Dear Reader,
To continue where I left off in my previous post. I mentioned that RomeroUK may have simply intentionally fabricated a pretense along with that rotor of his to indulge in his 15 minutes of fame. Unlikely unless he is utterly reckless and utterly mad and ultimately intends to change both his address and his name. Because a duped public are intensely confrontational and likely to resort to litigation - especially in America. Then it may be that he'd been given a 'buy out' offer. This is possible as I know something about these kinds of moves. But a 'buy out' would only be justified on patentable technologies and prior public disclosure precludes this. Unless there's a reach for licensing rights. But that requires the explicit co-operation of whole Governmental departments and the knowledge was not out there for long enough for this to be considered. Or it may be that competing interests have muscled in to test his commitment to life - the hallmark of the Mafia. But it would, self-evidently, be FAR TOO LATE. The details of that build are now imprinted on the minds of many thousands of experimental enthusiasts with a force that can only be measured against all that tenacious and riveted interest. Indeed any disclaimer would fuel rather than starve that interest.
Or it may be that RomeroUK was actually persuaded to 'con' the public - to embark on a romp of misinformation. Then the eventual admission to that duplicity would ultimately serve to remind the public that representations on Open Source generally - and on forums specifically - are NOT TO BE TRUSTED. Now - for the first time - I see some value in that exercise. And at the risk of appearing paranoid - then let me, at least, argue this case. If it is an argument based on a paranoid delusion - then there is, notwithstanding, some compelling logic for its support.
To begin with there is a muddle of misinformation related to the measurement of energy. All that talent that abounds on these forums - and it is not inconsiderable - has at its foundation a real weakness - an Achilles heel - that cripples every endeavor at unity breach - at the get go. This may be somewhat offensive to read - but it is a truth that really needs exposure. To measure the actual energy that is delivered by an energy supply source is the simplest of ALL sums. When one generates waveforms that are NOT either pure sine waves or purely direct current then on needs to apply a small shunt resistor - a resistor that has a low Ohms value - precisely at the negative or positive rail of that supply source. Take a measure of the voltage across that resistor to determine it's amperage and then multiply it with the voltage delivered from that supply. That will give you a measure of instantaneous wattage. THAT IS IT. There are further refinements - obviously - but that's the essence. For some reason - possibly to show off one's talents and facilities with rotor turns, with subtle measurements around inductors - whatever the reason - this is simply never done. It was not done on Bedini's motors. It was not done on Romero's motor. And as a result there is simply NEVER a conclusive result in the evaluation of any motor's efficiency. And that I, who am a self confessed amateur, need to explain this - will be doubly offensive. I apologise. But it's a fact. And it needs to be addressed - URGENTLY - if one is ever going to accurately assess the output from a supply source. Which means that any evidence of a turning rotor - be it for an hour or indefinitely - its energy output is CERTAINLY calculable.
So. To use a motor for proof of unity breach is PERFECT. Not only does the rotor fixate the attention of most of the forum experimentalists - but the results can be debated forever. Long winded - winding - pretentious argument. A parade of complex detail that tangles itself in repetitious nonsense - in showing off. The perfect circular argument that has no beginning and no end. And as in most such displays - it achieves absolutely nothing. Whether or not Romero's device was a fake or whether it was real - most certainly one could evaluate whether it breached those unity barriers. And if it was/is real then it most certainly exceeds/exceeded the co-efficient of performance - that COP factor - by, dare I say it, that 'i' word. INFINITELY. And I would put money on it that Bedini's motors and many, many others that all you guys have built over the years, there are many there that BREACH those energy barriers. I am reasonably certain that COP>1 is there - all over the place. But you cannot find it - precisely because you are NOT measuring it properly.
So. The use of the motor was an ideal device to capture attention. Then. It is understood that while the debate rages against the validity of our own claims - what is incontestable is that it generates a great deal of interest. Co-incidentally I was advised of Romero's thread by a forum member whom I trust. But I was also, out of the blue - sent an email by someone called carol maguire (she doesn't use capitals in her name) - someone who asked me to PLEASE REFERENCE the work being done by Romero. I obliged. I went to the thread - and I responded. I immediately advised all and sundry to go there and pay attention. Whoever wrote to me obviously also relied on my unequivocal support for any technology that may lead to cleaner greener. In other words - I was used - as a kind of news agent - to bring this little noticed work to the attention of those many who follow our own work. The fact that it was a woman who advised me also and most definitely solicited my co-operation. Who better than me knows the rarity of any female engagement in this cutting edge science. My sympathies were immediately aroused. Of course I'd co-operate. But clearly it was also required that more of the public engage in this fiasco. I was as good a source of this as any to focus the required attention.
Then. The co-incidence. Glen Lettenmaier - who posts under the name FuzzyTomCat - and more recently fuzzytomcat - was banned from posting at energetic forum. In fact that's not the whole of the truth. What Stefan Hartman, the forum owner and moderator - advised Glen was that he could post under a different identity and that he was not allowed to join the forum if he continued with his 'flaming'. Then - out of the blue - Stefan advised Glen that he may now post again - with his full identification. And no requirement to constrain those 'flaming' compulsions of his. So. Precisely when the focus of the forum members was meant to be exclusively engaged with Romero's hoopla - then Fuzzy was meant to come to our thread and flame it to death. I am certainly not imagining this. Because - if I may now present some more evidence - I complained to Stefan about the inappropriateness of those posts. And instead of moderating Stefan wrote me an UTTERLY DISCOURTEOUS email - where he not only did not reference me by name - but declared - mandated - ordered - that we HAVE to do the test without a functions generator and that he was thinking of closing the thread. I protested and my protests have been ignored or unanswered.
Now. If I were a forum member who ostensibly promoted over unity technologies - and, in fact, was only interested in frustrating them - then I would learn from history. Nothing will engage the interests of those members of this forum more than to busy themselves with those beloved and preferred motors. And even if there is that abrupt denial of the fact then the inclinations of that great collective heart - that enduring love of all you guys - the spinning rotor that may spin forever - that will most CERTAINLY be reawakened. It will still engage all your interests for some time to come.
And then - more to the point - with that subsequent denial, then those many readers of those forums - those with better discernment and greater objectivity - will only be able to conclude that any forum representations, any Open Source submissions - are likely to be unreliable - and most likely fraudulent. So. If, as there is, any extant and looming threat of a 'valid claim' to unity breach - then that too will be tarnished by association. And that's the point. You are all encouraged to debate overunity. You are actively prevented from proving it. And that proof is just so easy - and yet the logic eludes all you brilliant engineers. What gives? Our own proof is abundant. But it's still being debated for Heaven's sake.
And that Harti regrets my own involvement on his forum is self-evident. This is a chapter all on its own. But his refusal to afford any moderation - is in defiance of his own forum rules. In effect he is discouraging any furtherance of this technology based on what? That I am not capable of building the schematic that he requires? That I am lying about the results that are shown by our LeCroy? Which are also endorsed by our Tektronix? That the video results that were presented on the device were fraudulent? That there are ground issues that pertain to our device? Which by the way are also concerns that are roundly denied by simulations of our schematic? That our power measurement analysis is wrong when they indeed conform PRECISELY to the required protocols? What? Why is he that anxious to get rid of me and the information along with it? Why - if he is that anxious to promote overunity technology is he prepared to get rid of our claims? I would have thought that any evidence at all requires nurture.
I'm at a loss. I do know that he resented our non-disclosure of that rather eccentric MOSFET positioning. But that was required - by all who had been involved in the progress of this technology. It was an issue that was considered closely - on many levels. Glen Lettenmaier is on record. He claims ownership or discovery of what is widely referred to as the Rosemary Ainslie circuit. Would he or others come forward and claim the ownership or discovery of that unusual MOSFET configuration? It was a valid and real concern. Our best protection was intended to show this to experts - to one or more persons with a Doctorate or Professorial title - at a public demonstration. Their comments would then have merited publicity or publication. Either would have been welcome. BUT. Those experts did not attend. Nor did they advise me that they would not be attending. And our intention was to protect that knowledge until then. Because then no-one would be able to claim that for themselves as their own discovery. And it's hardly likely to advance our cause if there are those that still try and pretend that we are plagiarising their work. And the sad reality is that Open Source advances these types of opportunists.
