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: 84213
  • *Latest: Lazyk

  • *Total Posts: 897708
  • *Total Topics: 15821
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 17
  • *Total: 18

Author Topic: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder  (Read 268897 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #555 on: September 22, 2010, 04:09:28 PM »
Hopefully this time I'll get it right.  A tribute to the skills at scale modelling - by Theo - and a tribute to our students who are helping build the real thing in conjuction with the French Institute of Technology.


Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline helicalred

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #556 on: September 23, 2010, 12:37:20 PM »
Hello Rosemary,

Reply #556: What is it a picture of?

- Bill

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #557 on: September 23, 2010, 12:48:04 PM »
Hi - another Bill?  It's a satellite.  SA have only ever sent one up into orbit.  This is a new one proposed - and being built in conjunction with a couple of campuses here in the Western Cape.  We're all very proud of the efforts - and I think with good reason.  Actually there are two being built.  I just thought I need pay some small tribute to these HUGE inroads our academic scientists are covering.  And I happened to know the maker of the scale model.

It's entirely OFF topic - but I'm sort of associated with one of these campuses - and just wanted to point out how PROGRESSIVE and EXCELLENT are  the general academic standards.  We're third world in many, many ways.  But when one looks at this standard of expertise - education - skills - and so on - then I know we're certainly NOT third world in educational standards.  It's a source of endless pride.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #557 on: September 23, 2010, 12:48:04 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline helicalred

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #558 on: September 23, 2010, 02:39:40 PM »
Thanks Rosemary, Now I understand.

Keep up the good work,
- Bill (Yup. Another one. Ubiquitous aren't we?)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #559 on: September 23, 2010, 04:33:22 PM »

- Bill (Yup. Another one. Ubiquitous aren't we?)

 ;D  I'm not complaining.  It's a nice name - and seems to belong to some really nice people.  Thanks for the good wishes. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #559 on: September 23, 2010, 04:33:22 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #560 on: September 25, 2010, 02:25:47 AM »
Guys - this is an extract from an essay I'm working on.  It's probably very contentious - but it's where I come in on some aspects of mainstream science.

If we could see gravitons we’d know everything about gravity.  If we could see electrons we’d know everything about electricity.  If we could see the interaction of particles with each other then we’d know everything about the strong and weak nuclear forces.  We can’t see them.  We can’t even see an atom.  And we certainly can’t see the forces to explain them.  We can only speculate.  And when and if we do speculate then we’re no longer being scientific.  We’re being philosophical. 

The confusions that have been visited on this noble art of science is based on the philosophical reach that science is now trying to usurp.  A scientist does not have the disciplines of logic that are required for philosophy any more than a philosopher has the required acuities of observation and measurement that a scientist has.  The difference is only in this.  A philosopher does not, as a rule, dabble in science.  But our scientists are shamelessly dabbling in philosophies.  And it is all being done with such disgraceful parade of poor logic that, in the fullness of time, these last pages of its history are likely to remain as a source of more than a little embarrassment.   Whole chapters of scientific progress – based on nothing but pure speculation and the accidental use of concepts that partially work and partially don’t work.  And all of it presented with a kind of intellectual flourish – a parade of self aggrandisement that would rival the pride of Lucifer himself. 

What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely incomprehensible techno-babble.  Terms are presented as acronyms and all is justified in the language of algebra.  Complex equations drift into ever greater complexities that would confuse God himself.  And all is intended simply to hide the manifold confusions that actually bedevil science itself.

It is possibly understandable that our experts feel required to explain ‘all’.  But these explanations are drifting into realms of obscurity  that have nothing to do with reason or logic or common sense or indeed science or philosophy.   It has simply become pretension.  What’s euphemistically referenced as theory is actually just  obscure jibberish masquerading as deep intellectual knowledge.  It makes the toes curl.   One must be ‘trained’ in science – of necessity.  It is not meant to be understood - certainly not as propounded by our experts.  Their intention is to flaunt a familiarity with complex abstractions.  And to own up to a lack of understanding would be to let the side down – to somehow admit to the disgrace of not actually being able to see the emperor’s new clothes. 

