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: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory  (Read 18413 times)

Merg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« on: June 11, 2010, 02:52:09 AM »
After the research and analytical work a new theory has been developed and now Jovan Marjanovic and academician Veljko Milkovic are presenting the theory which says that acting force against moving body will not only accelerate the mass of the body, but also its initial kinetic energy too. The product of initial velocity and additional velocity times the mass would be measurement of extra energy or over-unity energy...
 
Jovan Marjanovic & Veljko Milkovic - Kinetic Energy and Over Unity

The goal of this work is to point out some important facts in formulas for kinetic energy and momentum (quantity of the movement) for moving bodies.
It will be shown that over unity behavior is inherent in movement itself.

In this work the authors will discuss:

- origin of the formulas for linear momentum and kinetic energy,

- principle of adding energy to a moving body as the key for over unity,

- initial velocity in gravitation field,

- the best way of adding energy to the pendulum,

- validity of relativity of classic mechanics inside an inertial frame.

Key words: velocity, kinetic energy, momentum, over-unity, pendulum.

The complete paper can be read on the next link (PDF - 155KB):
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Veljko_Milkovic_Kinetic_Energy_and_Overunity.pdf
 

e2matrix

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1956
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2010, 04:39:47 AM »
Haven't read the paper yet but what you are saying sounds a lot like Tseung's 'lead out' info.  He's got a long thread on this forum that is still being updated.

exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #2 on: June 11, 2010, 02:02:42 PM »
...
The complete paper can be read on the next link (PDF - 155KB):
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Veljko_Milkovic_Kinetic_Energy_and_Overunity.pdf

As proof of OU, it is stated that:
- when you push a ball with a certain work and a force F, it acquires a velocity v, and a kinetic energy 1/2*m*v²
- now the ball is rolling, and you repeat the first operation: you push again the ball with same work and same force F, it acquires a velocity 2*v, and a kinetic energy 1/2*m*2²*v²
It is concluded that:
we have only doubled the work and obtained four times the kinetic energy!

This is total nonsense. Speed is relative to a reference frame, and so is the kinetic energy.
Energy is frame dependant.

In order to suppose that the work to accelerate the ball from 0 to v is the same as to accelerate it from v to 2*v, we have to suppose that in the second case, we accelerate the ball from 0 to v in a reference frame already at speed v relative to the first one. Thus we calculated two works of same value but relative to two different frames of reference. To add them is meaningless.
From the initial reference frame, we accelerated the ball from 0 to 2*v, therefore the work we expended is of course 1/2*m*2²*v².

The way Marjanovic does physics math is an absurdity not only from relativity viewpoint but also in Newton's mechanics.



Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #3 on: June 11, 2010, 02:08:22 PM »
Quote
Energy is frame dependant.

That's sheer nonsense.

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #4 on: June 11, 2010, 02:42:43 PM »
I don't know what that fellow is claiming neither do I have the time right now to get into the details but one thing is clear--when one says a body of mass m has velocity v that in no way implies the body can be observed from a different frame with the intention to prove that its velocity isn't v. That's such a dishonest twisting of someone's claim that I have no words for it. When someone says a body has velocity v he means it. That is, he is at rest with the laboratory frame and is observing the body moving at velocity v. Period. Further, when he says the body has a velocity of 2v he also means it and that velocity is also seen from the laboratory frame.

Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #5 on: June 11, 2010, 04:04:57 PM »
The pathways at the airport seem to be a relevant comparison here?

You push a ball with 1 unit of force, witch makes it attain v. It smoothly transitions onto the pathway, which happens to move at v itself. we'll have to disregard spin here, because the ball would roll forward on the pathway when braking down the spin.
Anyway, we hop on the pathway where the ball is laying still. We again push it with 1 unit of force, and sure enough, we get 2*v as an actual speed. That is, if we did not slow down the pathway. But, we did! Pathway delivered the difference between dV and dV².
If we step off the pathway and attempt to make the same push from the side rjust as the ball passes us, CAN we make it reach 2*V? we could use a lever to double our pushing speed, but that also reduces torque. The push is "weaker".

It all comes doen to this. Raise a weight to twice the height, and the speed it will fall to the ground to, will be MUCH less than twice the original. Distance*time is the bugger everytime.

exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2010, 10:44:53 AM »
Quote from: Exnihiloest
energy is frame dependant

That's sheer nonsense.

Omnibus, you should learn physics instead of spreading lies and ignorance.

"The kinetic energy of a single object is completely frame-dependent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy


Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2010, 02:27:49 PM »
Omnibus, you should learn physics instead of spreading lies and ignorance.

"The kinetic energy of a single object is completely frame-dependent"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no limits and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.

Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2010, 07:27:30 PM »
Quote
You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no  and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.
Wikipedia is a better source than repeating one self in 100% surely establishing that OU was reached, each new hint of an idea.

exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2010, 09:43:05 AM »
You should stop quoting Wikipedia when the discussion is about serious things. Your dishonesty has no limits and you're trying to find support in the most unlikely source for true science.