Which, I think, concludes this analysis. And my conclusion is this. I am not sure that there are any forums that are dedicated to promote overunity or clean green - notwithstanding their claims to the contrary. And for those members within those forums who are engaged in a genuine reach - then you need to learn how to do some simple power measurements. Because until you do then any valid claims will be contended. And worst still - existing circuits and already built apparatus - are likely to surprise you all with their results when the measurements are appropriately applied. You may indeed find that elusive evidence of COP>1. But for some reason you never seem to get around to measuring this.
Kind regards,
Rosemary
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
113 - strange happenings on the forums
Dear Reader,
RomeroUK is an avid forum contributor and active on the internet. As mentioned he claimed and showed a motor that perpetually spins. When I referred to his work in my thread his hits were negligible. Thereafter there was an explosion of interest and that interest then spread across all forums like a rash. But with the speed of a bush fire. All were captivated. And the forum owner, Stefan Hartman, rallied to protect both Romero and ALL that information. And he summarily banned the nay sayers and deleted their posts. In short, Romero was offered a degree of protection and a level of courtesy that I, personally, have never experienced. On the contrary.
Then. The news was still days old - the excitement growing - when he posted a short statement on the thread saying words to the effect that 'sorry - it was all fake - stop your replications'. And even then, amazingly - all APOLOGISE, if you don't mind, for bothering him in the first instance, for showing interest in his work. 'Sorry Romero - we were all too keen'.
Good heavens. Why would ANYONE make public - information that is simply designed to 'hoax' the public? I cannot get my head around this. Why spend real money on building anything at all - why waste time - if it simply doesn't work? Is it the result of a frustrated builder who WANTS it to work? WANTS some kind of overunity result notwithstanding his experimental failures? I suppose that's possible. Then the intention is simply to enjoy the attention that first motivated that build.
And by the same token it could have been the result of some kind of 'buy out' where Romero was withholding critical information that the device could still be patented. But it would have to be hidden information - or it most certainly is NOT patentable. And frankly he seemed to 'show all'. I can see nothing hidden. And I've looked and looked. But then my eyes are not the best. And if anyone could miss anything then I'm somewhat overqualified. lol In any event, unless there was still something 'hidden' from view - then there was no buyout.
That leaves the 'last but one', option. He had, apparently, disclosed his physical address. He's a young man. Is is possible that he was physically coerced - someone threatened him - or his family - to withdraw those claims? Notwithstanding - or precisely because of - the truth of those presentations, competing interests muscled in and reminded him of his will to live? Again. If this was the case and if, indeed, he was 'instructed' to trumpet that work as a 'fake' then that trumpet call is WAY TOO LATE. The cat's already out the bag. And it's running around the globe at pace and absolutely unstoppable. The details of that build are available to all. All can still replicate. So that threat would have no force and effect. One single denial is hardly likely to stop the interest in further builds. On the contrary. We know the compulsive interests of engineers when it comes to the building of motors. I would have thought that - if anything - a denial after this particular fact would generate more rather than less interest.
Which brings me to the final possibility. Could it be that Romero was somehow encouraged to build a working motor with the mandate to ultimately acknowledge the hoax - the mandate to eventually disclaim its effectiveness - simply to take the attention away from other competing and valid claims? Here there would, indeed, be some actual merit in all that hoopla. A reminder to the general public to IGNORE any claims that relate to overunity - ever. Another 'scar' on the face of Open Source? A way to discourage interest in this movement - this reach of ours?
Frankly this is what I suspect. I'll elaborate more fully hereafter.
Kidnest regards,
Rosemary
RomeroUK is an avid forum contributor and active on the internet. As mentioned he claimed and showed a motor that perpetually spins. When I referred to his work in my thread his hits were negligible. Thereafter there was an explosion of interest and that interest then spread across all forums like a rash. But with the speed of a bush fire. All were captivated. And the forum owner, Stefan Hartman, rallied to protect both Romero and ALL that information. And he summarily banned the nay sayers and deleted their posts. In short, Romero was offered a degree of protection and a level of courtesy that I, personally, have never experienced. On the contrary.
Then. The news was still days old - the excitement growing - when he posted a short statement on the thread saying words to the effect that 'sorry - it was all fake - stop your replications'. And even then, amazingly - all APOLOGISE, if you don't mind, for bothering him in the first instance, for showing interest in his work. 'Sorry Romero - we were all too keen'.
Good heavens. Why would ANYONE make public - information that is simply designed to 'hoax' the public? I cannot get my head around this. Why spend real money on building anything at all - why waste time - if it simply doesn't work? Is it the result of a frustrated builder who WANTS it to work? WANTS some kind of overunity result notwithstanding his experimental failures? I suppose that's possible. Then the intention is simply to enjoy the attention that first motivated that build.
And by the same token it could have been the result of some kind of 'buy out' where Romero was withholding critical information that the device could still be patented. But it would have to be hidden information - or it most certainly is NOT patentable. And frankly he seemed to 'show all'. I can see nothing hidden. And I've looked and looked. But then my eyes are not the best. And if anyone could miss anything then I'm somewhat overqualified. lol In any event, unless there was still something 'hidden' from view - then there was no buyout.
That leaves the 'last but one', option. He had, apparently, disclosed his physical address. He's a young man. Is is possible that he was physically coerced - someone threatened him - or his family - to withdraw those claims? Notwithstanding - or precisely because of - the truth of those presentations, competing interests muscled in and reminded him of his will to live? Again. If this was the case and if, indeed, he was 'instructed' to trumpet that work as a 'fake' then that trumpet call is WAY TOO LATE. The cat's already out the bag. And it's running around the globe at pace and absolutely unstoppable. The details of that build are available to all. All can still replicate. So that threat would have no force and effect. One single denial is hardly likely to stop the interest in further builds. On the contrary. We know the compulsive interests of engineers when it comes to the building of motors. I would have thought that - if anything - a denial after this particular fact would generate more rather than less interest.
Which brings me to the final possibility. Could it be that Romero was somehow encouraged to build a working motor with the mandate to ultimately acknowledge the hoax - the mandate to eventually disclaim its effectiveness - simply to take the attention away from other competing and valid claims? Here there would, indeed, be some actual merit in all that hoopla. A reminder to the general public to IGNORE any claims that relate to overunity - ever. Another 'scar' on the face of Open Source? A way to discourage interest in this movement - this reach of ours?
Frankly this is what I suspect. I'll elaborate more fully hereafter.
Kidnest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
112 - when any further denial is not only absurd - its sad
Dear Reader,
There is the predictable and excessive DENIAL OF ALL - needless to say by MileHigh. He claims, rather repetitively and somewhat hysterically, that there's no significance to Romero's device. I've copied my post over from OU.com. Here it is.
And guys, just to get back to that COP INFINITY number. Romerouk's device is able to keep going over extended periods without any further input of any energy at all. And while all is turning it's also driving a light load. In terms of classical physics the amount of energy that has been delivered must equal the amount of energy that is dissipated. Therefore by rights, the turning of the rotor and the lighting of the light must eventually grind to a halt and die out respectively. Clearly they do not. The actual Joules expended over a 5.5 hour experiment is calculable. As are the amount of Joules required to charge the caps equally so.
Let us assume that the device can run - uninterrupted - for say, - 1 hour. So take the product of the volts of the battery and the amperage of the energy injected into the cap. Then multiply it by the brief time it takes to charge the caps. Possibly 80 seconds at its outside most. That's the Joules value - and that's the power input into the system. So. Let's assume a 12 volt supply and a generous 4 amps current flow - vi. Then for the 'dt' part of that equation - add in that 80 seconds to charge the cap. That's 12 volts * 4 amps * 80 seconds = 3840 Joules. Now. All that's needed is to take the product of the wattage dissipated by the lights because that's got a known value. Then start multiplying. 60 seconds for 60 minutes for ..... what? 1 hour? 2 hours? 5 hours? Let's assume 20 watts dissipated as light. That's 20 * 60 * 60 * 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 ...... Now we're already at 360KW. So. 3840 Joules input for 360 000 watts output? That's most certainly COP INFINITY. And we haven't even factored in the energy required to turn the rotor.
There is no question that Romero's device is at COP INFINITY. I am amazed that anyone would find cause to dispute this. Correctly the question should be this. IF energy delivered by a supply is depleted anywhere at all in the circuit then how come this gadget is able to run beyond 80 seconds at best? MH. With the utmost respect - you're on a hiding to nowhere with your latest objections.
At its least - this evidence will need to be resolved outside the known paradigms related to the transfer of energy. And if anyone at all accuse me of being 'off topic' - I assure you I am NOT. It is very much on topic. It has everything to do with our own claim. And our own claim will not just 'go away'. Where our device is likely to be of value - is in the output of higher wattage values. At least until the rotor is able to drive a bigger load. Which I'm reasonably satisfied will be the next step.
