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

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: 83565
  • *Latest: holbin

  • *Total Posts: 514850
  • *Total Topics: 15319
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 18
  • *Total: 22

Author Topic: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics  (Read 42198 times)

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #60 on: October 21, 2010, 02:04:23 AM »

The "source" of the electricity is not a capacitor or a battery either, they are merely storage containers, as is a "magnet". Actually, I doubt that a "storage container" is really accurate either from my own understanding, I suspect it is but a handy vehicle. However, the "source" would include breaking things down on the quantum level. The question is, is it really worth traveling into the world of pure speculation?  ???

You made this post on late - and you then talked about circular logic.  My quarrel with Heisenberg and Bohr - is that they justified the use of measurement - rather than delving into the understanding of the things measured.  I think Pauli went so far as to say that it is IMPOSSIBLE to conceptually understand the properties of an atom.  I share your distaste here.  Our quantum theorists put paid to the promotion of concept.  And, as they did away with the need for aether almost at the same time - then they found themselves in the happy position of not needing to analyse the 'field'.  Which, when you think about it, was in itself a gross 'over simplification'.  All acknowledge that energy is sourced from gravity or electromagnetic or nuclear energy - but none of them studied those forces - just their effect on measurable matter.  That's only one half of the equation. 

And, if aether energies are, somehow, the same thing as 'dark energies' then - surely the time is long overdue to start studying those invisible forces.  I would have thought?

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #60 on: October 21, 2010, 02:04:23 AM »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #61 on: October 21, 2010, 08:30:50 AM »
"Magnetism can exist in a vacuum", I think is what I stated.  I'll rephrase this to "A magnetic Field can exist in a vacuum".  This was, I had thought, an accepted belief that "Radio Waves", or EM Radiation (Electro-Magnetic) were something that existed.  If such things do exist, and can propagate through a vacuum, then they can exist without the requirement of standard matter, or "Mass" as I was describing matter.
Art.  Electromagnetic radiation is just that.  A combination of electricity and magnetism.  This, more or less, was the interaction that Maxwell used to describe a photon's path through the vacuum.  I know you know these things.  I'm not presuming to teach you.  I'm just trying to highlight a point.  But I get it here then - that mass is what's proposed to be missing in the vacuum.

I used the word
I was in no way attempting to describe the "Effects" of Magnetic fields on anything, as that is not within the realm of possibilities, if thinking critically and using "accepted" science.  (At this time and using "Classical" definitions...)  Many like to think they 'have a clue', but I have yet to see someone in the mainstream really put forth the "real" information.  (I am not saying I know anything, either!:)  One can only observe the effects, and make theory based of those observations.  Of course, if the theory bases magnetism in matter ("Mass" as described!), the the theory may hold true in matter, but cannot be accurate for the reality of magnetism.
I'm also not talking about their 'effects'.  I'm proposing that these fields may be material in their essence.  Mainly because if they are not material then their energy is manifest from 'nothing' - which rather defeats thermodynamic principles at the get go.  If you recall - I showed that the manifest voltage across a resistor as the result of current flow - shows that 'something' resulted from that flow - and it is only indirectly associated with the flow of current. Did it come out of nothing?  Is that even reasonable?  Does it simply imprint 'space' with a kind of 'shape' which then serves to collapse and generate another current flow?  Or does it halve itself so that one half goes 'up' and one goes 'on' - so to speak.  The one half extrudes as a magnetic field - the other half flows on as charge or whatever.  If this last proposal of mine is NOT seriously considered then - the simple fact is that current flow - be it electrons or charge or whatever - is able to produce something from nothing.  And whether you give it mass - or wether you see it as a ghost shape that somehow imprints itself on space - it is still something from nothing. 

So.  The fact that magnetism can exist in matter - in no way refutes that magnetism itself may comprise matter - in a really subtle and elusive sense.

