

 I am not really sure if that is correct. I think it does move through air easier becuase air has a lot less resistance then copper or any other substance. I think copper just holds it together better.

"A vibration is a movement .       now you seem to be saying that all   movement  started  with a vibration ...... yet .......... you said   the movement  can not be made to  create  more energy than the energy used to move it.

If the  universe  started as a vibration.........and then  became all the motion we now have ............it seems to me that there is very little EXCEPT  over unity .

If  you think about it ....... there is a a very small part of the universe that  " educated " people  tend to see as static  and  unmoving.. We   happen to  exist in that  domain.    If   you  look either larger or  smaller    it seems everyone agrees that  everything is moving. ...............how  could  it be possible  that  there is  less motion at the exact level that "physical  life" exists ?"

 I do not have all the answers but I feel that answers should be based within the realm common sense. Common sense tell us that something can not move unless something moved it. Then you have to use common sense when trying to create something from nothing. It cant be done. You can not create something from nothing. You can not get more then what you use. It may seam like it but you have to consider what is not seen that had to be added to make it look like you got more then you started with.

I didn't mean to sound like I was debunking you, I just needed an answer so that I can see the universe from your point of view. Trust me... I am very open minded. 

Bulbz, if you ever read something I have wrote and you disagree, please by all means try and "debunk" my opinion because there is a very good chance that I am wrong and if no one debates it with me, I may never find out I was wrong.

 one, well you have your opinions and I have mine and they make for good debates as long as we debate them with respect and open minds.

 I am not here to try and debunk anyone because I am not even close to being educated enough to do so, but I feel I do have a respectable level of common sense and when I read something that goes against what I feel is sensible, I will and do post my opinion.

 This thread is a prime example. I posted my opinion based on what I felt was sensible and or not sensible with in my level of common sense. Not that I should be considered right or wrong but one should at least keep an open mind to what I have to say and if anyone should still disagree, then by all means please debate it with me. I have learned a lot from debates and I have found others to do the same at times. Some debates have changed my opinion as well as my opinion has helped change others at times.

 I am hard headed as most are but don't think my opinions cant be changed and all others shouldn't feel their opinions cant be changed. Our individual levels of common sense will tend to side with what we find to be sensible regardless of how we felt before.

@ nightlife:

You still did not answer my questions.  If you don't have the answers, that's fine.  I too am interested in exploring ALL possibilities as no one KNOWS what is really what.  I guess it is sort of like religion.  Anyway, I am looking forward to Stefan interviewing this guy, if he gets the chance.

Bill

Erfinder, that does make sense in a way but do to the fact that there are so many different frequency's, how would we go about tuning in to the dominant of all frequency's? Wouldn't that be a frequency that all frequency's evolve from? If so, wouldn't that mean that we still need to search for a pacific frequency?

 It's like scales of a frequency, I would think that all frequency's evolve from one frequency and then are broke down in to scales of frequency's and each one of those scales become its own frequency that again is broke down in to another scale. Is that kind of what you are saying?

 It seems to me that would be like searching for the answer of which came first, the egg or the chicken. Every living thing puts out it's own frequency. That would be explained by each having a distinct smell. Then we have frequency's that non living things emit when they are moved within a resistance.

 Man, you sure did open a whole new can of worms here but interesting to say the least.

 It seems to me that we would have to be able to detect the frequency's of living things and then find the dominate of those. Living things emit a frequency and they can and do emit frequency's with in there own frequency by way of resistance that all living things encounter.

 Just thinking out loud here.

Erfinder, I see what you are saying and I guess that takes me to another level that I have tried to stay away from do to the mystery that surrounds it. This concept you speak of is more in a sense of a spiritual energy which takes us to another level that would be impossible to detect.
 
 Keely was very much in to harmonics and it is a shame that most all his work has vanished.

 Confused? Yes, I am as most are, other wise we would know all these answers.

 At this time, all we can do is go back as far as the beginning of motion. We can no way detect what started the original motion but we can say that motion is were everything evolves from. We know this because of every substance having a limit on the amount of vibration it can withstand before splitting apart.

 Take two particles and split them apart and then split those split parts apart. then take and compress some of the parts together and split them and continue to do this but in different multiple?s of particles and we end up with trillions of different particles that will continue to be split up and compressed with more and create more different substances. The vibrations in which compresses them would be where they get their vibration limit from. IMO

You opened a whole new thought in the back of my head that I have not ever mentioned. LOL

 If we are going to have to go back to the start of time, then we must realize that a vibration had to play a part in it. It takes a vibration to split something. The something is what you are searching for by the way I understand what you have said. That to me would be kind of a spiritual search. There has to be a substance to split but yet there has to be a vibration to split it.

 So what came first, the vibration or the substance?

 You seem to be after stillness as in nothing. How could we ever have nothing and then acquire a substance and or a vibration? That to me is a spiritual question that could never be answered nor detected.

 

 

You have to understand that all evolves out of one substance.  All frequencies do evolve from one and each from the other, no argument here.  However it must be understood that frequency = motion.  Motion is not cause, it is effect, and because it is effect, it is secondary to something higher!  Everything vibrates with exception of the one thing responsible for causing all perceivable vibrations!  The science of vibration being taught in schools does not explain nor account for the phenomena of standing wave, nor does your concept of vibration incorporate them!     

Erfinder

This makes perfect sense to me ...........but I don't have a clue how to apply it.