What is evident in both tests is this. Current can be induced to flow continuously provided only that the circuit is able to maintain a state of imbalance that the potential difference across a circuit can be retained. All of which begs a revision of the actual properties of current flow.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
edited - revised input to conform to the first video evidence
There is the predictable and excessive DENIAL OF ALL - needless to say by MileHigh. He claims, rather repetitively and somewhat hysterically, that there's no significance to Romero's device. I've copied my post over from OU.com. Here it is.
And guys, just to get back to that COP INFINITY number. Romerouk's device is able to keep going over extended periods without any further input of any energy at all. And while all is turning it's also driving a light load. In terms of classical physics the amount of energy that has been delivered must equal the amount of energy that is dissipated. Therefore by rights, the turning of the rotor and the lighting of the light must eventually grind to a halt and die out respectively. Clearly they do not. The actual Joules expended over a 5.5 hour experiment is calculable. As are the amount of Joules required to charge the caps equally so.
Let us assume that the device can run - uninterrupted - for say, - 1 hour. So take the product of the volts of the battery and the amperage of the energy injected into the cap. Then multiply it by the brief time it takes to charge the caps. Possibly 80 seconds at its outside most. That's the Joules value - and that's the power input into the system. So. Let's assume a 12 volt supply and a generous 4 amps current flow - vi. Then for the 'dt' part of that equation - add in that 80 seconds to charge the cap. That's 12 volts * 4 amps * 80 seconds = 3840 Joules. Now. All that's needed is to take the product of the wattage dissipated by the lights because that's got a known value. Then start multiplying. 60 seconds for 60 minutes for ..... what? 1 hour? 2 hours? 5 hours? Let's assume 20 watts dissipated as light. That's 20 * 60 * 60 * 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 ...... Now we're already at 360KW. So. 3840 Joules input for 360 000 watts output? That's most certainly COP INFINITY. And we haven't even factored in the energy required to turn the rotor.
There is no question that Romero's device is at COP INFINITY. I am amazed that anyone would find cause to dispute this. Correctly the question should be this. IF energy delivered by a supply is depleted anywhere at all in the circuit then how come this gadget is able to run beyond 80 seconds at best? MH. With the utmost respect - you're on a hiding to nowhere with your latest objections.
At its least - this evidence will need to be resolved outside the known paradigms related to the transfer of energy. And if anyone at all accuse me of being 'off topic' - I assure you I am NOT. It is very much on topic. It has everything to do with our own claim. And our own claim will not just 'go away'. Where our device is likely to be of value - is in the output of higher wattage values. At least until the rotor is able to drive a bigger load. Which I'm reasonably satisfied will be the next step.
What is evident in both tests is this. Current can be induced to flow continuously provided only that the circuit is able to maintain a state of imbalance that the potential difference across a circuit can be retained. All of which begs a revision of the actual properties of current flow.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
edited - revised input to conform to the first video evidence
Sunday, May 8, 2011
111 - proof positive
Dear Reader,
As you know my preference is in 'dialogue' as I believe this is the best means to progress this knowledge. Where this dialogue has been progressed is at overunity.com's forum. Here's the link.
click here
Unfortunately Harti, our forum owner, has allowed Glen Lettenmaier full membership with the mandate to flame my thread to death. He's more than qualified to do this - not because he's a debater - but precisely because he is not. He lacks the language skills and the intellectual subtleties required. But he makes up for this in his ability to dominate whole pages with utter irrelevancies. Glen is to a thread what fire is to tinder or what stupidity is to knowledge or what spite is to goodwill.
Anyway it is likely that I'll have that thread locked in the near future. Harti can have no other objective in allowing Glen. So. For good order I'll copy all here that - when the time comes - there'll be continuity. In any event one of our team members has long been telling me to give reference to this dialogue. Perhaps it's overdue.
Herewith that post.
And Guys, I think, round about now, I should try and explain the relevance of Romero's work to our own - albeit less dramatic evidence. It has nothing to do with the results and everything to do with the measurements.
You guys are captivated by the motor. With good reason. It's sexier to see those moving parts. You're all of you skilled experimentalists - and the 'holy grail' of all this research is to get rid of any overt dependency on an energy supply source. Therein lies 'true freedom' so to speak. Certainly it extends one's potential for true self reliance away from a direct geographic reliance on our supply monopolists. But - by the same token, it has been impossibly difficult to prove a motor's efficiencies. One just needs to look at the work of Bedini et al - and their efforts in this regard.
Now, while those numbers could be contended - while the actual level of efficiency was subject to any kind of debate - then there was also no reason to consider any such work to be any real threat to our jealous energy suppliers. Therefore was there also no real reason to mount a campaign of objection. And even where the efficiencies were debated and contended - it was never enough justification to halt progress, so to speak. That motor configuration was going to be studied - no matter what. It's where your hearts lie. With good reason. Back to the 'sexiness' of moving parts and to the compelling and compulsive interests of all you engineers.
Our own experimental evidence was always compelling. Coupled with which there was a pesky prediction required for those results in an eccentric thesis. And that thesis represented an entire departure from conventional phyiscs. Field theory reduced to a digital analysis and requiring consideration of nothing more than a positive - a negative and a neutral. In effect, it was nothing more than a philosophical reach into dialectic exercise in logic. But it had some rather compelling parallels to known physics. No overt contradictions to what was classical and what was quantum and even what was not. It conformed.
What was not arguable was the repeatability of the experimental proof of that thesis. And so it was absolutely required to attack - not so much the results - but the person advancing those results. Not the message so much as the messenger. I don't think I need remind you all. Threads flamed, threads locked, threads dedicated to maligning me, and on and on. Certainly I was widely painted as a deluded incompetent and there was even a time where I was accused of the fraudulent attempt to somehow capitalise on this knowledge which I'd plagiarised from Open Source. But it's painful to remember it all let alone to reference it here. And it's inappropriate to moralise. So. I'll try and get to the point.
Which is this. There is no earthly way that you can get a self runner without accessing an energy supply that has heretofore been 'outlawed' by our scientific community. This is now 'in the bag'. What must follow on from this is a sincere revision of those concepts related to energy. And most especially this needs a radical revision of the actual properties of energy itself. This will now need some real attention from our brightest and best academicians. And here we can all rest easy. Theoreticians have been somewhat adventurous in pointing to explanations. But to the best of my knowledge there is no theoretician that has presumed to propose, let alone to analyse, the actual properties of energy. And as that is now required - I am reaonably certain that they'll come to the table to address this. And physics is absolutely NOT determined by speculation. A line of argument is either right or it's wrong. And in the unlikely event that my own exercise is even half-way right - or even if it's entirely wrong - then the fact is that the explanation will STILL BE NEEDED. And thus far they've been able to avoid the question at all.
I hope that goes some way to explaining my relief in seeing the good work that Romero's doing - and indeed that all are doing in their efforts to protect this knowledge and keep it open source. And I trust it will explain the relevance to this thread topic - circuitously (lol) related as it is to our own work. If I am even 'half way right' then what I'm seeing is the potential, not only of defeating those prescribed constraints in the transfer of energy - but of defeating even the gravitational forces. It's all good news. I see a bright beacon of light - where I am only used to pointing to a small 'glimmer'. And that glimmer was shrouded by the most concerted attack that has ever been advanced on these forums. And, by the looks of our latest contributor here, is likely to continue.
Anyway. It's all good news everyone. Really, really good news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
As you know my preference is in 'dialogue' as I believe this is the best means to progress this knowledge. Where this dialogue has been progressed is at overunity.com's forum. Here's the link.
click here
Unfortunately Harti, our forum owner, has allowed Glen Lettenmaier full membership with the mandate to flame my thread to death. He's more than qualified to do this - not because he's a debater - but precisely because he is not. He lacks the language skills and the intellectual subtleties required. But he makes up for this in his ability to dominate whole pages with utter irrelevancies. Glen is to a thread what fire is to tinder or what stupidity is to knowledge or what spite is to goodwill.
Anyway it is likely that I'll have that thread locked in the near future. Harti can have no other objective in allowing Glen. So. For good order I'll copy all here that - when the time comes - there'll be continuity. In any event one of our team members has long been telling me to give reference to this dialogue. Perhaps it's overdue.
Herewith that post.
And Guys, I think, round about now, I should try and explain the relevance of Romero's work to our own - albeit less dramatic evidence. It has nothing to do with the results and everything to do with the measurements.