So, all I AM saying is that, if a magnetic field can exist, in a location where there is no matter (Use "mass" as above, for clarity...), then the matter obviously cannot be "required" for the field's existence.  That is just standard logic.
Here it seems as if we're arguing the same point.  But I'm not sure.  If magnetism does not require matter - then by the same token does an electron require matter or does the existence of any particle depend on the existence of other particles to manifest and stay manifest?  I doubt it.  No matter essentially requires other matter.  It's just with the proximity to both other matter and other fields - one can generate a certain predictable movement in those particles.  And I would propose that the same is true about magnetic fields.  The difference is that the 'field' moves as a whole, where the particles can be isolated from each other. 

If one actually carries this simple piece of data into the field of "Electrical" data (Which, by the way, requires acceptance of "Classical" electron theory, or you really shouldn't use the word Electrical because the word electron is part of that word, but I digress...)
Art?  That's not fair.  The term 'electric' was used on the assumption that the electron is the particle.  And the term electric was actually based on Electra - a Greek Goddess - I think.  (Just looked it up and it gives endless reference to Carmen Electra - not the same thing.)

(As an important "Critical Thinking" note:  A Magnetic field IS NOT produced by "Moving Electrons", as I hope is obvious, IF you can accept any of the above.  There is more/other things going on...   If you DO move "Electrons", or conduct "Classical" current, you WILL find a Magnetic field.  The first is observed fact.  The second is a "Classical" defined action.  Does that help, or make it worse?   And this is just barely touching the subject of one sentence...)
I wholly agree with this statement.  But that means that the magnetic field is somehow 'exposed' by that current flow - at best.  So.  Here's what I'm hoping can be discussed.  Can it be that a magnetic field comprises particles?  Just that?  If this simple point were ever acceded - then we could all move on.  It's really, really important.

Kindest as ever,
Rosemary

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #62 on: October 21, 2010, 09:01:57 AM »
Guys, Paul, Loner - all.  I know I'm picking holes in some points that are self-evident to you all.  But it's not self-evident to me.  I have NEVER been able to find a justifiable reason for current flow to generate a magnetic field unless that field was substantive - or particulate.  Even if it's conceptually understood as a kind of ghost shadow then it must, in itself, have properties of energy.  Else how could it transfer that measurable potential difference as current when those fields or that 'shadow' collapses.  That's a measurably energetic interaction - those collapsing fields.  I know this well.  We use it extensively in our research. 

So.  I just don't know how mainstream view this.  It seems that a magnetic field is the CONSEQUENCE of an electric field and this is widely understood.  But based on WHAT?  In my simplistic understanding of the thing - I see that magnetic fields must be disturbed inside the material of the circuit - to extrude anywhere at all.  And having been extruded, then they've simply been 'rehoused' so to speak - in an extruded plane - where previously they were 'inside there' - somewhere?  And since the extrusion of the fields make not an iota of difference to the material structure of the atoms inside that wire - then they were NOT inside the atoms. 

We all know about the casimir effect.  But for readers who may not be that familiar - it's the experimental evidence of atoms 'bonding' on a very small scale - without any material difference to their atomic structure.  This effect was first predicted and then proven.  And I wonder if the casimir effect is dependent on magnetic fields.  We know that magnets 'stick' and - if one imposes a one dimensional orbiting field of magnetic type particles to the exterior of atoms they would be able to orbit - either in the figure 8 or as a complete circle - and thereby neutralise the valence condition of any atom to enable a bonding.  It's speculative but has the very real merit of locating what may be the source of all that magnetism that's measured across a coil - or wire - or resistors - or inductive resistors - whatever.

And as a reminder to you both.  A magnetic field extruded or otherwise - makes no material difference to the atoms - not even when the material gets hot.  The only difference is to the bound condition of that material which may then weaken or degrade over time.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #62 on: October 21, 2010, 09:01:57 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Mk1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #63 on: October 21, 2010, 09:17:40 AM »
@all

All energies were dark at some point , lucky for us we found those we could touch and see .

What is energy ? Most of the time we don't see it ! why ?

