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

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

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

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84049
  • *Latest: Asuka

  • *Total Posts: 893953
  • *Total Topics: 15710
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 14

Author Topic: Hello  (Read 9538 times)

Offline paulie1982

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Hello
« on: February 13, 2008, 11:14:28 PM »
Hi everyone,

Not sure where to introduce myself (apologies to the admin if i am in the wrong area ???) but thought i might as well pick anywhere. As you can see my username is Paulie1982, some of you may know me from my perpetual motion related animations on youtube -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOk8i668xxE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np9lLom16Nk .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0hLGL1jA_E

My story is that i am a bit of an agnostic when it comes to perpetual motion, i am stuck between two minds on the subject. On one hand i think it is possible( for various reasons) but on the other i am restrained by the cold hard laws of physics that always put you back in your place.

Anyway, nice to meet you all.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Hello
« on: February 13, 2008, 11:14:28 PM »

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Hello
« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2008, 12:06:22 AM »
@paulie1982,

You obviously want to ask something and something is whether the second part of your sentence

Quote
On one hand i think it is possible( for various reasons) but on the other i am restrained by the cold hard laws of physics that always put you back in your place.

still holds. No, it doesn't. It has already been definitively established that the principle of conservation of energy (CoE) can be violated, that is, one of the coldest, hardest principles of physics is no more a general principle. Furthermore, when a principle in physics loses it's generality, as was discovered regarding the principle of CoE, it cannot be considered a principle any more. What we're doing now is trying to find engineering (practical) applications of that violation of CoE which is a very hard task.


Offline paulie1982

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Hello
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2008, 12:09:50 AM »
No, it doesn't. It has already been definitively established that the principle of conservation of energy (CoE) can be violated

How so? I've never seen any definitive proof of any machine/device breaking the CoE, all i have ever seen is badly filmed machines with ample hiding space for a small electric motor or machines designed by people and they try to blind you with science so you eventually concede to - oh, it must work then if there's that much thought gone into it.
I'm more than happy to be proven wrong though.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hello
« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2008, 12:09:50 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Honk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
Re: Hello
« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2008, 12:15:25 AM »
Hi
Check your email.

Offline paulie1982

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Hello
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2008, 12:19:34 AM »
Hi Honk, checked my mail, thanks for the info, i'm having a look at it now.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hello
« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2008, 12:19:34 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Hello
« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2008, 12:45:40 AM »
@paulie1968,

Here?s a conclusive proof for the violation of CoE in a device which is a modern rendition of Johannes Taisnierus? device, depicted also in one of your videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec6RgURXQNk&feature=related):

The experiment (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2383887636280790847) proving violation of CoE is presented schematically here: http://omnibus.fortunecity.com/smot.gif (if the link doesn?t open hit Reload). Denote the mass of ball by m, the gravitational constant by g, the magnetic potential energy at points A and B respectively by Ma and Mb, the heights to raise the ball from point A to B and from B to C respectively h1 and h2, kinetic (and other) energy by Kc.

If CoE is to be obeyed then only the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) of the entire amount (mgh1 + Mb) at B will transform into other energies upon the return of the ball from B back to A. Amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) is the amount of energy imparted to the ball.

In Johannes Taisnierius? device, presented in its modern version in the above links, however, the entire amount of energy (mgh1 + mgh2 + Kc) the ball has at point C which is greater than the amount (mgh1 - (Ma - Mb)) imparted to the ball is transformed into other energies upon the return of the ball back at A. This is in clear violation of CoE.

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Hello
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2008, 12:56:23 AM »
@paulie1968,

Here?s a conclusive proof for the violation of CoE in a device which is a modern rendition of Johannes Taisnierus? device, depicted also in one of your videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec6RgURXQNk&feature=related):

How can this be cited as "conclusive proof?"  First of all, it is an animation.  Second of all, it makes no sense.  If the magnet is strong enough to pull the ball up the curved incline, why does the ball not stay elevated.  The path where the ball travels down is much less steep than where it rises, so it ought to be held in place by the force of the magnet rather than rolling down, as shown.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hello
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2008, 12:56:23 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Hello
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2008, 12:59:32 AM »
@paulie1968,

Here?s a conclusive proof for the violation of CoE in a device which is a modern rendition of Johannes Taisnierus? device, depicted also in one of your videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec6RgURXQNk&feature=related):

How can this be cited as "conclusive proof?"  First of all, it is an animation.  Second of all, it makes no sense.  If the magnet is strong enough to pull the ball up the curved incline, why does the ball not stay elevated.  The path where the ball travels down is much less steep than where it rises, so it ought to be held in place by the force of the magnet rather than rolling down, as shown.