You guys are captivated by the motor. With good reason. It's sexier to see those moving parts. You're all of you skilled experimentalists - and the 'holy grail' of all this research is to get rid of any overt dependency on an energy supply source. Therein lies 'true freedom' so to speak. Certainly it extends one's potential for true self reliance away from a direct geographic reliance on our supply monopolists. But - by the same token, it has been impossibly difficult to prove a motor's efficiencies. One just needs to look at the work of Bedini et al - and their efforts in this regard.
Now, while those numbers could be contended - while the actual level of efficiency was subject to any kind of debate - then there was also no reason to consider any such work to be any real threat to our jealous energy suppliers. Therefore was there also no real reason to mount a campaign of objection. And even where the efficiencies were debated and contended - it was never enough justification to halt progress, so to speak. That motor configuration was going to be studied - no matter what. It's where your hearts lie. With good reason. Back to the 'sexiness' of moving parts and to the compelling and compulsive interests of all you engineers.
Our own experimental evidence was always compelling. Coupled with which there was a pesky prediction required for those results in an eccentric thesis. And that thesis represented an entire departure from conventional phyiscs. Field theory reduced to a digital analysis and requiring consideration of nothing more than a positive - a negative and a neutral. In effect, it was nothing more than a philosophical reach into dialectic exercise in logic. But it had some rather compelling parallels to known physics. No overt contradictions to what was classical and what was quantum and even what was not. It conformed.
What was not arguable was the repeatability of the experimental proof of that thesis. And so it was absolutely required to attack - not so much the results - but the person advancing those results. Not the message so much as the messenger. I don't think I need remind you all. Threads flamed, threads locked, threads dedicated to maligning me, and on and on. Certainly I was widely painted as a deluded incompetent and there was even a time where I was accused of the fraudulent attempt to somehow capitalise on this knowledge which I'd plagiarised from Open Source. But it's painful to remember it all let alone to reference it here. And it's inappropriate to moralise. So. I'll try and get to the point.
Which is this. There is no earthly way that you can get a self runner without accessing an energy supply that has heretofore been 'outlawed' by our scientific community. This is now 'in the bag'. What must follow on from this is a sincere revision of those concepts related to energy. And most especially this needs a radical revision of the actual properties of energy itself. This will now need some real attention from our brightest and best academicians. And here we can all rest easy. Theoreticians have been somewhat adventurous in pointing to explanations. But to the best of my knowledge there is no theoretician that has presumed to propose, let alone to analyse, the actual properties of energy. And as that is now required - I am reaonably certain that they'll come to the table to address this. And physics is absolutely NOT determined by speculation. A line of argument is either right or it's wrong. And in the unlikely event that my own exercise is even half-way right - or even if it's entirely wrong - then the fact is that the explanation will STILL BE NEEDED. And thus far they've been able to avoid the question at all.
I hope that goes some way to explaining my relief in seeing the good work that Romero's doing - and indeed that all are doing in their efforts to protect this knowledge and keep it open source. And I trust it will explain the relevance to this thread topic - circuitously (lol) related as it is to our own work. If I am even 'half way right' then what I'm seeing is the potential, not only of defeating those prescribed constraints in the transfer of energy - but of defeating even the gravitational forces. It's all good news. I see a bright beacon of light - where I am only used to pointing to a small 'glimmer'. And that glimmer was shrouded by the most concerted attack that has ever been advanced on these forums. And, by the looks of our latest contributor here, is likely to continue.
Anyway. It's all good news everyone. Really, really good news.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
110 - a method in the madness
Dear Reader,
I've spent the entire evening answering emails. I've finally found my way around the 'gmail' system and abject apologies to all those who wrote in and whom I did not answer. There's a couple of emails that I must post over in their entirety but that's another learning curve. Bear with me.
I need to report on a development that's taken place at Overunity.com. A brilliant experimentalist posts under the name Romerouk - has got a 'self runner'. It's a Muller motor variant - and it runs a light without any battery supply at all. Here's the link.
click here
There's also a link to a video on this - but for the moment it's defeated me. I'll try this again when I've finished this post.
This is incredible news and I'm more than a little bouyed at all this because it's so unarguable. COP infinity and no need for any measurements beyond this evidence. the guy is clearly an exceptionally intuitive experimentalist and I suspect he's done this over unity drive an exceptionally good turn.
Anyway - enjoy the references and rest assured. With this much evidence then we have - at it's least - resolved whatever's needed to run our motorcars.
We also have some good news which I'll post over tomorrow. We've taken 0.7 litres water to boiling point - 104 degrees centigrade. And there was a clear evidence of the battery climbing and holding at it's 'kick off' start voltage. Also the resistor cooked at a measured 240 degrees centigrade before I immersed this in water. And the temperature simply climbed steadily from ambient over a 4 hour period with absolutely no measurable current flow from the batteries nor any evident loss of voltage or charge from the supply.
And to compound all this good news - a friend of mine did a replication using a 12v automotive soldering iron which gave precisely the same advantages evident as was evident in our 'water to boiling point' test. Which all means that not only is this scalable but it's also relatively easily to take to a wide range of applications.
It's all breakthrough territory even though it's very much in its early stages. And I confidently predict that all this is just the tip of the iceburg. Lots more to come.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I've spent the entire evening answering emails. I've finally found my way around the 'gmail' system and abject apologies to all those who wrote in and whom I did not answer. There's a couple of emails that I must post over in their entirety but that's another learning curve. Bear with me.
I need to report on a development that's taken place at Overunity.com. A brilliant experimentalist posts under the name Romerouk - has got a 'self runner'. It's a Muller motor variant - and it runs a light without any battery supply at all. Here's the link.
click here
There's also a link to a video on this - but for the moment it's defeated me. I'll try this again when I've finished this post.
This is incredible news and I'm more than a little bouyed at all this because it's so unarguable. COP infinity and no need for any measurements beyond this evidence. the guy is clearly an exceptionally intuitive experimentalist and I suspect he's done this over unity drive an exceptionally good turn.
Anyway - enjoy the references and rest assured. With this much evidence then we have - at it's least - resolved whatever's needed to run our motorcars.
We also have some good news which I'll post over tomorrow. We've taken 0.7 litres water to boiling point - 104 degrees centigrade. And there was a clear evidence of the battery climbing and holding at it's 'kick off' start voltage. Also the resistor cooked at a measured 240 degrees centigrade before I immersed this in water. And the temperature simply climbed steadily from ambient over a 4 hour period with absolutely no measurable current flow from the batteries nor any evident loss of voltage or charge from the supply.
And to compound all this good news - a friend of mine did a replication using a 12v automotive soldering iron which gave precisely the same advantages evident as was evident in our 'water to boiling point' test. Which all means that not only is this scalable but it's also relatively easily to take to a wide range of applications.
It's all breakthrough territory even though it's very much in its early stages. And I confidently predict that all this is just the tip of the iceburg. Lots more to come.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, April 21, 2011
109 - simulated circuit
Dear Reader,
To answer those many questions on OU.com - here's the sim circuit. Results are consistent with what we've been looking at on the apparatus.
and this for the results.
And this one on the close up.
Hopefully that answers your questions sprocket.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
To answer those many questions on OU.com - here's the sim circuit. Results are consistent with what we've been looking at on the apparatus.
and this for the results.
And this one on the close up.
Hopefully that answers your questions sprocket.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
108 - how to avoid being eaten by those trolls
Dear Reader,
Just as a reminder. I am contactable on my email. Should any reader here - or anywhere at all - want to view this demonstration device - artefact - in operation, then please contact me. I am on record. I will show the systematic methodologies applied to getting it fully operational and the protocols applied to its measurements. Subject to their willingness - I will be glad to introduce you to those who have built this and assisted in progressing this
I assure you all that it is easily translated into practical applications. All that is still missing is accreditation by academic experts. And this is MUCH required - because without it we can be accused of perpetrating some kind of fraud. It is an unfortunate truth that these kind of claims proliferate our internet and our history. All the more reason to delay any development of marketable applications until this is endorsed.
And then. Should we EVER get that endorsement - there is absolutely no aspect of this technology that has been or can be patented. All has been thoroughly exposed on the internet. It is easily applied. It will put paid to any further requirement of monopolistic utility supply sources. It is capable of generating the most clean green and efficient use of electric energy. It is easily applied with known 'off the shelf' components. And it will reduce the cost of electricity generation to a fraction to installation costs and little else - except possibly as it relates to maintenance.