A bucket of water can't show its energy , if no one kicks it .

Like a magnets need to be moved , to create energy in a coil .

A core need to be kicked to output anything , the concept is there .

I worked on making some JT circuit and tried to make it into a step down transformer , it never worked i always got more then the input voltage .

I bet you need to take specific measures to build step down transformer like a really bad core .

But the answer is more in the fixed 60 h freq , hiding the forest .

Loud music doesn't break glass , but a specific freq will break any particular glass , because of the resonance freq (the speed the glass vibrates naturally at ) .

Now if the same freq is played in load speakers the glass will react in synchronicity with the sound even at real low levels , higher levels breaks the glass .Any other freq will leave the glass intact even at greater input or any for that mater.

This approach yield , greater response at a lower input , a suspect that if you are careless about freq , you will have about what you put in ( text book ).

There is gravity in every thing it is a force , its in everything , that is water the electricity and magnetic current are like rock dropped in the water releasing some of the water out of the bucket , but you only see what has been released and is equal to the mass of the rock .

I hope most will see that saying there is a better way to do things , it is logical too , what you guys have against logic , a see Bayer's .

Mark

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #64 on: October 21, 2010, 09:31:56 AM »
Hello Mark.  Who's arguing?  And where are we being illogical?  I actually don't know that resonance is the only proof of 'more out than in' but it's a good example.  And I think we all concur that energy is in mass.  What we're trying to do here is find the constituent properties of that energy.

I am very impressed by your coils, by the way.  Very artistic.  But our essential 'drive' here is to see if we can get to a better understanding of the properties of the 'field' - or that's my interest, in any event.  You see, you guys, with respect, are exploring this potential 'dark' energy source - on a purely empirical level.  I think there's more than enough justification to try and establish some conceptual understanding of this.  Even if it's to enable some better control of it - and certainly to enhance it's predictive values which is essential if we're to put it to good use.  But let's first establish that it's both theoretically and logically required.  God knows.  We'd do well to get logic back into theory.

Regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #64 on: October 21, 2010, 09:31:56 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #65 on: October 21, 2010, 09:45:41 AM »
@Rosemary

Better be careful. The pond you start to wade is deep and full of sharks whom violently defend their territory.

What is energy? What is mass? what is work? What is magnetism? Etc., etc., etc., all stem from a basic question.. What DOES the "book" say they are?

Many can quote the book but can go no deeper. A few however  try.

A rare few examine critically the base definitions which are the building blocks of science. An extremely rare few acknowledge problems in them when found, even though said problems are blatant.

These rare few are either famous, infamous, or relegated.

Famous, as the likes of Newton. Infamous as was Tesla, or both famous and relegated as stupid having your work hacked to unrecognizable bits like Maxwell. (Heaviside NEUTERED Maxwell's field equations, not merely "simplified them".)

Here is a very nasty circle of thought.... what if a base definition  of a critical principle such as "work", "mass", or "energy" was WRONG? What if a LAW was wrong? Ask yourself what equations would be affected? What theories? How many ideas and cherished notions would have to be scrapped outright? 

Do not be surprised that when someone gets a whiff of evidential provable logical trouble, that said person is faced with the fight or flight response. They either subconsciously feel the need to attack the harbinger, or deny the reality at this point. Few DARE examine the problem logically, as this can lead to a frightfully interesting life. :-)

Seriously, the subconscious rebels at the notion, as a persons view of reality must change. At this point, either emotional vestment or INvestment comes into play. Emotional vestment is readily seen by chosen profession or thought. Geology VS Archaeology as an example. Geology has demonstrated water weathering on the Egyptian pyramids, which if true destroyed a long held cherished theory of archaeology, as a for instance.  Emotional investment is when a life's work, or a lifetime of belief is challenged.

With either, the argument becomes personal and logic is merely a weapon. Truth has no place and is given no quarter.

Here is a logical critical thought problem.

