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: 897698
  • *Total Topics: 15820
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 3
  • *Guests: 14
  • *Total: 17

Author Topic: a new kind of visible radiant energy?  (Read 264977 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #195 on: August 31, 2010, 03:51:56 AM »
   @ all

     We are down wind of Leo and the two of us are heading towards a supercluster of galaxies beyond what is known as the Great Attractor.  The gravity from this dense cluster of matter is pulling the entire Milkyway there.  Since gravity is pretty quick way faster than the speed of light we can assume that this cluster of galaxies is still there even though slowass light is taking forever to get here.  The young cluster of galaxies we are seeing most probably exist as a super blackhole by now long ago gobbling up the hot matter and cooling it down considerably.  Gravity is an accelerating force.  It accelerates stuff aound here a 32feet per second unless you take the moon into account which slows this acceleration down.  Gravity like movement is a relative thing.  The more mass in a given field the more gravity.  To counter all this mother nature in all her wisdom produced antigravity.  This manifests in like charges being repelled.  There is no positive and negative there is just more or less electricity in a substance. The proton is assigned a positive charge.  Why because it has less mass density.  It is quite large compared to the electron yet it has equal charge effect.  This is because it has less mass density.  If it had the same mass density as an electron it would have the same charge state as an electron and would repel the electron.   A blackhole does not gobble up another blackhole.  We see a blackhole gobbling up the less dense matter surrounding the blackhole at the center of each and every star but blackholes are relavent to blackholes.  Once they have stripped the hot stuff it leaves the core of the star which is at the same mass density as the big black hole.  The two black holes then begin to accelerate away from each other on their way to creating new galaxies somewhere else in time and space.  There has to be antigravity or the big bang has to be repeating itself over and over and over again changing just a little bit every time.  Imploding and exploding so damn fast that all we see is minute changes dictated by whatever force is controlling the whole creator frequency.  Of the two sceanarios I would go with antigravity.  At least on the 7th day when the creator takes a snooze.

Wow sparks.  I'm blown away by all this vision.  Very nice indeed.

Regards
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #195 on: August 31, 2010, 03:51:56 AM »

Offline cletushowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #196 on: August 31, 2010, 04:38:54 AM »
Understanding black hole requires you to understand
your looking at a optical illusion
the inside ring equals the outside ring
you can demonstrate this a couple ways
put a little dirt in some water the shine the magnifying glass in it
you see a hour glasd in the dirts particles
now understand a pipe what does it look like from
a distance one ring the first ring is bigger
the the other the hole thru the pipe looks smaller
but its not smaller its the same size you just see
one side so your always either seeing
one half the hour glass or a pipe
now the black hoke can do virtualy anything its not stuck to your laws
just like gravity can change betwen
more frequency more temperature or magnetism
and all three no matter the combination
give you gravity you can have a little frequency
a little magnetism and a lot of temperature change and
you have gravity now if you find the calculation
for the firmula for all three like a=b= c= gravity
then we can overcome any temperature
any magnetism any frequency all the time perfectly
so call this the howell equation of gravity
gravity = f+t+m
any known two give you the third
so the easiest is the temperature
for lift over weight
the amount of magnetism to add to the temperature to abtain
the rest then frequency you will have soon
with daves device suspend a ballon add a metal plate
see how much magnetism to lift and drop it
then use lids or bendin or daves device to add frequency to lift
compute the calculations you will have
the answer to exact specific gravity of anything.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #197 on: August 31, 2010, 05:10:16 AM »
Dear Cletus,

I have finally 'succombed' and decided to answer your extraordinary post.  This time mainly because I've been rolling with laughter.  I LOVED the howell equation but you need to define your terms.  And I'm delighted to discover that anyone at all can find gravity variable according to temperature.  It's like science according to Lewis Carroll - an Alice in Wonderland series of weird physics .  It usually gives me a headache to try and read your posts.  I now realise that you're just offering us all a little light relief from reality.  Or rather a lot of light relief from reality.  I'm sure it's appreciated.  But frankly I'd prefer smaller doses.   ;D