Lets  say  I want to  try to extract  power from an LC circuit
I can  hit  it with  a voltage at its  resonant  frequency .........but that is  making motion with motion.
How do you  create cause  within the circuit?

The  closest  I can  come to understanding  how to create cause within the  circuit is  what I would  call the  Daniel Pomerleau effect .      In effect  creating cause  by simply  choosing  for it to work . 


gary

The radio interview was for the most part VERY BORING to say the least.  Right when I was about to turn if off he said something that stopped me dead in my tracks.  TUNING TO THE DOMINANT.

that too again (tuning to the dominant), with the mentions of stubblefield, keely, moray, these are the reasons why im persisting in at least looking at WITTS, and attempting to assist them in digitization processes. or anything. theres something here that not many have tapped or mentioned, and that is extremely refreshing, also, unexpected.

what i immediately wanted to know was - has thrapp studied the writings of walter russell? then i thought about their (mentioned) 28 year development process and i thought, maybe not, they would have had the perfect answers already had they gone to russell. they seem to be tuned in such a way, at least as individuals, that they could comprehend it, or maybe do, but without mentioning it anywhere..

Keely was the first to tune to the dominant, followed by Stubblefield, and Tesla.

the image that emerged from thrapp's mentioning of stubblefield somehow being able to tune to the dominant, and how, where did he go for advice (and the refers  that can be taken as "going inside") .. theres something that thrapp is leaving unsaid because he knows it would mostly fall on skeptical and shut ears.

Tuning to the dominate should not be interpreted as tuning into a specific frequency, as frequency in and of itself is one part of a whole.

you are spilling some wonderful beans on this thread and im not sure people are really willing to recognize what it is thats being spoken about, again, i'd come at this less with speculation and more with authority had i done the homework that has been recommended, over and over. my loss, as time seems to be short.

No.  I didn't say dominant frequeny!  I said DOMINANT!  Don't assume that the source of all frequencies is itself a frequency.  Motion extends from stillness, the dominant then, represents stillness.  What I am suggesting is the concept of a neutral center.  This was mentioned by one who's works are shrouded in mystery and conspiracy.  John Worrell Keely.

this has confused me to no end for quite some time, i was always attempting to find the magic frequency, and then i'd always scoff at other people for demanding the magic formula or magic geometry when it seemed to me that something deeper had to be understood in order to replicate the work. something more than freq,formula,measurement device/geometry.
that some are deterred from their studies into understanding what the silent, static stillness  is,  by outdated opinions on the spiritual  is a shame but again  goes almost without saying.

You have to understand that all evolves out of one substance.  All frequencies do evolve from one and each from the other, no argument here.  However it must be understood that frequency = motion.  Motion is not cause, it is effect, and because it is effect, it is secondary to something higher!  Everything vibrates with exception of the one thing responsible for causing all perceivable vibrations!  The science of vibration being taught in schools does not explain nor account for the phenomena of standing wave, nor does your concept of vibration incorporate them!

would it be safe, and nonconfusing, to say that they are forgetting of the silent still fulcrum?
one day i will understand the wave and then know what people say when they say standing wave. its not as simple as some who are right now jumping in to "explain" it to me - using wikipedia,  think it is to explain..

Recognize that we all share the same source.  It is immovable, perfectly still throughout eternity, through this steadfast stillness it supports all things, and centers all things.  It stabilizes from without, and centers all from within.  We are vibrations in this stillness.  We extend from it, in it, emerge from it like a tree evolves (unfolds) from a seed!  The principle on which this evolution is based is the same for all physical and non physical manifestations.  This principle reigns true on all levels, physical, molecular, inner molecular, atomic, inner atomic, all the way into the infinite, which is where motion ends and stillness IS.

so we extend from the seed just as  a thought extends from knowledge, i feel like this is accurate but i am not sure.

As I said before you really sound confused.  Anyway determining the frequencies of things in the way you are implying would be a complete and utter waste of time, and could not be accomplished anyones life time as many have discovered!  Luckily a means was devised through which these frequencies you seek are identified without effort.  Good thing for us the truth was known by at least one in this regard.
Quote:
"Every molecule in nature represents without variation, the same chord.   Variations that show  up in the mass chord of different visible aggregations, are accounted for by the non-uniformity of their groupings.  If all were molecularly homogeneous, the chord masses of all structures would be perfectly alike in their resonant impulses."
End Quote.
LOL....  Thats a mouth full.

and since this does seem to speak about chords, is this keely then? just making sure!

Up till this point the majority of us have only been concerned with frequency and pulse width modulation.  This will bring us into and out of electrical resonance in our circuits more or less, but will not bring us in tune with the dominant as a very important circuit characteristic is missing!  In order to tune to the dominant many things have to be understood which are presently not even considered and or are totally ignored. To get an idea of how it should be accomplished one should reference information written on the works of John Worrell Keely.....Tesla attempted to simplify the works of Keely by focusing on electricity and magnetism specifically, and the associated principles of harmonics. 
Here friends we step off the paved path!  Here you are in no mans land!  In this land the things work backward.  It is voltage not current which is king, self induced voltage dominates over applied voltages.  In this land frequencies and potentials are high.

yes. it is tihs chasm that always seems to loom. i've seen this, similar "effect" in a couple of projects, where, a few first things to do are simple to explain, once enough research has been done, but when it goes into recovering reactive power, these devices are almost like "where there be dragons". the decision to go further than what is available in normal sources of information, seems to be rarely made and if haphazardly done, rarely kept.

this seems to be changing tho.


potential energy  that can be made kinetic?