In your mind's eye, assume that Einstein actually was right on the money. Assume for the sake of argument that mass IS energy. That mass is not merely an aspect of matter, but an aspect of energy as the equations demonstrate. What would that imply? Where does the logic lead? YOU ARE CAPABLE of understanding these things, everyone is unless physically damaged.

Answer this question upon completion: Does the result accurately describe demonstrable evidential reality?

(WARNING: Follow all the logical trails in order, but keep the main trail in sight or you will become conceptually lost.)

The value of any concept is its applicability towards reality, and not its popularity.

You will understand that things are FAR more complex than they seem, yet still inherently simple in nature.

Paul Andrulis

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #66 on: October 21, 2010, 09:51:30 AM »
@Rosemary

Better be careful. The pond you start to wade is deep and full of sharks whom violently defend their territory.

What is energy? What is mass? what is work? What is magnetism? Etc., etc., etc., all stem from a basic question.. What DOES the "book" say they are?

Many can quote the book but can go no deeper. A few however  try.

A rare few examine critically the base definitions which are the building blocks of science. An extremely rare few acknowledge problems in them when found, even though said problems are blatant.

These rare few are either famous, infamous, or relegated.

Famous, as the likes of Newton. Infamous as was Tesla, or both famous and relegated as stupid having your work hacked to unrecognizable bits like Maxwell. (Heaviside NEUTERED Maxwell's field equations, not merely "simplified them".)

Here is a very nasty circle of thought.... what if a base definition  of a critical principle such as "work", "mass", or "energy" was WRONG? What if a LAW was wrong? Ask yourself what equations would be affected? What theories? How many ideas and cherished notions would have to be scrapped outright? 

Do not be surprised that when someone gets a whiff of evidential provable logical trouble, that said person is faced with the fight or flight response. They either subconsciously feel the need to attack the harbinger, or deny the reality at this point. Few DARE examine the problem logically, as this can lead to a frightfully interesting life. :-)

Seriously, the subconscious rebels at the notion, as a persons view of reality must change. At this point, either emotional vestment or INvestment comes into play. Emotional vestment is readily seen by chosen profession or thought. Geology VS Archaeology as an example. Geology has demonstrated water weathering on the Egyptian pyramids, which if true destroyed a long held cherished theory of archaeology, as a for instance.  Emotional investment is when a life's work, or a lifetime of belief is challenged.

With either, the argument becomes personal and logic is merely a weapon. Truth has no place and is given no quarter.

Here is a logical critical thought problem.

In your mind's eye, assume that Einstein actually was right on the money. Assume for the sake of argument that mass IS energy. That mass is not merely an aspect of matter, but an aspect of energy as the equations demonstrate. What would that imply? Where does the logic lead? YOU ARE CAPABLE of understanding these things, everyone is unless physically damaged.

Answer this question upon completion: Does the result accurately describe demonstrable evidential reality?

(WARNING: Follow all the logical trails in order, but keep the main trail in sight or you will become conceptually lost.)

The value of any concept is its applicability towards reality, and not its popularity.

You will understand that things are FAR more complex than they seem, yet still inherently simple in nature.

Paul Andrulis

Paul.  That post was SO GOOD I simply copied it.  I can't add to it's value.  VERY WELL SAID.  But I still want to 'drive on'.  Popular or not.  Outside of these forums there's NEVER any discussion on the subject.  And it's crying out for recognition.  And personally, I'm well used to being out there - with my neck available to all and sundry.  Frankly I prefer it.  It means that we're sniffing out some basic truths that - for whatever reason - people prefer to ignore. 

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #66 on: October 21, 2010, 09:51:30 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Mk1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #67 on: October 21, 2010, 09:54:14 AM »
@Rosemary

Please , do not get offended by my rant .

It is not my purpose to disturb anyone .


I believe the over looked part is freq , why do 2 particles associate with each other , i think it because they are of the same freq .

We can't see infrared , of ultraviolet rays , but there are there just the same , life exist also at those freq .

We need to ring the material literally .