The animation isn't cited as conclusive proof. The three paragraphs below the mentioned animation, based on an actual experiment (a modern version of Johannes Taisnierius' experiment) cited therein, are the conclusive proof.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Hello
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2008, 01:30:07 AM »
Here's Johannes Taisnierius' device (circa 1561):

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hello
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2008, 01:30:07 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Hello
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2008, 10:57:34 AM »
G?day all,
I am getting sick of this stuff. The ?mathematical proof? offered to support the belief that there is overunity in a SMOT is utter rubbish and flawed right from the beginning. The mathematics are supposed to prove that in a SMOT energy appears out of nothing. Mathematics, as we know it is incapable of proving this because of its very structure.

Let me explain:

Mathematics, as any other science, is fundamentally based on axioms. For those of you that do not know what an axiom is here is the definition as it applies to mathematics: (Source Wikipedia)

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else they logically follow from.


The fundamental axioms on which mathematics relies upon for its existence are:

The most fundamental axiom:
Ex nihilo nihil fit, or, out of nothing comes nothing. If we denote, as is usual, a nothing as zero, the mathematical statement says:  0 = 0

Following from there is the next  axiom:
A something is more than a nothing. If we assign the number one as representing a something, in mathematics the statement reads:  1 > 0

The next axiom in line is:
Two somethings are more than one something. Mathematically: 1 + 1 > 1

And so it goes on from there. All mathematical formulae, procedures, theorems and propositions are based on these three fundamental axioms. Without them the entire discipline of  mathematics is worthless.

Now, what Omnibus is telling us is that he can prove energy from nothing in a SMOT mathematically.

This is not possible.

Ultimately, what his statement says is that he can prove mathematically that zero is equal to or larger than one.  Or in mathematical notation  0 = > 1

Since this conflicts with one of the most fundamental axioms on which mathematics is based, mathematics cannot be used to arrive at this conclusion.

In other words, his calculations are fatally flawed.

Prove me wrong! ANYBODY!

Hans von Lieven







Offline Honk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
Re: Hello
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2008, 12:52:20 PM »
Hi Honk, checked my mail, thanks for the info, i'm having a look at it now.

Hi there Paulie.
You haven't downloaded the big file yet? Please do!

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Hello
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2008, 12:52:20 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Hello
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2008, 02:23:35 PM »
Quote
G?day all,
I am getting sick of this stuff. The ?mathematical proof? offered to support the belief that there is overunity in a SMOT is utter rubbish and flawed right from the beginning. The mathematics are supposed to prove that in a SMOT energy appears out of nothing. Mathematics, as we know it is incapable of proving this because of its very structure.

Oh, you?re getting sick of this stuff, as if the opinion of someone like you who doesn?t understand that what is being proved is not mathematics matters. The quantities mgh1, mgh1, Ma, Mb, Kc used in this proof are physical quantities, not just mathematical symbols. What is being talked about is physics, not mathematics.

Therefore, right at the beginning, you are spewing utter rubbish based on sheer misunderstanding of the nature of physical proofs.

And to further confirm this ridiculousness here?s what ?proof? that individual offers:

Quote
Let me explain:

Mathematics, as any other science, is fundamentally based on axioms. For those of you that do not know what an axiom is here is the definition as it applies to mathematics: (Source Wikipedia)

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be self-evident. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.
In mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". In both senses, an axiom is any mathematical statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Unlike theorems, axioms cannot be derived by principles of deduction, nor are they demonstrable by mathematical proofs, simply because they are starting points; there is nothing else they logically follow from.

The fundamental axioms on which mathematics relies upon for its existence are:

The most fundamental axiom:
Ex nihilo nihil fit, or, out of nothing comes nothing. If we denote, as is usual, a nothing as zero, the mathematical statement says:  0 = 0

Following from there is the next  axiom:
A something is more than a nothing. If we assign the number one as representing a something, in mathematics the statement reads:  1 > 0

The next axiom in line is:
Two somethings are more than one something. Mathematically: 1 + 1 > 1

And so it goes on from there. All mathematical formulae, procedures, theorems and propositions are based on these three fundamental axioms. Without them the entire discipline of  mathematics is worthless.