There are those detractors to this technology - those with psychological predispositions to denial of new science - or those with vested interests in perpetrating the status quo - who actively seek to prevent this knowledge from being spread. It is a travesty of science. And it is an abuse of knowledge. Fortunately they are now overplaying their hands with a kind of histrionic excess that makes their motives as plain as day. But this has also prevented me from 'spreading the news'- so to speak on a forum that encourages dialogue. Dialogue is preferred. It is the slow painful but ultimately rewarding method of also explaining this new science. That way, as the understanding unfolds, then that knowledge will perhaps pave the road to even more discoveries.
Hopefully that dialogue can be maintained here. I will undertake to publish any questions related to this that it can assist those who are trying to get to grips with the technology. And I'll answer those questions here in case they have wider relevance. Hopefully that way we can all benefit. I will append my email address on each and every post. And if you prefer it that your email remain anonymous - then Isuggest you email under an avatar or just advise me to keep your names off record.
There is a small unpublished variation to the circuit. It is absolutely NOT required for optimised performance. It is only emphasised because it speaks to the thesis or the thinking that first gave rise to this methodology and it is the thesis that actually needs to be advanced. I absolutely put on record that I have discovered nothing. The thesis itself resolves certain questions related to quantum and classical thinking and is essentially conceptual. Not a bad thing in itself as this new science must, by its nature, be progressed conceptually. There is no extant mathematical framework available to accommodate this 'field' theory except as has been devised by our string theorists. And that is so exotic that the most of our academic math experts have difficulties with its understanding.
Hopefully, one way or another - we'll advance this understanding.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
ainslie@mweb.co.za
Just as a reminder. I am contactable on my email. Should any reader here - or anywhere at all - want to view this demonstration device - artefact - in operation, then please contact me. I am on record. I will show the systematic methodologies applied to getting it fully operational and the protocols applied to its measurements. Subject to their willingness - I will be glad to introduce you to those who have built this and assisted in progressing this
I assure you all that it is easily translated into practical applications. All that is still missing is accreditation by academic experts. And this is MUCH required - because without it we can be accused of perpetrating some kind of fraud. It is an unfortunate truth that these kind of claims proliferate our internet and our history. All the more reason to delay any development of marketable applications until this is endorsed.
And then. Should we EVER get that endorsement - there is absolutely no aspect of this technology that has been or can be patented. All has been thoroughly exposed on the internet. It is easily applied. It will put paid to any further requirement of monopolistic utility supply sources. It is capable of generating the most clean green and efficient use of electric energy. It is easily applied with known 'off the shelf' components. And it will reduce the cost of electricity generation to a fraction to installation costs and little else - except possibly as it relates to maintenance.
There are those detractors to this technology - those with psychological predispositions to denial of new science - or those with vested interests in perpetrating the status quo - who actively seek to prevent this knowledge from being spread. It is a travesty of science. And it is an abuse of knowledge. Fortunately they are now overplaying their hands with a kind of histrionic excess that makes their motives as plain as day. But this has also prevented me from 'spreading the news'- so to speak on a forum that encourages dialogue. Dialogue is preferred. It is the slow painful but ultimately rewarding method of also explaining this new science. That way, as the understanding unfolds, then that knowledge will perhaps pave the road to even more discoveries.
Hopefully that dialogue can be maintained here. I will undertake to publish any questions related to this that it can assist those who are trying to get to grips with the technology. And I'll answer those questions here in case they have wider relevance. Hopefully that way we can all benefit. I will append my email address on each and every post. And if you prefer it that your email remain anonymous - then Isuggest you email under an avatar or just advise me to keep your names off record.
There is a small unpublished variation to the circuit. It is absolutely NOT required for optimised performance. It is only emphasised because it speaks to the thesis or the thinking that first gave rise to this methodology and it is the thesis that actually needs to be advanced. I absolutely put on record that I have discovered nothing. The thesis itself resolves certain questions related to quantum and classical thinking and is essentially conceptual. Not a bad thing in itself as this new science must, by its nature, be progressed conceptually. There is no extant mathematical framework available to accommodate this 'field' theory except as has been devised by our string theorists. And that is so exotic that the most of our academic math experts have difficulties with its understanding.
Hopefully, one way or another - we'll advance this understanding.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
ainslie@mweb.co.za
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
107 - behind the facade of the forum
Dear Reader,
I've tried giving Stefan Hartman the benefit of the doubt as it relates to his interest in sincerely promoting research into over unity. That, after all, is the title of his forum. One assumes.
I have publicly invited him to come to South Africa and see the operation himself. I have assured him that in the event that our claims are not consistent with the fact then I'll refund him his air flight. I would then be in the happy position of introducing him to the team and allowing him carte blance to evaluate the circuit as required. This offer was rejected.
He has previously allowed posters to flame my threads. He is now allowing Poynt.99 to do this. Poynt's latest claim is that the functions generator is the source of the energy - entirely unsubstantiated and easily disproved. But it's the manner of his address that is particularly unacceptable. Offensively insulting and rude. And certainly in breach of the standards of posting required there. Were I to continue then I'd be endorsing that kind of communication. And that would hardly do me or this technology any good at all. It is interesting that Stefan allows this and rather endorses my concerns that Stefan even wants to let this technology be progressed.
I feel that there is actually NO real intention of advancing any genuine research into over unity on any of these forums. I think they're just meeting grounds where the members are hoodwinked into thinking that there's a sincere research into breaching those thermodynamic laws. I am now of the opinion that what these forums are actually doing is PREVENTING this research as their actual mandate.
I have not yet been banned. Unless I am I will post there as required - and, hopefully, on the progress of this experimental evidence to our experts. That's all that's now needed. I'll keep the technical discussion here because they can then be advanced without those endless interruptions.
My intention is to get this advanced - somehow - to our academic forums - or I'll die trying. But until then - I'm afraid that I am off those forums. I am now entirely satisfied that they are designed to prevent rather than progress any kind of genuine exploration into this subject.
If any posters are attempting to replicate I would earnestly advise you to keep your results off the forum. You will be actively discouraged - or mocked - or flamed. It's not worth the effort. And if anyone needs any guidance that I or the team may be able to give - then please email me.
My email is ainslie@mweb.co.za. Please don't waste your time in adding comments to this blog. I can't always find them. And more often than not I forget to even look for them.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I've tried giving Stefan Hartman the benefit of the doubt as it relates to his interest in sincerely promoting research into over unity. That, after all, is the title of his forum. One assumes.
I have publicly invited him to come to South Africa and see the operation himself. I have assured him that in the event that our claims are not consistent with the fact then I'll refund him his air flight. I would then be in the happy position of introducing him to the team and allowing him carte blance to evaluate the circuit as required. This offer was rejected.
He has previously allowed posters to flame my threads. He is now allowing Poynt.99 to do this. Poynt's latest claim is that the functions generator is the source of the energy - entirely unsubstantiated and easily disproved. But it's the manner of his address that is particularly unacceptable. Offensively insulting and rude. And certainly in breach of the standards of posting required there. Were I to continue then I'd be endorsing that kind of communication. And that would hardly do me or this technology any good at all. It is interesting that Stefan allows this and rather endorses my concerns that Stefan even wants to let this technology be progressed.
I feel that there is actually NO real intention of advancing any genuine research into over unity on any of these forums. I think they're just meeting grounds where the members are hoodwinked into thinking that there's a sincere research into breaching those thermodynamic laws. I am now of the opinion that what these forums are actually doing is PREVENTING this research as their actual mandate.
I have not yet been banned. Unless I am I will post there as required - and, hopefully, on the progress of this experimental evidence to our experts. That's all that's now needed. I'll keep the technical discussion here because they can then be advanced without those endless interruptions.
My intention is to get this advanced - somehow - to our academic forums - or I'll die trying. But until then - I'm afraid that I am off those forums. I am now entirely satisfied that they are designed to prevent rather than progress any kind of genuine exploration into this subject.
If any posters are attempting to replicate I would earnestly advise you to keep your results off the forum. You will be actively discouraged - or mocked - or flamed. It's not worth the effort. And if anyone needs any guidance that I or the team may be able to give - then please email me.
My email is ainslie@mweb.co.za. Please don't waste your time in adding comments to this blog. I can't always find them. And more often than not I forget to even look for them.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
106 - onwards and upwards - and aiming for the stratosphere
Sorry - all.
I lost my password - YET AGAIN - and have only JUST managed to get back in here. What an ordeal. I really need to get this password thing standardised.