The only true value in life are numbers , those number associated to the same freq will reveal the pattern , its the same pattern music scales are build on , and a easy was of understanding quantum physics .

Dark energy means only unknown , and not in the magical esoteric sense .

We use it in all transformers , but only see the reaction , not the action .

We don't see it , it then don't exist , the answer is already in what we know ...

Sorry again ! :-\

Mark
 

Some edit .

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #68 on: October 21, 2010, 10:05:03 AM »
Golly Mark - there's NOTHING to apologise about.  We're discussing things.  And Paul is hardly likely to mind.  Certainly I don't.  I'm MOST anxious to explore the properties of this dark energy as I see it as our salvation - a ready made recipe to address our energy crisis.  But to get there I think we need to discuss it at length.  It needs to be widely understood.  And one way to promote this is on a one on one discussion as we do here.  Most valuable.  Many 'drips' can still cause a flood.  So.  I'll drip on as long as required.  LOL.

Your conclusion that two atoms have more energy than one?  I'm not sure that it's to do with their frequency.  It's almost IMPOSSIBLE in a natural environment to keep two hydrogen atoms in the same locale unless they adjust their valence condition.  Yet we have suns that are pure hydrogen.  How do all those atoms get together in a shared space?  And how do they 'burn' and yet NEVER change their essential atomic state - except obviously in more complex suns where they transmute into more complex atoms.  There are many questions out there Mark.  And my proposal is that our classicists already have the answer - as Paul as pointed out.  It's just that they're so in love with the equivalence principle that they dare not look further - irrespective of the glaring contradiction that their equivalence is actually NOT that equivalent.

So.  Please don't think I'm objecting to your post.  I love new ideas and new perspectives.  It's just that I don't know where you saw us as being 'illogical'.  As Paul said.  There's way too much emotion in physics.  We need to get back to pure 'argument'.  So much healthier.  And so much more demanding - somehow. 

 ;D

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

edited

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #68 on: October 21, 2010, 10:05:03 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Mk1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2069
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #69 on: October 21, 2010, 10:21:23 AM »
@Rosemary

I am sorry i do not think that 2 atom have more energy then one , i have edited the text some more , i must be crazy because i feel like someone is changing , my post .

I forgot that using specific term carry its load of baggage. I travel light .

I mean how mater is created , association of particles , in my conclusions i don't see any need for them to move or carry any energy , the only energy is what holds them together (sympathic vibrations) and the surrounding magnetic and gravitational field .

 Not everyone gets my gibberish ,this is my Achilles heel .

Mark

Edit there are also many states of mater , my explanation concerns the physical one .
« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 11:41:15 AM by Mk1 »

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #70 on: October 21, 2010, 01:24:57 PM »
Art, sorry you're not well.  And sorry you're having trouble with your pc.  And I do hope that it's not all because of the unduly sensitive nature of the discussion here.  I'll also try and get back here later on today.  Right now things pragmatic are intruding all over the place.  We're in the process of rebuilding our fish pond so that it can take Koi.  Quite exciting.  But the dirt and rubble and rain and God knows what else - is making even this little task somewhat fraught. 

Regards,
Rosemary

ABJECT APOLOGIES.  I had to delete a huge part of that post.  Forgot what thread I was on.  Sorry.   ::)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #70 on: October 21, 2010, 01:24:57 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #71 on: October 21, 2010, 03:41:06 PM »
Mark - to get back to your point that 2 atoms do not have more energy than 1.  Picture this.  One has a pile of atoms - let's say iron - that are all disassociated - in a puddle - if that were possible.  Then.  The only way to get those atoms to 'join' up in an indentifiable lump - would be to add energy.  And what we use - everywhere - is heat.  When we add heat we actually promote the bonding of that material.  Yet we do NOTHING to change the actual atom itself.  So.  From a disassociated state to a bound state - unquestionably required energy.  Now.  Let's say we want to return that amalgam to a discontinuous or 'broken' state.  We'd need to file it and sieve it and grind it and sieve it and on and on.  Until we get it into that disassociated powder form.  What we've done here is again added more energy - this time in the form of pressure.  So we applied energy - first to bind it and then again applied energy - this time to unbind it.  And in neither instance did we alter any single atom in that mix.  We simply changed its bound state. 