What a joke! It is your own dishonesty that you project.
Wikipedia can't educate ignorant people who want to remain in their ignorance. It is just a start point for intelligent people able to go beyond.

Kinetic energy being 1/2*m*v² and v being frame dependant, it is obvious that kinetic energy is frame dependant.
But according to intuitive omnibus knowledge, Wikipedia is wrong and energy is independant of the frame of reference, therefore even when v=0, there is a kinetic energy!...    ::) ::) ::)

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


Merg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2010, 05:52:18 PM »
The latest update from the authors:


Dear Friends,

Several people already expressed great concern about possibility if the force acting against the ball could pass the same energy to the ball after the ball started to move.
The problem was that the force should pass extra path in order to catch and push the ball.

We already explained that the force must be fast enough in order to catch and to push the ball.
However, we forget to mention that acting force should be an Impulse, without passing extra path.
Imagine turning the wheel by the hand. The hand would pass the same path every time, but probably somewhat faster next time. Magnetic force would be the best to use. If acted on the wheel it would act against nearest magnet on the wheel and pass the same path every time.

By using the pendulum all this issues would become invalid because the pendulum comes to stop on each side and there is no any extra path passed by the force if the force was used in highest positions.

To illustrate impact of extra velocity (this time it was angular velocity) to the space module Explorer I, please read the document on the internet:

„Von Braun’s 50-year-old Secret“ on the site:
http://www.enterprisemission.com/Von_Braun.htm

Sincerely,

Jovan Marjanovic and Veljko Milkovic

Cloxxki

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1083
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #11 on: June 14, 2010, 06:29:37 PM »
I  there's a little formula stating that if you inrease speed of actuator, you lose force by an equal amount...
You can't get both, full force AND distance. (Im)pulses are popupar, but don't help here.

X00013

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 679
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #12 on: June 15, 2010, 02:23:24 AM »
I'm waiting for wikipedia to tell me what gravity is, according to wikipedia I will be a better person if I masturbate daily, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id1Po8ryJrU&playnext_from=TL&videos=vdgB163TTTw

Phuccwikipedia 

Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #13 on: June 15, 2010, 12:12:23 PM »
What a joke! It is your own dishonesty that you project.
Wikipedia can't educate ignorant people who want to remain in their ignorance. It is just a start point for intelligent people able to go beyond.

Kinetic energy being 1/2*m*v² and v being frame dependant, it is obvious that kinetic energy is frame dependant.
But according to intuitive omnibus knowledge, Wikipedia is wrong and energy is independant of the frame of reference, therefore even when v=0, there is a kinetic energy!...    ::) ::) ::)

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

Inadequate quoting is dishonesty. It is dishonest to give quotes about frame dependence with the intent to debunk someone's claims when that someone explicitly talks only about events occurring in one only frame.

Rosphere

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
Re: New Breakthrough in Over Unity Theory
« Reply #14 on: June 15, 2010, 01:15:59 PM »
As proof of OU, it is stated that:
- when you push a ball with a certain work and a force F, it acquires a velocity v, and a kinetic energy 1/2*m*v²
- now the ball is rolling, and you repeat the first operation: you push again the ball with same work and same force F, it acquires a velocity 2*v, and a kinetic energy 1/2*m*2²*v²
It is concluded that:
we have only doubled the work and obtained four times the kinetic energy!

This is total nonsense. Speed is relative to a reference frame, and so is the kinetic energy.
Energy is frame dependant.
...

I don't know what that fellow is claiming neither do I have the time right now to get into the details but one thing is clear--when one says a body of mass m has velocity v that in no way implies the body can be observed from a different frame with the intention to prove that its velocity isn't v. That's such a dishonest twisting of someone's claim that I have no words for it. When someone says a body has velocity v he means it. That is, he is at rest with the laboratory frame and is observing the body moving at velocity v. Period. Further, when he says the body has a velocity of 2v he also means it and that velocity is also seen from the laboratory frame.

From the top:

You stand in your "laboratory frame" reference frame and kick a ball with impulse force F to make it roll with forward velocity v (and rotation w) towards your lab partner standing in your same "laboratory frame."

Your lab partner in your same reference frame intends to provide the second kick to make the 2v (2*v) velocity; to make the ball go twice as fast as it is rolling now.

The impact force of the foot on the ball depends upon the velocity the foot relative to the ball; if you kick it fast it goes fast, tap it slow it goes slow.

Without any math or physics "lies" about such things, we can easily infer through our childhood playground experience that the lab partner will need to kick way faster than you did to double the ball speed.  If his body mass is about the same as yours and he kicks with the same foot speed that you did, we can all easily imagine that that ball will go no faster than v as his foot barely makes contact with the ball.  (It's rolling right by him.)

He will need to kick twice as fast as you, (with the equivalent leg mass.)  Unless he is riding on a scooter, (a different reference frame,) traveling along side the ball with the same velocity v.  Then, in this scooter frame he can kick the rolling ball with your same effort.

So, either you lab partner provides a harder kick from the lab frame, (more energy than you from the lab frame,) or the same effort kick from the scooter frame, (but extra lab frame energy is required to move the scooter.)

Now I am out of time.  Off to work now.