In any event. I have, finally, got a clear path to follow. I've been contacting certain academics - hand picked - on a one on one basis. I'm hoping they'll be able to evaluate the measurement protocols and then witness a private demo and THEN - accredit results as anomalous. I think - or correctly speaking - I HOPE that this will then pave the way to some kind of wider acceptance. It's certainly a start. And, with luck - may be less onerous on their reputations - by virtue of being less public.
Anyway. It's now the intended 'methodology' for all this required disclosure. I have a couple accepted this but will only look in here in early May. And between now and then, hopefully, we'll manage to get a few more. Perhaps I should aim for 5. That's a modest handful. Always a nice number.
Wish me luck dear Reader. I am much in need of it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW someone wants to know if I'm suffering from manic delusions resulting from bipolar disorders. Not sure what this disorder is. But when I find out I'll let you know. Golly. That's certainly a change from the usual claim that I'm just 'delusional'. It's rather sweet. I think someone's trying to find an explanation for the fact that I can bear up notwithstanding these endless disappointments. And, notwithstanding what must be the most brutal personal attack on the internet - that anyone has ever been subjected to. But I'll deal with all this later. It's all getting way off topic and its also all just way too boring.
I lost my password - YET AGAIN - and have only JUST managed to get back in here. What an ordeal. I really need to get this password thing standardised.
In any event. I have, finally, got a clear path to follow. I've been contacting certain academics - hand picked - on a one on one basis. I'm hoping they'll be able to evaluate the measurement protocols and then witness a private demo and THEN - accredit results as anomalous. I think - or correctly speaking - I HOPE that this will then pave the way to some kind of wider acceptance. It's certainly a start. And, with luck - may be less onerous on their reputations - by virtue of being less public.
Anyway. It's now the intended 'methodology' for all this required disclosure. I have a couple accepted this but will only look in here in early May. And between now and then, hopefully, we'll manage to get a few more. Perhaps I should aim for 5. That's a modest handful. Always a nice number.
Wish me luck dear Reader. I am much in need of it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
BTW someone wants to know if I'm suffering from manic delusions resulting from bipolar disorders. Not sure what this disorder is. But when I find out I'll let you know. Golly. That's certainly a change from the usual claim that I'm just 'delusional'. It's rather sweet. I think someone's trying to find an explanation for the fact that I can bear up notwithstanding these endless disappointments. And, notwithstanding what must be the most brutal personal attack on the internet - that anyone has ever been subjected to. But I'll deal with all this later. It's all getting way off topic and its also all just way too boring.
Monday, April 11, 2011
105 - just to enable some comments on the wrong post address
Dear Reader - I deleted this post and then saw some comments here. I can't enable them but will copy the one from MileHigh and answer it here.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "104 - more on the model":
High drama with a challenge to Stefan to go to South Africa to observe the experiments himself.
I've got news for you. Stefan is not nearly knowledgeable enough to look at your setup and your data and say if it is legit or not. Not by a long-shot. No kidding.
Here is a suggested plan:
1) Answer Humbugger's outstanding questions. You already know the answer to the question about the validity of your data when you move the probes. You have to face the implication; you don't even know if your data is valid because of the different readings when you moved the probes. The truth is you are back at Square One. With respect to some of the other questions, if you can't answer them then just admit that you can't answer them.
2) Make the simple current measurements using the low-pass filter which has been asked of you about 20 times now.
3) We still don't know if you have scoped the battery voltage across a SINGLE battery. The expectation is that it will show 12.6 volts DC with a small ripple. That would confirm that the TRUE nature of the voltage waveform for purposes of measuring the power input of the circuit would be pure DC with a slight ripple.
4) After the proper measurements are made as per Poynt and Humbugger' recommendations, then invite Stefan to South Africa if you still think that you have something. Again, there really is no point though like I say above because he simply is not knowledgeable enough.
MileHigh
1 - I will only ever enter into a dialogue with HUMBUGGER when he publicly retracts his multiple traducements against me and my good name.
2 - I will not filter anything. It will interfere with that required oscillation. I realise that's what you and Poynty et al - require. I'm not about to oblige you.
3 - the positioning of the batteries was to enable the probe to span the positive and negative terminals. I now realise that it's easy - albeit rather dangerous - to position the batteries that I can do this. WHY do you now require a 12 volt supply source? It seems absurdly irrelevant? Quite apart from which the scope probe will NEVER span an entire battery.
4 - I wonder if the actual lack of competence is your own MileHigh. And unlike Stefan you keep your identity secret. I also wonder at your willingness to maliciously damage and deny a qualified person acknowledgement of his skills. It seems - not only recklessly unprofessional of you - but reflects rather badly on your integrity. Quite apart from which one only needs to know how to measure electric energy. We're not into the complicated quantum reaches of averaging. It's a REALLY SIMPLE EXERCISE. Let me remind you. Power is here measured as vi dt. That's it. I should think one hardly needs the skills of a high school student with a passing knowledge of how to use a calculator.
IF Stefan takes up my offer then that will be a good thing.
Rosemary
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "104 - more on the model":
High drama with a challenge to Stefan to go to South Africa to observe the experiments himself.
I've got news for you. Stefan is not nearly knowledgeable enough to look at your setup and your data and say if it is legit or not. Not by a long-shot. No kidding.
Here is a suggested plan:
1) Answer Humbugger's outstanding questions. You already know the answer to the question about the validity of your data when you move the probes. You have to face the implication; you don't even know if your data is valid because of the different readings when you moved the probes. The truth is you are back at Square One. With respect to some of the other questions, if you can't answer them then just admit that you can't answer them.
2) Make the simple current measurements using the low-pass filter which has been asked of you about 20 times now.
3) We still don't know if you have scoped the battery voltage across a SINGLE battery. The expectation is that it will show 12.6 volts DC with a small ripple. That would confirm that the TRUE nature of the voltage waveform for purposes of measuring the power input of the circuit would be pure DC with a slight ripple.
4) After the proper measurements are made as per Poynt and Humbugger' recommendations, then invite Stefan to South Africa if you still think that you have something. Again, there really is no point though like I say above because he simply is not knowledgeable enough.
MileHigh
1 - I will only ever enter into a dialogue with HUMBUGGER when he publicly retracts his multiple traducements against me and my good name.
2 - I will not filter anything. It will interfere with that required oscillation. I realise that's what you and Poynty et al - require. I'm not about to oblige you.
3 - the positioning of the batteries was to enable the probe to span the positive and negative terminals. I now realise that it's easy - albeit rather dangerous - to position the batteries that I can do this. WHY do you now require a 12 volt supply source? It seems absurdly irrelevant? Quite apart from which the scope probe will NEVER span an entire battery.
4 - I wonder if the actual lack of competence is your own MileHigh. And unlike Stefan you keep your identity secret. I also wonder at your willingness to maliciously damage and deny a qualified person acknowledgement of his skills. It seems - not only recklessly unprofessional of you - but reflects rather badly on your integrity. Quite apart from which one only needs to know how to measure electric energy. We're not into the complicated quantum reaches of averaging. It's a REALLY SIMPLE EXERCISE. Let me remind you. Power is here measured as vi dt. That's it. I should think one hardly needs the skills of a high school student with a passing knowledge of how to use a calculator.
IF Stefan takes up my offer then that will be a good thing.
Rosemary
Sunday, April 10, 2011
104 - more on the model
Dear Reader,
I have now exhausted my efforts to explain the field model in purely conceptual terms. But I have not really touched on the simple extension of those fields as they relate to the forces - except in a broad and generalised way. I'll see if I can somehow highlight the essential features of that model.
A material structure is defined as any object that has an inferred or defined boundary. No two material structures can interact unless they share a corresponding space and have a corresponding size.
Magnetic fields comprise bipolar tachyons that align opposite charges at 180 degrees to each other to form strings. These strings close at each extremity to form a circle. Many such circles in close juxtaposition are held bound to form the shape of a torus. This conforms to the general shape of Faraday's Lines of Force. The juxtapolsition of all those strings results in both an attraction and a repulsion between each of those strings. Each dipole adjusts to the chance positioning of its charge related to those dipoles from lateral and adjacent strings. Each adjustment results in the displacement in space of that first dipole that then propels it's neigbouring dipoles - throughout each string - resulting in an orbit. Because of the consistency in the positioning of each dipole the orbit has a justification or 'directional spin' that is expressed throughout the toroidal structure.
A one dimensional field - or single string has a simple or single orbit that can accommodate any justification from neighbouring strings. A two dimensional field has a justification determined by an axial spin which is fixed in relation to its centre. A three dimensional field has both an axial justification and a lateral justification thereby resulting in two predominant spins.