Regards,
Rosemary

for those who may have missed it here it is again

so call this the howell equation of gravity
gravity = f+t+m

Got to love it.  All that freedom of thought and freedom of expression.  And an extraordinary license with logic.   :o ::)  LOL   ;D ;D ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #197 on: August 31, 2010, 05:10:16 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline sparks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2528
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #198 on: August 31, 2010, 05:53:11 AM »
   A blackholes gravity and the gravity of the great attractor and the gravity of the bird up in the palm tree outside all intermingle and are felt from one end of this Universe to the other.  Can you stop gravity with anything.  Can you shield it.  The only thing you can do is increase your mass density until you are of equal or greater density than the mass density field you are trying to be relavent to.  Frequency is time dependent.  Field changes measured by a fixed observer over a period of time.  But time is not a constant it is relative.  Time doe not appear to pass identically for observers in different inertial frames.  It has been proven many times by clocks on jets and spacecraft.  The more mass density the slower time appears to pass.  If we could approach a planet 5 or 6 light years away at speeds approaching that of light with a telescope on board to watch what was going on with the planet, as we moved towards it everything on the planet would start to happen faster and faster.  When you move through the spacetime continuom you move through space and time.  We would see what is occuring on the planet which would appear to them like taking thousands of years happening in seconds on board the craft.  The planet would age at an accelerated rate.  Say now we slow the ship down just a light year from the planet and lock in at its velocity.  We would see their past.  If we set off a lazer beacon it will take a year for this beacon to reach them.  If we send out a gravity tug it will reach them immediately.  Say we can communicate in Universal time with this planet through gravity transmission.  We could tell the citizens of the planet we will be there in a year.  By the way we know all of your ancient past and have it recorded here on board.  Then you start sending them pictures of stupid shit they did.  You also predict that one year from now you will start seeing holographic images appearing in your skies.  (The light lazer you sent out)  You put on a regular light show for em.  Then you tell them that we are coming so get your shit together or were going to take care of business when we get there.  Time is not a constant it is totally dependent on the condition of the observer.  Say we get to the planet enact some laws and order topple the slavers and give them some technology maybe even mate with some good lookers.  Now we dont want to spend the rest of eternity amongst the barbarians so we jump aboard the craft and bring it up to high speed.  We have lunch and a nap then we slow down and take a look at what the smart monkeys are doing.  A hundred years have passed for them a day for us.  There doing the same stupid shit they were doing before lunch.  We lived for 100 of their years while it was only a day of ours.  We could do this for tens of thousands of years just popping in now and again to cleanup the zoo.  Meanwhile the folks at home want to know what is taking us so long at work.  We explain.  Kids are a pain in the butt sometimes we understand.  Dont forget to bring us some souveniers.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #199 on: August 31, 2010, 06:09:59 AM »
sparky?  I wonder if you shouldn't be writing scripts for Dr Who.  Definitely some frustrated literary talents there is my take.

Nice reading.
Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #199 on: August 31, 2010, 06:09:59 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #200 on: August 31, 2010, 06:22:48 AM »
I would love to see it.  Google Images cannot come up with a actual picture of an electron for me, which is what I was intending on referring to... not an entire atom.  If you find such an image, please let me know.  The thought was that the electron it itself comprised of many smaller quark type aetheric particles.
Hi again twinbeard.  I think classicists consider that the electron is a fundamental particle or what they call a lepton.  But I agree with you.  I also think the electron is a composite of something much smaller. 