Let’s explore some of the confusions – let’s actually focus on the bare facts - on some of those manifold contradictions which our mainstream experts defend.  Starting with current flow.  Now.  We all know that electrical engineering is the applied knowledge of the electromagnetic force – so ably unfolded by Faraday and quantified by Maxwell.  And so widely applied in today’s technological revolution.  Our satellites, our trips to distant planets and more to come.  Our internet – our computers – our – cars – our measuring instruments, and on an on.  Examples of their skills are evident everywhere.

And yet.  Amongst all those able, those skilled engineers – the vast majority will insist that electricity is the result of electrons moving through their circuits in the form of current flow.  No matter that Pauli’s insights depended on the simple fact that electrons do not share a path. No matter that we have never been able to get electrons to move in the same direction without forcing them by the application of some very real energy.  No matter that electrons have a like charge and we could not get them to co-operate with each other in a shared environment any more than we can get to souths of two magnets to co-operate.  No matter that no-one has ever found ‘spare’ electrons inside circuit wiring.

Then there’s the pesky problem of charge balance.  The chemical analysis that is so ably applied by our chemistry experts determines  that every single electron inside a cell is fully accounted for in the formula relating to an electrolytic interaction. This chemical process will systematically move to neutralise the electrolyte without losing a single electron from the original molecules within the cell or any of the atoms which form the electrodes to that cell.  Yet the puzzle then is this.  When we recharge that flat battery we are told that electrons from a utility or any supply source replenishes that cell with electrons.  And this restores that condition where potential difference is again evident.  Where are our chemists pointing out the impossibility of this?   

And if the glove still doesn’t fit – then try another explanation.  We are now told that the actual current flow is the result of one valence electron somehow influencing a neighbouring electron – in a kind of domino effect.  Here the proposal is that the electrons do not actually move towards each other but in the same general direction.  Now we’ve got over the ‘shared path’ problem and that ‘no loss of electrons’ number.  This would certainly account for current flow.  But the problem is this.  Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron.  And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.  There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started.  But, in all other respects it could – otherwise – have been a reasonable explanation.  But it’s self-evidently spurious.   

There's another problem.  We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘thing’ that was transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities – all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid.  The truth is that no utility supply source would be able to access that many electrons.

So.  Again.  Another glove.  Another qualification.   We are then told that actually the electrons themselves are ‘free floating’ and they intrude into the material of the conductive wiring.  They do not come from the supply source itself.  Which also means that these electrons that are somehow detached from any particular ‘home’ – are floating about in the air belonging to no atoms – just free for the taking.  And we must now get our heads around the problem that not only is our atmosphere saturated with these previously undetected little numbers but that they can move into the circuitry – all over the place, straight through the heavy barriers of insulation which was first applied to prevent this from happening, precisely because it’s impossible for electrons to breach this insulating material.

Challenge any scientist, any chemist, on any of these points and, in the unlikely event that they continue to the conversation, they will do so in a loud voice and with more than a hint of exasperation.  What gets me every time is their usual defence based as it is on the statement that I should not question ‘what has been known and used for centuries now ’.  Somehow this is sufficient justification.  And God alone knows why because it certainly it’s not logical.

I would modestly propose that in the light of so much improbability – it may be proposed that – whatever else it is - current flow is NOT the flow of electrons, nor, as I’ve seen it suggested even on these forums, the flow of protons, or ions or anything at all that belongs to the atom.  Else it would be logically evident.  And it is not.   

Then to attend to other confusions...

Regards,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #561 on: September 25, 2010, 09:44:01 AM »
This is some more problems - this time relating to gravity.

