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: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 273953 times)

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
This is unjustified:

I have shown firm evidence for the inherent OU in electrical phenomena.
LOL! kaku has shown more firm evidence of dark matter than you have shown firm evidence for the inherent OU in electrical phenomena... ::)

but back to what you keep avoiding with your strawman arguments...
so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
I would be the first to accept Rosemary's claim for the electric current not being the directed flow of electrons but, unfortunately, it is flying in the face of easily demonstrable facts.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
LOL! kaku has shown more firm evidence of dark matter than you have shown firm evidence for the inherent OU in electrical phenomena... ::)

This is again an assertion without evidence. On the other hand, I can produce evidence for what I claim at once.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
I would be the first to accept Rosemary's claim for the electric current not being the directed flow of electrons but, unfortunately, it is flying in the face of easily demonstrable facts.
so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
This is again an assertion without evidence. On the other hand, I can produce evidence for what I claim at once.
this is again a strawman fallacy being used by you...

so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Just imagining that someone proved something is just that, imagination. No science there.

Offline shruggedatlas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 549
Hi shruggedatlas.  Yes.  I do think they work on principles that have NOTHING to do with a flow of electrons.  But I am absolutely not that anxious to convert anyone at all to my thinking.  I've simply explained why I think what I do.  No-one's under any pressure or obligation to 'buy in'.  And you're right.  I reference it everywhere.  No single branch of physics is better developed or advanced than that related to quantum electromagnetics.  And - to date - there is no substitute for the electron as the 'carrier' of this energy.  It's just a badly flawed concept that is nonetheless - very effective as a concept.  It works - and it's used.  It's just wrong - is all. 

You must remember that dark energy and dark matter are now entirely proven - yet there are renowned academics who absolutely reject that proof.  Michio Kaku is on record.  He says words to the effect "All the text books that have ever been written.  They're all wrong."  It's just that the 'change over' to new concepts is having a harder time of it than ever before precisely because so many really clever people have bought into ideas that will be entirely outdated within the very near future. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Just because something else in science may or may not be correct does not mean that something as well known as electric current is misrepresented.

You say that your view is just your way of thinking, but anyone can say that.  I could say that electric current is black magic from Jesus.  So just saying it without evidence is not helpful.  And just saying you have not observed anything that would prove to you that electrical current is the flow of electrons means nothing.

What would mean something is if you were to put forth evidence that would contradict current theory, but as you say, you are not anxious to do that, but then, why even say anything.

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
Just imagining that someone proved something is just that, imagination. No science there.
this is again a strawman fallacy being used by you...

so was that a yes or a no on the first question?
and was that a yes or a no on the second question?

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
@shruggedatlas.

If you go back in the thread you'll see that Rosemary gave certain explanations but, like I said, they fly in the face of well established and easily demonstrable facts. One, indeed, may have his or her own beliefs but broadcasting them as the rejection of well understood facts isn't acceptable.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Just because something else in science may or may not be correct does not mean that something as well known as electric current is misrepresented.
Hello again shruggedatlas.  That is hardly an argument.  How many hundreds - if not thousands of years was it well known that the stars in the night sky orbited our planet together with our sun.  Science has an unfortunate history of being shown to be wrong - both in general and in particular.  It's the nature of the beast. 

You say that your view is just your way of thinking, but anyone can say that.  I could say that electric current is black magic from Jesus.  So just saying it without evidence is not helpful.  And just saying you have not observed anything that would prove to you that electrical current is the flow of electrons means nothing.
I have explained my argument - repeatedly through these many posts shruggedatlas.  I can defintely say that electrons do not constitute the 'carrier' of electric energy as I have the thesis and the experimental evidence in support of that thesis.  If electrons constituted the material of current then we would never have achieved OU results.  The concept of electron current flow requires total conformity to equivalence principles. 

What would mean something is if you were to put forth evidence that would contradict current theory, but as you say, you are not anxious to do that, but then, why even say anything.
On the contrary.  I most certainly do have the required evidence.  Lots of it.  Very comprehensively documented.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
@shruggedatlas.