I'm just curious what the extent of the B field looks like, given that the flux, by my estimation, should not be able to escape what amounts to a toroidal core, yet the particular geometry of this device may be creating really interesting eddies.
I'm into symmetries and when one uses just two charges - n/s or add neutral - 3 potential charge conditions then one actually is working with something that's closer to a binary system.  Binary systems are good.  We all know how effectively it's used in computer software technologies.  But for me it's essential - because I've had an entire dearth of schooling in math.  So.  It's my 'fall back'.  But what it does is sharpen the focus on those symmetries and I find it entirely engrossing.  Definitely finding all sorts of strange configurations in the toroidal magnetic field that's needed to keep the proposed velocity of the fields.  I think it needs a kind of repulsion and attraction - also and always assuming that the field comprises any kind of fundamental particle at all.  Way too many suppositions for a really earnest thesis.  But it's the best I can do.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

BTW I've also seen an photographic illustration of an electron - in Paul Dyson's book 'Conceptual Physics'.  It looks something like this * * * * *

It's the 'gaps' between that intrigue me.  It seems to drift in and out of our dimensions.  Now you see me - now you don't.  Effectively there's a momentary decay.  The hell of it is that it is still considered to be a stable particle - into INFINITY.  It's very curious.

Offline wattsup

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2608
    • Spin Conveyance Theory - For a New Perspective...
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #201 on: August 31, 2010, 07:26:25 AM »
@sparks

Good brain candy. Thanks.

Added:

OK, one question about those guys doing the space traveling. With all that back and forth. Did they get any older? Was their time or length of actual existence any different?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2010, 08:17:22 AM by wattsup »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #201 on: August 31, 2010, 07:26:25 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline cletushowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #202 on: August 31, 2010, 08:01:41 AM »
Rosemary you can try to talk your big words
gravity is three frequency
hutchestion levetates with just frequency
temperature is a odvious
and magnetism is polatirity
you need all three or a surplus of any of the three
so gravity = magnetism + temperature+ frequency
you can add words all day there is no other laws of energy
period
and i have string theory to so talk big
havent seen you warp anything
but i have

Offline cletushowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #203 on: August 31, 2010, 08:13:05 AM »
You so indebth in math huh
so you must have the axis of all number
ya i solved them all how about i amuse you
with this 7/3
solve that
2.333 smart
you pass with a a+
but you failed
7x144,000=1008000/3
=336,000 a perfect number
how bout the problem if the 47 uclid
did you do that well i did
you cant get past 10 much less 11
47  =11 have fun
i beat marco rodin want to sed our debate its on my board
all his books i set him back 12 years
so maybee you see your way behind
darling but your the queen

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #203 on: August 31, 2010, 08:13:05 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #204 on: August 31, 2010, 08:13:17 AM »
Rosemary you can try to talk your big words
gravity is three frequency
hutchestion levetates with just frequency
temperature is a odvious
and magnetism is polatirity
you need all three or a surplus of any of the three
so gravity = magnetism + temperature+ frequency
you can add words all day there is no other laws of energy
period
and i have string theory to so talk big
havent seen you warp anything
but i have
You're right Cletus.  I've warped nothing.  But I actually didn't mean to offend you.  I just wanted to point out that there's a level of rich comedy in your posts.  I realise that it's not intended.  But it's still there.  And WHAT big words?  I use simple english - I hope.

Rosemary   ;D

Offline cletushowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 571
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #205 on: August 31, 2010, 08:27:53 AM »
In fact you got me so upset im going go hang out with the devil
the 666 just because hes like the only one on
my level 47 is nimrod
nimrod is m rodin marco rodin
dads a nuclear scientist and hes the second smartest man on earth
to me but you cant see those that have a ear let them hear
those that have a eye let them see
gravity = frequency magetism temperature

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #205 on: August 31, 2010, 08:27:53 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #206 on: August 31, 2010, 08:43:43 AM »
Cletus may be a step above us in the evolutionary ladder.
He uses concepts and terminology that seems foreign to us, but it is not to be laughed at.

every now and then he says some things that even my primitive mind can recognize... His pyramid is essentially the the same as mine, but it can be "flipped".
where-as mine stays the same polarity.
Ive done extensive research on the fairfield device, (TriForce and friends)
 and there is certainly a magnetic vortex within.