If we imagine a fire burning down a grass hut - we're also left with the basic atoms that first made up the structure of the grass.  Some of those atoms may have stayed as molecules - others may have become molecular as they combined in that heated atmosphere - others may have simply drifted off with the wind.  But the residue - all that carbon - is the unbound state of those atoms that were first held bound inside that grass.  These and stray gasses that may have been in the grass - and sundry bits of iron or metals - or even oxygen - ALL.  Their atoms are essentially as they were prior to them being bound into that grass then then subsequently bound together into the structure of the hut.  Energy from the fire is NOT enough to alter the atom itself - except perhaps to assemble the odd molecule - here and there.  The atom is essentially fire proof.  And it survives the fire.  What does not survive is the bound state.

Now.  Imagine, as proposed that all those atoms are actually joined by one dimensional fields of orbiting dipoles.  And let's give these particles a property.  They are small and fast and invisible.  But - if their orbits are interrupted - then they unravel and become proportionately big and slow and visible.  Let's say, for the purpose of this argument that they're the 'spark' that we see that grows into a 'flame'.  Then let's change the picture - just marginally.

We've now got wood underneath a ceramic pot which, in turn, has iron filings in its base.  So.  We start the fire by breaking the symmetries in the sticks.  This releases flames as the bound condition of the atoms get compromised and these fields unravel.  The stick gets burned.  Then the flame reaches the pot.  The flame is big but its parts are as small or smaller than atoms.  They interact with those fields that are holding the ceramic material together and systematically move through the material of the pot.  But they can't settle there because the the material in the pot is strong enough to resist the heat that's available from the burning stick.  No place to settle - so to speak.  But eventually the flame - or the heat - reaches into the iron filings.  Here nothing can resist their efforts becuase nothing is 'bound' - or it's so loosely bound as to not count.  So What these little fields are looking for is somewhere to settle.  An atomic abode.  It finds it in the filings.  Then it systematically starts joining all those atoms together in a very exact and profound way.  Until all the fields from the stick have unravelled and no more of these fields are being transferred through space.  Then that hot liquid cools down.  The fields again become small and fast and invisible.  And what's left is the bound condition of atoms that were previously unbound.  And the amount of energy transferred?  It relates precisely to the mass of the material that these fields have now formed into a 'bound' amalgam. 

And what we're left with is the unbound condition of the sticks - now ash - having forfeited or transferred it's bound condition to those filings.  And that way we get a  perfect equivalence in the transfer of energy.  But using this argument one can then give a material property to that energy.  It's here proposed to be one dimensional fields of little dipoles - that enjoy two states.  The one is fast and small and invisible - in direct proportion to the other which is slow and big and visible. 

I know it offends everything that every mainstream scientist knows about 'fire' - but it's certainly a more logical explanation.  And I also think it makes much better sense.  It's just that it's way too SIMPLE to be readily accepted by a school of thinkers who delight in complication.  LOL.

Regards,
Rosemary





« Last Edit: October 21, 2010, 04:01:23 PM by Rosemary Ainslie »

Offline BobTEW

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #72 on: October 21, 2010, 04:18:24 PM »
Great thread!  I will put my two bits in. "They" forgot too include repel in their equations.  Bring four iron rods to the table, two of them magnets. Take note of the two iron rods have no attraction or repel force of note. Flat line of power. Bring in one magnet and one rod, attraction- a new force 90 degree differents. Now for two magnets have both attraction and repelling forces 90 degrees out. Here is a picture of a electromagnetic field scan.