If you go back in the thread you'll see that Rosemary gave certain explanations but, like I said, they fly in the face of well established and easily demonstrable facts. One, indeed, may have his or her own beliefs but broadcasting them as the rejection of well understood facts isn't acceptable.
Omnibus - I think we need to get down to some issues here.  Your entire rejection of string theory is based on something that I think our readers would find very interesting.  They propose the theoretical requirement for a force that has - thus far - not been acknowledged by mainstream science.  Sometime in the early 1920's (dates are not my strongest point so I may be out here) a guy called Zwicky (an astronomer) saw that galaxies should be 'unravelling' if - as had been understood - gravity was the predominant force in the universe.  There was not enough evident matter in all those stars to 'hold together'.  This was independently verified in or around the late 1930's.  At the time quantum mechanics was getting a life of its own - being forged by Bohr and Heisenberg.  Then came Einstein and concepts of relativity - that 'took over' the academic and public interest.  Then came the Michelson Morely proof or 'disproof' of aether energies.  And all the while there was little if any focus on that little known fact that what Zwicky first called 'missing energy' and what others subsequently termed 'dark energy' was an extant FORCE heretofore unscheduled within classical or quantum thinking. 

The simple truth is that string theorists propose the structure of the force that astrophysicists require to explain the fact that galaxies do not 'unravel' as would be required in the context of their mass and in the context of our knowledge of how gravity works.  But astrophysicists - Ellis, from Caltech, being the leading proponent, took the trouble to measure that energy which was achieved through the art of gravitational lensing.  Their conclusions - the results of those experiments - the measured evidence is that about 10 times more mass is actually measured in these galaxies than can be seen. 

Now.  If indeed that mass can be accounted for in dark energy - which it can, then the truth is that our string theorists have already given us the mathematical proof of this.  It's a NEW force. And if this force is alive and kicking and just needs to come into the light of our general knowledge - then it will UPEND conventional thinking regarding equivalence principles.  It will prove the existence of an energy field that permeates our universe as MATTER - as a particle - and that it constitutes approximately 90% - if not more - of our entire universe.  This means that the greatest part of the universe is INVISIBLE and - like all matter - it has an energy potential that is so abundant that it will knock our thermodynamic constraints into the dark ages. 

I suggest to you that as you already deny the existence of OU which we and others have proved experimentally - then you will REALLY need to work hard to deny the evidence of dark energy and it's mathematical justifications in STRING theory.  Our string theorists have experienced various levels of unpopularity.  But what is UNARGUABLE is that they have given mathematical proof of what they see.  It is just very confusing conceptually - as they work in multidimensions.  And indeed, my own modest little excursion into theoretical physics - is also based on string theory.  In other words - I most definitely subscribe to the thinking.

Regards,
Rosemary
edited
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33988924/DARK-MATTER-MFM
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:21:53 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3141
ahh good ol' crazy fritz (zwicky)...

why do theorists continue to favour the e-m field, the photon, and maxwell's equations for 70 years in spite of the well-known flagrant failure of the mathematical description to agree with observation? why were alternative descriptions of nature not sought? i think the answer is because it worked once the errors were removed with a bit of 'hocus pocus' mathematics (ala renormalization) and the aid of empirical data...
it is really a tragedy, this erroneous insistence to retain the point particle and vector force fields has been the root cause of the many paradoxes and mysteries surrounding quantum theory. the resulting confusion has been increasingly exploited in the popular press and so instead of searching for the simple behaviour of nature, the physics community found that 'wave-particle duality' was an exciting launching pad for more crazy paradoxical proposals that found support from government funding agencies. the search for truth was put into limbo and wave-particle duality reigned. and so, now, they all hail cern...

illegitimi non carborundum rosemary.