Then to attend to other confusions especially as it relates to gravity.  Gravity – a weak force – apparently permeates the universe and acts as a kind of ‘glue’ on matter.  It only attracts.  It never repels.  If, indeed, all began as a Big Bang – then all that energy will systematically deplete until there is a kind of Big Crunch – where all disappears into the void that proceeded that bang.  Just as the electron is the ‘carrier’ of electrical energy – the graviton is philosophised to carry the gravitational energy.  But the graviton has NOT been seen.  Yet all is explained as if such a particle were extant.  Millions of dollars, euros, rupees, whatever, have been spent on trying to find the smallest ripple in the vast space time continuum around us and beyond us -  in those seemingly infinite reaches of space.

Where is the  evidence of this little particle?  Not even the faintest of faintest of these ripples has been found.  Not a whisper.  Not a shadow.  Notwithstanding which we’re assured that this lack of evidence is actually not a problem.  It is not considered to be sufficient reason to preclude the particle nor to discontinue the experiments.  We are told to ignore the ‘absence of evidence’.  A trivial requirement, a small stepping stone.  Step aside from this point.  Look the other way -  until, again and in the fullness of time, this required evidence must surely come to hand.  And until then – and in its absence  – it is to be regarded and referenced as a FACT.  This because our philosophical scientists are no longer requiring evidence to support a theory.  It’s enough to just balance those interminable equations – those  indecipherable and incomprehensible sums.

Now.  While it is understood that gravity is attractive – and ONLY attractive to all matter – for some reason our universe is not drifting towards a Big Crunch.  On the contrary.  Space is EXPANDING. And this is now also referenced as  FACT.  It seems that it’s enough for two schools to have reached the identical conclusion to establish a new scientific reality.  No-one questions the logic that supported this conclusion.  But there’s a small caveat.  The galaxies and stars and planets are not expanding.  It’s the actual space between them that – like poor little Alice stuck inside a rabbit hole – that is actually growing ever bigger and bigger.  And all this space is expanding at a predictable rate and is responsible for systematically propelling great clumps of matter apart from other great clumps of matter – all at a consistent and quantifiable velocity. 

Those that subscribe to this new evidence are careful NOT to reference the evidence of galaxies colliding – as this would put paid to their sums.  And those that do not subscribe – carefully do not reference these same galaxial collisions – for the same but opposite reasons.  I’ll get back to this point.  But for now the point is this.  If space is expanding, and yet galaxies collide – then that expansion is either not smooth or the galaxies themselves drift through space with varying velocities that would introduce a marvel of chaos to the otherwise and seemingly ordered and structured condition of our universe.   

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #561 on: September 25, 2010, 09:44:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #562 on: September 26, 2010, 12:24:28 PM »
Guys - for those that are still reading here.  Just a little more on that same essay.  When this exercise is finally finished I solemnly promise not to 'rant' against this again.   ;D  Judging from the lack of readers here I suspect the subject is not that compelling.  Which is a pity.  Because IMHO it's quite important.  Anyway.

Then more confusions.  We are told that nothing can exceed light speed unless it also had infinite mass.  Really?  In which case does that explain why photons that have no mass are able to travel at light speed?  And then what does one do with this famous equation where E = mc^2?  If the photon’s mass is zero then zero times any value greater or smaller than 1 – remains ZERO.  Where then is all this energy that moves at photon at light speed?  The truth of the matter is that science took a wrong turn somewhere and is reluctant to ‘go back’ so to speak.  Somewhere – somehow – the answers that were given as an explanation for all the forces were also somehow based on some erroneous foundation – a flaw in its structure.  And I would humbly suggest that this may have everything to do with the need to speculate on the properties of forces that remain invisible and particles that can only be studied by inference.

Herein lies the actual problem.   

Offline Hope

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #563 on: September 26, 2010, 08:30:23 PM »
If there is no effect on mass perhaps we are working with a -1 charge, what some call anti matter.  It may very well be that the neutral point can coexist wilth both matters.   Seeing this as not incidental you may recognize its similarity in loosely bound electrons, giving matter/anti matter a working exchange path.  (AND of course this is only my thoughts toward the non gravity effect)  Thank you Rosie

edited on spelling

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #563 on: September 26, 2010, 08:30:23 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline fritz

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #564 on: September 26, 2010, 09:58:08 PM »
Hi Rose,