Offline Rosemary Ainslie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3968
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #73 on: October 21, 2010, 04:41:12 PM »
Great thread!  I will put my two bits in. "They" forgot too include repel in their equations.  Bring four iron rods to the table, two of them magnets. Take note of the two iron rods have no attraction or repel force of note. Flat line of power. Bring in one magnet and one rod, attraction- a new force 90 degree differents. Now for two magnets have both attraction and repelling forces 90 degrees out. Here is a picture of a electromagnetic field scan.

Hello BobTEW.  That's an amazing picture.  Thanks for that and for your contribution.

Kindest regards,
Rosemary

Offline pauldude000

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 569
    • My electronics/programming website
Re: Free Energy, Critical Thinking, and Skeptics
« Reply #74 on: October 21, 2010, 08:54:34 PM »

I believe, subject to better data, that Mass IS energy, in a standing wave pattern.  That is WHY frequency is important.  If the "Standing Wave" is not standing, there is NO MASS, but the existence is the same.  (Getting too deep?)  This def allows full unification of certain field equations and accounts for static fields in the three basic forms we experience as gravitational, magnetic, and electric.  (NOT referencing the electron.  This is where a LOT of confusion has been programmed in.)  Using this as a possible base, ALL mass has the same base energy form as the fields, therefore ...   I'm sure I need not go on, as this is not new info.  I know of a few quantum people that reference this to verify QED.  It's simpler than it sounds, but interactions are not always as predicted as far as "electrical" flows because of those same "Confusions".  (I can't say this correctly.  Sorry.)  So, if you wish to describe "Dark Matter" you could, I suppose, use the original name, aether, in an unmodulated state, relative to the observer's dimension.  At that point, I get very lost with language as I am not quite up to the task of fully grasping how that works, so explaining it would be a gross approximation.  I can think it internally, but have not yet the words to apply.  The brain is useless on this one....   I have always thought it interesting that as the aether concept goes in and out of vogue, as it were, they seem to find a new way to describe it so they can call the information a "Discovery"....

I wouldn't attempt to try to prove any of this, as the consequences would be more drastic than I would want to be responsible for.  Really.  It is nice to talk about it though, at least once in a while.  Makes certain "Unproven" devices easily explainable.  (But not always the way they are described by the designer...)  If only I could think of "New" things, instead of being an assembler of others individual ideas....


An "assembler of others individual ideas"..... ????

Loner, truthfully... I include myself in the following statement when I say, "If even half of the people here had one quarter of your knowledge, life experiences, and ability then potentially speaking they would gain by a factor of at least two."

I can remember a time in my own life when I thought I had a unshakable handle upon reality. I then woke up.

You are again right as rain. Conceptions come and go. Are stated at one point in time as inviolable law, then later given exceptions. 

Using the simplified "at rest" version of the equation: E=mC^2 denotes the mass energy equivalency, yet it is not a mere equivalency. Einstein married electromagnetic phenomena with the use of the constant for the speed of light in a vacuum with mass, itself a measurement aspect designated only towards matter. Yet the true brilliance of the equation was not in the formulation of the equation, but in the stated base meaning, that matter itself IS energy.

Let us tie together some logical notions. String theory... Matter is energy therefore should have similar properties to those packets which are considered "pure" energy, such as the photon. Have a base "frequency" or modulation of energy. Etc., Etc., Etc.,

Correspondingly other supposed "pure energy" packets should demonstrate aspects of matter. Like the photon demonstrating supposed "virtual" or "effective" mass. (It is neither "virtual" nor "effective", it is quite real and should have been expected logically. It merley combined the concept of the four states of matter, and takes it a bit further to "Energy".... and VICE-VERSA.)

I could go down this logical interstate for hours, investigating the sights.

What is interesting is that, as you said Loner, it quite accurately reflects demonstrable reality. The DATA backs up this view, if the popular acceptance of the notion is unpopular.

I also know the Einstein was no dummy. He knew full well the implications of the equation, as well as the blatant statement it placed before all. Makes a person ponder what personal notions he dared not put before the community, lest they turn and rend even him.

Paul Andrulis

 

OneLink