Offline Omnibus

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5330
Rosemary,

Quote
I suggest to you that as you already deny the existence of OU which we and others have proved experimentally - then you will REALLY need to work hard to deny the evidence of dark energy and it's mathematical justifications in STRING theory.

There are two different issues here (maybe even three). First, I don't deny the existence of OU. Moreover I have myself proved it definitively -- recall the magnetic propulsor argument, the RC filter with with voltage offset argument and in the argument regarding the so-called 'cold fusion'. What I have not seen experimental evidence of is the OU in the circuit proposed by you. There may or may not be OU in it. That remains to be seen. As for the idea that the electric current in a solid conductor is not a directed flow of electrons, that I deny altogether because such idea goes against well established and understood experimental facts.

So, these are the three points I'm focusing on in this discussion, leaving dark matter, string theories and what not, which is outside of the discussion at hand where it belongs -- outside this discussion.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
ahh good ol' crazy fritz (zwicky)...

why do theorists continue to favour the e-m field, the photon, and maxwell's equations for 70 years in spite of the well-known flagrant failure of the mathematical description to agree with observation? why were alternative descriptions of nature not sought? i think the answer is because it worked once the errors were removed with a bit of 'hocus pocus' mathematics (ala renormalization) and the aid of empirical data...
it is really a tragedy, this erroneous insistence to retain the point particle and vector force fields has been the root cause of the many paradoxes and mysteries surrounding quantum theory. the resulting confusion has been increasingly exploited in the popular press and so instead of searching for the simple behaviour of nature, the physics community found that 'wave-particle duality' was an exciting launching pad for more crazy paradoxical proposals that found support from government funding agencies. the search for truth was put into limbo and wave-particle duality reigned. and so, now, they all hail cern...

illegitimi non carborundum rosemary.


Hi again.  I really need to get this email system fixed.  I didn't get here until now.  This is very well put indeed Wilby.  There is this a strange preference for the confusing, improbable, highly complicated explanation rather than the simple.  Personally I find it morally offensive as it gives a kind of respectability to those who can REALLY confuse the pants off the public.  Technobabble.  Personally I welcome these knew concepts as it will be a kind of renaissance in physics.  AND it will have the very real benefit of simple logic where our lay public will again be able to get involved.  While string theories ague pure math it still is still confusing - certainly to me.  But when the logic is  explained in simple conceptual terms then the thinking is as evident as daylight. 

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

EDITED LOL.  I'm going blind here.  I posted the most of this inside your own reference.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Rosemary,

There are two different issues here (maybe even three). First, I don't deny the existence of OU. Moreover I have myself proved it definitively -- recall the magnetic propulsor argument, the RC filter with with voltage offset argument and in the argument regarding the so-called 'cold fusion'. What I have not seen experimental evidence of is the OU in the circuit proposed by you. There may or may not be OU in it. That remains to be seen. As for the idea that the electric current in a solid conductor is not a directed flow of electrons, that I deny altogether because such idea goes against well established and understood experimental facts.

So, these are the three points I'm focusing on in this discussion, leaving dark matter, string theories and what not, which is outside of the discussion at hand where it belongs -- outside this discussion.

Omnibus.  I'm delighted to read that you subscribe to experimental evidence.  In which case please read the paper that is appended to this and to the previous post to you.  The evidence of OU was required and predicted in terms of my thesis, was experimentally demonstrated, was accredited by some really reputable companies, was replicated and all aspects extensively documented. That should take care of the first two points that you want to concentrate on.

The third point relates to electron current flow.  You claim that the reconstitution of copper in a zinc/copper battery is proof of the electron current flow.  What I propose is that it proves that electrons can be induced to move in the reconstitution of the atomic and molecular structure determined by the process of electrolysis.  That everyone thinks that electric current flow relies on electrons is entirely their right - and yours.  I personally do not subscribe.  I think we must just agree to differ.

Regards,
Rosemary
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26240411/PROVING-OVER-UNITY-THE-HARD-WORK-OF-MANY-DEDICATED-OPEN-SOURCE-MEMBERS
EDITED