It is proposed that this is the background structure of the universe. All matter is held bound by a single toroidal field that remains outside the interactive reach of visible matter.
When any string is broken - through a singularity - then those magnetic dipoles fall out of that structured condition to form nebulae. This is the chance and chaotic condition of magnetic dipoles that have lost their 'feild condition'. The field condition is defined as an orbit with an implicit velocity to that orbit. That velocity then shared by adjacent strings in their perpetual reach to find a 'balanced' charge condition. The field therefore perpetuating a condition of attraction and repulsion - in whole and in part - that holds the field in a structured formation. Therefore - by definition - the broken string will be defined as having no velocity - no implicit arrangment or positioning of the magnetic dipoles in an alignment of attraction and repulsion - and, consequently - no structured formation.
That's about all I can manage for now. I'll get back here.
Kindest
Rosemary
I have now exhausted my efforts to explain the field model in purely conceptual terms. But I have not really touched on the simple extension of those fields as they relate to the forces - except in a broad and generalised way. I'll see if I can somehow highlight the essential features of that model.
A material structure is defined as any object that has an inferred or defined boundary. No two material structures can interact unless they share a corresponding space and have a corresponding size.
Magnetic fields comprise bipolar tachyons that align opposite charges at 180 degrees to each other to form strings. These strings close at each extremity to form a circle. Many such circles in close juxtaposition are held bound to form the shape of a torus. This conforms to the general shape of Faraday's Lines of Force. The juxtapolsition of all those strings results in both an attraction and a repulsion between each of those strings. Each dipole adjusts to the chance positioning of its charge related to those dipoles from lateral and adjacent strings. Each adjustment results in the displacement in space of that first dipole that then propels it's neigbouring dipoles - throughout each string - resulting in an orbit. Because of the consistency in the positioning of each dipole the orbit has a justification or 'directional spin' that is expressed throughout the toroidal structure.
A one dimensional field - or single string has a simple or single orbit that can accommodate any justification from neighbouring strings. A two dimensional field has a justification determined by an axial spin which is fixed in relation to its centre. A three dimensional field has both an axial justification and a lateral justification thereby resulting in two predominant spins.
It is proposed that this is the background structure of the universe. All matter is held bound by a single toroidal field that remains outside the interactive reach of visible matter.
When any string is broken - through a singularity - then those magnetic dipoles fall out of that structured condition to form nebulae. This is the chance and chaotic condition of magnetic dipoles that have lost their 'feild condition'. The field condition is defined as an orbit with an implicit velocity to that orbit. That velocity then shared by adjacent strings in their perpetual reach to find a 'balanced' charge condition. The field therefore perpetuating a condition of attraction and repulsion - in whole and in part - that holds the field in a structured formation. Therefore - by definition - the broken string will be defined as having no velocity - no implicit arrangment or positioning of the magnetic dipoles in an alignment of attraction and repulsion - and, consequently - no structured formation.
That's about all I can manage for now. I'll get back here.
Kindest
Rosemary
Friday, April 8, 2011
103 - just sharing a bleak morning mood
Dear Reader,
I must admit to feeling a bit disheartened at the moment. I can't get my circuit to take any energy at all from the battery and I do not have the skills to do the required trouble shooting. Hopefully this will be fixed later on today.
What also is getting me down is the relentless attack of the technology on one of the forums that I read. Here we have that characteristic freedom from any kind of need to use scientific argument - yet the demands that we change the protocols to something that is certainly less than required by mainstream. It's all so convenient and so negative and so intellectually abusive. The data is not taken on merit. It's subjected to an absurd level of scrutinty and dismissed on any grounds they choose. I wouldn't mind too much but it seems to satisfy everyone who reads there. Clearly there's an entire want of impartial assessment. And that heavy handed partiality is absolutely not going to go away.
Which is why I keep going back to our EXPERTS. They're the missing ingredient. Unlike those trolls - they're really impartial. But what's lacking here is the courage needed to claim the result. Or at least rescue it from complete extinction which is where it's going at present. Golly. Our planet's health, our children's future, our own continued existence depends on just this. An honest and open review. WHAT has happened to man's quest for knowledge? Is this prescribed? Restricted to opinions on energy when not ONE LIVING PERSON can tell us what energy is? Humbugger - or Hamburger - or whoever he is - relies on the fact that experts never read his drivel. As does Poynty the Poyntless. And there's a little band of mindless twerps who then follow in that wake and show the varying levels of their own small minds.
I actually think that the problem is with me. This circuit should have been promoted by a qualified electromagnetic engineer - preferably of the male gender - and preferably by someone young and bright. That way - there's a chance it would have, at its least, be considered with respect.
Sorry to dump all this. But these last few days have not been my easiest. By the way I've enabled comments again. If Laurel Gramm or Harvey or Humbugger fill those comments with their usual drivel I'll post it here in full view that you can see the caliber of the detractors that I get. What horrible people there are out there.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I must admit to feeling a bit disheartened at the moment. I can't get my circuit to take any energy at all from the battery and I do not have the skills to do the required trouble shooting. Hopefully this will be fixed later on today.
What also is getting me down is the relentless attack of the technology on one of the forums that I read. Here we have that characteristic freedom from any kind of need to use scientific argument - yet the demands that we change the protocols to something that is certainly less than required by mainstream. It's all so convenient and so negative and so intellectually abusive. The data is not taken on merit. It's subjected to an absurd level of scrutinty and dismissed on any grounds they choose. I wouldn't mind too much but it seems to satisfy everyone who reads there. Clearly there's an entire want of impartial assessment. And that heavy handed partiality is absolutely not going to go away.
Which is why I keep going back to our EXPERTS. They're the missing ingredient. Unlike those trolls - they're really impartial. But what's lacking here is the courage needed to claim the result. Or at least rescue it from complete extinction which is where it's going at present. Golly. Our planet's health, our children's future, our own continued existence depends on just this. An honest and open review. WHAT has happened to man's quest for knowledge? Is this prescribed? Restricted to opinions on energy when not ONE LIVING PERSON can tell us what energy is? Humbugger - or Hamburger - or whoever he is - relies on the fact that experts never read his drivel. As does Poynty the Poyntless. And there's a little band of mindless twerps who then follow in that wake and show the varying levels of their own small minds.
I actually think that the problem is with me. This circuit should have been promoted by a qualified electromagnetic engineer - preferably of the male gender - and preferably by someone young and bright. That way - there's a chance it would have, at its least, be considered with respect.
Sorry to dump all this. But these last few days have not been my easiest. By the way I've enabled comments again. If Laurel Gramm or Harvey or Humbugger fill those comments with their usual drivel I'll post it here in full view that you can see the caliber of the detractors that I get. What horrible people there are out there.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
102 - just another rant
Dear Reader,
I am forever being advised - directly or indirectly - that I have not got the required 'schooling' to comment on physics. This is a truth and, in this, I am also in good company. But the truth of the matter is that there is no 'schooling' could provide me with the insights related to this thesis of ours. There is NO 'FIELD THEORY' that incorporates bi-polar tachyons - that assemble into particles that then form the foundation of all visible matter. Nothing that I know of - anyway. And certainly nothing on these lines that are taught at schools - anywhere. It is an exercise in logic. And logic should be very much a part of science.
I'm growing rather tired of this 'forum stance' where the dismissal of these ideas are based on the vainglorious assumption of a need to be taught all this. My question is - who will teach us? The idea is NEW. Thus far it has not been considered ANYWHERE.
That's some of them. The most of the detractors do not have the intellectual acumen to even understand the thesis. Yet they'll decry it - on the same basis. What rank - gross - outright bigotry. Savonarola springs to mind. Certainly a medieval mindset that is entrenched in self-righteous opinion. If anyone ever assumed to comment on the basis of actually having read that study of ours, then there would be a discussion. What - in God's name are they afraid of? And they seem to think that their comments are relevant? And again. God alone knows to what. Certainly it has NOTHING to do with logic or understanding or even knowledge. Even that would help. What has happened to the human intellectual reach when a new idea must first be dismissed - on principle - and because the proponent does not have the right 'credentials'? And what constitutes the right credentials? Frankly I do not see how a unifying model based on a 'magnetic field' can ever be incorporated into standard and known science. If it were it would require a complete upset of known paradigms. That's not happened yet.