If you look at how this fits into the larger picture Cletus is trying to paint, you really can't discard anything he has said, no matter how rediculous it may seem to those of us who do not understand.
If you look past his frantic synaptic hysteresis, and subsequent incohesive thought patterns. You will find some underlying knowledge that is very important, and very relevant to what we are doing here.

It's like a co-dependent relationship...
He feels the need to enlighten us with his knowledge,
Yet it is our inability to comprehend his thoughts that frustrates him...




Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #207 on: August 31, 2010, 08:57:43 AM »
Cletus may be a step above us in the evolutionary ladder.
He uses concepts and terminology that seems foreign to us, but it is not to be laughed at.

every now and then he says some things that even my primitive mind can recognize... His pyramid is essentially the the same as mine, but it can be "flipped".
where-as mine stays the same polarity.
Ive done extensive research on the fairfield device, (TriForce and friends)
 and there is certainly a magnetic vortex within.

If you look at how this fits into the larger picture Cletus is trying to paint, you really can't discard anything he has said, no matter how rediculous it may seem to those of us who do not understand.
If you look past his frantic synaptic hysteresis, and subsequent incohesive thought patterns. You will find some underlying knowledge that is very important, and very relevant to what we are doing here.

It's like a co-dependent relationship...
He feels the need to enlighten us with his knowledge,
Yet it is our inability to comprehend his thoughts that frustrates him...

Sm0ky - I have no quarrel with anyone's ideas.  But there has to be some kind of logic if it's to be understood.  I'm afraid with the best will in the world I cannot see sequential logic in any of what he writes.  In fact it leaves me with my head spinning.  But I do find a certain 'bleak' humour in his postings.  It shows me where I'm likely to go if I ever lost this rather tenuous grip I have on reality.  It's a scarey prospect. 

I get it that he's got some really deep problems.  I very much doubt that he's on the same level as an experimentalist as Hutchinson.  And I certainly don't see him as a new Einstein or anything like.  But like all eccentrics - which, no doubt is a condition we share on these forums - then he has his value - clearly.  For me, not so much.  But nor am I obliged to read his posts.  And I'm not sure that I have any rights to offend anyone.  So.  I'll go back to saying nothing.  Cletus.  Apologies for laughing.  It was a momentary lapse.  I had a 'fleeting' hope that I could FINALLY enjoy reading your writing.  On the whole I find them deeply disturbing and deeply disturbed.  It can't be fun for you.  And I acknowledge that you definitely know MUCH more than I could ever hope to learn.  Golly.  A 14 year old would beat me at a math quiz. 

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #208 on: August 31, 2010, 09:37:01 AM »
@ Rose

i agree that at LEAST half of what he types doesnt make any sense..

but im begining to think that may just be because of my current perspective.

To get what hes saying, you must reduce everything into an arbitrary value within the matrix.
when you do this, the math becomes much simplier.
in fact, the only different between doing complex trig. and using simple 8th grade matrices
is:   Pi

It doesnt matter how you square the circle, the answer is the same, just + or - values.
Thats why matrices work so well.

Further, he reduces everything into their associated frequency response. So instead of a compound problem, with undefinable ( or predefined) components
You have a simplified problem,
the only component is frequency.

he completely loses me on the color wheel, i dont understand how these things relate, but im trying...

heres the squared circle. this is why there is no heiroglyph for "integration". Yet noone can argue that their math was not just as accurate as ours.

im seriously pondering how his "babysitters" will respond if i were to acquire him as an asset.



Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3382
Re: a new kind of visible radiant energy?
« Reply #209 on: August 31, 2010, 09:57:59 AM »
For example::
if you triangulate the squared circle, square the resulting octagon, triangulate that square, square the axis
then circle the square.
You have effectively reduced its size to one third.
And what i just did in one sentence, would have taken a mathematician half a sheet of paper, and a whole lot more time.

But, if you were to just read that sentence, without me explaining this to you......
you would think im crazy, and have no clue about Pi, Radii, and the area of a circle. But as you can clearly see here, there are other ways to solve the problem than the commonly accepted model presented by physics.





 

OneLink