(just for reference)
===============
There is a debate about the usage of the term "mass" in relativity theory. If inertial mass is defined in terms of momentum then it does indeed vary as M = γm0  for a single particle that has rest mass, furthermore, as will be shown below the energy of a particle that has a rest mass is given by E = Mc2. Prior to the debate about nomenclature the function m(u), or the relation M = γm0, used to be called 'relativistic mass', and its value in the frame of the particle was referred to as the 'rest mass' or 'invariant mass'. The relativistic mass, M = γm0, would increase with velocity. Both terms are now largely obsolete: the 'rest mass' is today simply called the mass, and the 'relativistic mass' is often no longer used since, it is identical to the energy but for the units.
===============

So this would mean that mass of the particle will be constant, whatever velocity,


rgds.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #565 on: September 27, 2010, 09:48:47 AM »
Hi Rose,

(just for reference)
===============
There is a debate about the usage of the term "mass" in relativity theory. If inertial mass is defined in terms of momentum then it does indeed vary as M = γm0  for a single particle that has rest mass, furthermore, as will be shown below the energy of a particle that has a rest mass is given by E = Mc2. Prior to the debate about nomenclature the function m(u), or the relation M = γm0, used to be called 'relativistic mass', and its value in the frame of the particle was referred to as the 'rest mass' or 'invariant mass'. The relativistic mass, M = γm0, would increase with velocity. Both terms are now largely obsolete: the 'rest mass' is today simply called the mass, and the 'relativistic mass' is often no longer used since, it is identical to the energy but for the units.
===============

So this would mean that mass of the particle will be constant, whatever velocity,


rgds.

Hi Friz,  I googled the same reference.  I hope you realise that what is actually being said here is that E does not equal mc^2?  My point, in any event, is that the photon needs to have mass - else it has no energy - not even in the unlikely event that it also ever had a rest state. 

Some time back you reference the need for a 'miracle' to explain our results.  I put it to you that it would be a 'miracle' to avoid our results.  But be that as it may.  What I feel would be required by our mainstream scientists is to achieve some kind of 'uniformity' in their basic theories that would explain known measurements in line with those theories. 

But I'll get back to this later tonight.  I need to get some 'shunts' and 'keys' for our campus project.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #565 on: September 27, 2010, 09:48:47 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #566 on: September 27, 2010, 06:01:29 PM »
If there is no effect on mass perhaps we are working with a -1 charge, what some call anti matter.  It may very well be that the neutral point can coexist wilth both matters.   Seeing this as not incidental you may recognize its similarity in loosely bound electrons, giving matter/anti matter a working exchange path.  (AND of course this is only my thoughts toward the non gravity effect)  Thank you Rosie

edited on spelling

Hello Hope.  I think anti-matter is simply the opposite of matter - provided only that the particles have charge.  In other words there would be no anti photon.  But an anti electron is a positron and an anti proton is just called that - an antiproton.  The thing is that it is understood that at the 'creation' of matter - then as many anti particles must have happened as particles.  But we can't find any 'antis' and when we manufacture them then thy annihilate each other.  The life span of an anti particle in our predominately 'particle' area of the universe - would be neglible to nothing.  I believe they've managed to create positrons and hold them locked in magnetic fields that enable their duration - partially.  But on the whole they're far too unstable to be useable.  Otherwise they'd be a remarkably efficient energy source.  Positron and electron interaction results in 3 photons - I think.

It's an interesting subject.  My own proposal is that when matter was first initiated / created - then matter gravitated to the inner boundaries of our universe and anti matter - proposed as being anti gravitational - gravitated to the outer boundaries.  But that first requires that the universe itself has a boundary.  LOL.  I think I'm now really confronting our classicists.  Of interest - the mainstream proposal is that this antimatter simply annihilated with matter and there was a happy surplus of matter that now predominates.  Not sure how they reconcile this with the symmetries that are also required.  But there you go.  It's not the first time that our mainstream have been able to contradict their own postulates.  The thing is that they keep getting away with it.   ;D

Kindest as ever,
Rosie

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #567 on: September 27, 2010, 07:40:46 PM »
Guys - I'm nearly at the end - for those who may be finding this exercise of mine a bit tedious.   ;D 

One of the more intriguing obsessions of our mainstream scientists is their interest in particle manifestations.  The neutrinos are the smallest and they're also considered to be stable.  But these little numbers could just as easily been seen as a really small photon or a really small electron - and the electron neutrinos - like the electron - theoretically also has it's anti particle – its twin.  These are the only stable particles together with the photon, the electron and the proton.  And they’re considered to be infinitely stable which is a really long time.