Now, what Omnibus is telling us is that he can prove energy from nothing in a SMOT mathematically.

This is not possible.

Ultimately, what his statement says is that he can prove mathematically that zero is equal to or larger than one.  Or in mathematical notation  0 = > 1

Since this conflicts with one of the most fundamental axioms on which mathematics is based, mathematics cannot be used to arrive at this conclusion.

In other words, his calculations are fatally flawed.
Prove me wrong! ANYBODY!

Hans von Lieven

Reading this stupidity one doesn?t know whether to laugh or to cry because this individual tries to abolish physical facts by blabbering completely out of context mathematical trivialities. I?m really getting sick of this?confused individuals such as @hansvonlieven pushing themselves to express opinions.

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Hello
« Reply #12 on: February 14, 2008, 07:09:07 PM »
@paulie1982,

You obviously want to ask something and something is whether the second part of your sentence

Quote
On one hand i think it is possible( for various reasons) but on the other i am restrained by the cold hard laws of physics that always put you back in your place.

still holds. No, it doesn't. It has already been definitively established that the principle of conservation of energy (CoE) can be violated, that is, one of the coldest, hardest principles of physics is no more a general principle. Furthermore, when a principle in physics loses it's generality, as was discovered regarding the principle of CoE, it cannot be considered a principle any more. What we're doing now is trying to find engineering (practical) applications of that violation of CoE which is a very hard task.

When you post such things, it makes me scratch my head.  You are certainly entitled to your position, but when you use phrases like "it has already been definitively established" and "is no more a general principle" and "as was discovered", you are intentionally misleading the reader.  You are implying that your theory has gained some sort of acceptance and that there are actually scientists out there that "have established" what you are talking about or at least have accepted what you are saying.  The truth is nothing of the sort.  You are the only serious proponent of your theory.

I understand your position that the truth of a theory should speak for itself, and that is true.  However, you should just be honest and say that this is what you believe, and it is your position, and not try to use intentially misleading language like you do.  I suspect you do care about your theory's acceptance by others, or you would not be posting at all, but sitting alone secure in your knowledge.  So if you do care about this, you should at least approach this from an honest standpoint instead of overstating the level of acceptance of your theory.  All you are accomplishing by using such language is provoking heated responses, but that is not a serious or noble thing to do.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: Hello
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2008, 08:42:21 PM »
@shruggedatlas,

I'm not implying anything about anybody's acceptance or non-acceptance which I don't care about one bit. I only care about the established truth and it is that violation of CoE has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This also meant that the principle of CoE must not be considered any more as a principle in science. The facts so far show that anybody denying it does that either due to incompetence and confusion or due to outright dishonesty. That's the real truth about this matter. While pushing confusion and lack of competence can only be laughable, to be dishonest in science is a despicable behavior and I'd suggest that you direct your critique towards the individuals (well known so far) who irresponsibly mislead the readership with their conniving, finagling and dishonesty..

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Re: Hello
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2008, 01:59:12 AM »
@shruggedatlas,

I'm not implying anything about anybody's acceptance or non-acceptance which I don't care about one bit. I only care about the established truth and it is that violation of CoE has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This also meant that the principle of CoE must not be considered any more as a principle in science. The facts so far show that anybody denying it does that either due to incompetence and confusion or due to outright dishonesty. That's the real truth about this matter. While pushing confusion and lack of competence can only be laughable, to be dishonest in science is a despicable behavior and I'd suggest that you direct your critique towards the individuals (well known so far) who irresponsibly mislead the readership with their conniving, finagling and dishonesty..

Nothing has been "proven" in the traditional sense.  "Proven" necessarily implies some sort of verification by educated peers or real world trials.  You are using a very narrow and unusual definition of "proven," namely that you have a proof and you are convinced beyond all doubt that it is correct.  Real world trials cannot verify your hypothesis and not a single respectable source will give it any credence.   You hide in the harbor of "engineering problems," but in reality, those engineering problems may be akin to getting blood from a turnip, and will remain unsolved long after our sun goes supernova in a few billion years.

But I suppose the last thing we should be debating is the properness of language, but still, you are not helping your cause with this approach.  The fact that you regularly get zero converts here speaks of that, and bear in mind, on this site is the most receptive audience you will find anywhere.  The people here actually allow for the possibility of violation of CoE.  If you cannot get traction here, your chances in the mainstream academic and scientific communities have to be near zero.

 

OneLink