But the thing is this.  All other particles  – whatever their frequency, their mass, their lack of it, their charge, whatever - they all last for really small fractions of time.  Their duration can be measured in terms of quadrillionths of a second - or quintillionths - and so on - getting progressively smaller and progressively more improbable.   Here's the puzzle.  For some reason when one slams one particle into another - inside a bubble chamber - then from the interaction of two stable particles comes this 'particle zoo'.  It's been described as the creation of a really complex fruit salad from a chance meeting of two fruits.   Those myriad particles that manifest for such a brief moment of time - simply decay.  They disappear back into the vacuum of space.  And the proposal is that somehow these manifest particles are the product of that interaction.  It's so energetic that it would be absurd to balance out the energies in terms of thermodynamic laws.

Matter here has multiplied -  inexplicably and exponentially.  Strawberries, plums, apricots, pineapples, grapes, quinces, oranges, apples, and on and on - from the chance interaction of a banana with a small tomato.  So our scientists put paid to that energy equivalence - that all important sum that dominates science in every other respect - and they simply look at the conclusion of that experiment – to what happens after the manifest miracle of so much coming from so little.  And in as much as the final product of that interaction is less than the manifest particles that decay - then what is left is precisely the right combination of particles which then evidence a perfect conservation of charge.  One can almost hear the sigh of relief.

No-one, notwithstanding the evidence of this manifest matter in all it's varieties and that variety is widely considered to be potentially infinite - not one of them have suggested that, just perhaps, they are disturbing some kind of matter in the field that holds these particles.  Why is this not considered?  Could it not be that in the moment of interaction all that becomes manifest may be those particles in the field that were first invisible - and after impact, become visible - and then they decay?  That way - and only in that way - would they be able to argue conservation of anything at all.

This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our scientists.  There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence.  According to mainstream -  energy cannot be created.  And NOTHING can exceed light speed.  My own question is this.  How would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light speed?  In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring abilities.  It's the gold standard.  Actually it’s all we’ve got.  We’ve nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against.  If anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself would NEVER be able to find it.  It would, effectively be invisible. 

Regards,
Rosemary

« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 08:27:21 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline powercat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1091
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #568 on: September 28, 2010, 01:22:24 AM »
This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our scientists.  There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence.  According to mainstream -  energy cannot be created.  And NOTHING can exceed light speed.  My own question is this.  How would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light speed?  In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring abilities.  It's the gold standard.  Actually it’s all we’ve got.  We’ve nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against.  If anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself would NEVER be able to find it.  It would, effectively be invisible. 

Regards,
Rosemary

Hi Rosie
Great stuff :-* we can't get beyond a certain point, the experts say it's impossible ::)
sounds to me like history repeating itself >:( flying beyond the speed of sound was impossible, but first you had to invent the plane ;D
I guess the real question is when ???  in time all things are possible :o

cat ;)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit / A First Application on a Hot Water Cylinder
« Reply #569 on: September 28, 2010, 02:29:14 AM »
Hi Rosie
Great stuff :-* we can't get beyond a certain point, the experts say it's impossible ::)
sounds to me like history repeating itself >:( flying beyond the speed of sound was impossible, but first you had to invent the plane ;D
I guess the real question is when ???  in time all things are possible :o

cat ;)

 ;D  Hello Cat.  Always a pleasure to see you around and the more so when we're also on the same page.  And very relieved to learn that at least one reader isn't getting hot under the collar.   ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosie


 

OneLink