Golly. It will be wonderful when we humans evolve to a stage where we had minds open to new ideas and enough courtesy and mutual respect to allow those ideas to come to fruition. We've got a long way to go before we can really consider oureselves to be even partially civilized.
Anyway - nice to get that off my chest.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I am forever being advised - directly or indirectly - that I have not got the required 'schooling' to comment on physics. This is a truth and, in this, I am also in good company. But the truth of the matter is that there is no 'schooling' could provide me with the insights related to this thesis of ours. There is NO 'FIELD THEORY' that incorporates bi-polar tachyons - that assemble into particles that then form the foundation of all visible matter. Nothing that I know of - anyway. And certainly nothing on these lines that are taught at schools - anywhere. It is an exercise in logic. And logic should be very much a part of science.
I'm growing rather tired of this 'forum stance' where the dismissal of these ideas are based on the vainglorious assumption of a need to be taught all this. My question is - who will teach us? The idea is NEW. Thus far it has not been considered ANYWHERE.
That's some of them. The most of the detractors do not have the intellectual acumen to even understand the thesis. Yet they'll decry it - on the same basis. What rank - gross - outright bigotry. Savonarola springs to mind. Certainly a medieval mindset that is entrenched in self-righteous opinion. If anyone ever assumed to comment on the basis of actually having read that study of ours, then there would be a discussion. What - in God's name are they afraid of? And they seem to think that their comments are relevant? And again. God alone knows to what. Certainly it has NOTHING to do with logic or understanding or even knowledge. Even that would help. What has happened to the human intellectual reach when a new idea must first be dismissed - on principle - and because the proponent does not have the right 'credentials'? And what constitutes the right credentials? Frankly I do not see how a unifying model based on a 'magnetic field' can ever be incorporated into standard and known science. If it were it would require a complete upset of known paradigms. That's not happened yet.
Golly. It will be wonderful when we humans evolve to a stage where we had minds open to new ideas and enough courtesy and mutual respect to allow those ideas to come to fruition. We've got a long way to go before we can really consider oureselves to be even partially civilized.
Anyway - nice to get that off my chest.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, April 4, 2011
101 - repost of 8 - THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH RELATING TO OUR PHILOSOPHIES ON SCIENCE
Dear Reader,
I keep referring to this and then I have to find my way to the bottom of the blog of get the reference. For ease of future reference I'm just reposting this so that it's higher up on the blog. So. For those who've already read here - just skip this post.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
8
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Omar Khayyam
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 acuity 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 gibberish 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.
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. 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.
So. If that glove doesn’t fit then try yet another. 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 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 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 some evidence 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. Because eventually 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.
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.
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.
Which brings me round to my favourite topic and to another 'inconvenient truth' - to borrow a phrase from Al Gore. Around about the time when Heisenberg and Bohr were forging the foundations of Quantum mechanics, Zwicky, a Polish immigrant to America - saw something that was only enabled by a new found access to new and improved telescopes. What became evident were galaxies, in the millions, where prior to this there was nothing beyond our Milky Way Galaxy. And what was also evident was that the mass measured in the galaxies, was simply NOT enough to hold those galaxial structures together. If gravitational principles were to be universally upheld - then by rights - those great big star structures should have unravelled or should be unravelling. Neither was evident. He then superimposed the requirement for what he called 'missing matter'.
Over time those early results have been systematically ratified and refined. In effect - many scientists - our leaders in the field of astrophysics - have proved, conclusively that galaxies themselves are held bound by what is now referred to as dark mass - from what is proposed to be dark energy. In effect - they've uncovered a new - hitherto unknown FORCE. No longer are there four forces. There appears to be every evidence that there is this fifth force - and like a fifth column - it's well hidden but pervasive. But the new and insuperable puzzle is this. It's invisible. Yet it's everywhere. And we have no reason to doubt this evidence. Our scientists' ability to measure and observe is unquestionably exact. But, and yet again - they then make yet another nose dive into yet another explanation for the inexplicable. All around are frantically searching for its particle - the 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'. We are back to an Alice in Wonderland world - looking at an upside down reality - a bizarre universe that must first and foremost, obey any and every rule that our mainstream scientists propose - no matter their inherent contradictions.
Why should the particle be visible? Is this still to do with the obsessive requirement to disallow faster than light speed? Are we getting ready set, go - to confuse the hell out of another hundred years or more of theoretical physics - simply to adhere to relativity concepts? Has the time not come - with respect, where we can concentrate of 'field' physics and explore the implications of this - rather than impose a 'field' condition on known particles that none of them are able to constitute a field. No known stable particles are able to move together. Electrons and protons are, effectively, monopoles. Neutrons decay within twenty minutes. Photons irradiate outwards and can only share a path when their rays are deflected unnaturally. Nothing known is capable of sustaining a field condition. So WHY do our learned and revered insist on imposing a standard particle construct on a field? It is the quintessential condition of forcing a square peg into a round hole - of fitting one incorrect fact into another incorrect fact - in another endless circular argument. Again, with respect, has the time not come, in fact LONG overdue, to revisit - not so much our answers, which are increasingly shown to be incorrect - but to revisit our questions about physics? I personally, think that time would be well spent in exploring the conditions required for a sustained field. And I think the evidence now is overwhelming that the field itself holds matter - and, for obvious reasons, this unhappy, this uncomfortable, this inconvenient truth - needs to be fully explored. Just perhaps a whole world exists out there that remains out of touch of our actual realities. It leads - we follow. It proceeds in one time frame - and we interact with it in another time frame. That way - just that one small inclusion into our theoretical constructs - and we would be able to reconcile so much with what is evident. I suspect it's our aether energies - and reference to this has now been long been considered to be politically incorrect. Perhaps the time is now that this poor, abused concept be revisited and revitalised by our theoreticians. Certainly we may then salvage some logical coherence that is entirely exempt in current thinking.
I keep referring to this and then I have to find my way to the bottom of the blog of get the reference. For ease of future reference I'm just reposting this so that it's higher up on the blog. So. For those who've already read here - just skip this post.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
8
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Omar Khayyam
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 acuity 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 gibberish 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.
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. 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.
So. If that glove doesn’t fit then try yet another. 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 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 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 some evidence 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. Because eventually 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.
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.
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.
Which brings me round to my favourite topic and to another 'inconvenient truth' - to borrow a phrase from Al Gore. Around about the time when Heisenberg and Bohr were forging the foundations of Quantum mechanics, Zwicky, a Polish immigrant to America - saw something that was only enabled by a new found access to new and improved telescopes. What became evident were galaxies, in the millions, where prior to this there was nothing beyond our Milky Way Galaxy. And what was also evident was that the mass measured in the galaxies, was simply NOT enough to hold those galaxial structures together. If gravitational principles were to be universally upheld - then by rights - those great big star structures should have unravelled or should be unravelling. Neither was evident. He then superimposed the requirement for what he called 'missing matter'.
Over time those early results have been systematically ratified and refined. In effect - many scientists - our leaders in the field of astrophysics - have proved, conclusively that galaxies themselves are held bound by what is now referred to as dark mass - from what is proposed to be dark energy. In effect - they've uncovered a new - hitherto unknown FORCE. No longer are there four forces. There appears to be every evidence that there is this fifth force - and like a fifth column - it's well hidden but pervasive. But the new and insuperable puzzle is this. It's invisible. Yet it's everywhere. And we have no reason to doubt this evidence. Our scientists' ability to measure and observe is unquestionably exact. But, and yet again - they then make yet another nose dive into yet another explanation for the inexplicable. All around are frantically searching for its particle - the 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'. We are back to an Alice in Wonderland world - looking at an upside down reality - a bizarre universe that must first and foremost, obey any and every rule that our mainstream scientists propose - no matter their inherent contradictions.
Why should the particle be visible? Is this still to do with the obsessive requirement to disallow faster than light speed? Are we getting ready set, go - to confuse the hell out of another hundred years or more of theoretical physics - simply to adhere to relativity concepts? Has the time not come - with respect, where we can concentrate of 'field' physics and explore the implications of this - rather than impose a 'field' condition on known particles that none of them are able to constitute a field. No known stable particles are able to move together. Electrons and protons are, effectively, monopoles. Neutrons decay within twenty minutes. Photons irradiate outwards and can only share a path when their rays are deflected unnaturally. Nothing known is capable of sustaining a field condition. So WHY do our learned and revered insist on imposing a standard particle construct on a field? It is the quintessential condition of forcing a square peg into a round hole - of fitting one incorrect fact into another incorrect fact - in another endless circular argument. Again, with respect, has the time not come, in fact LONG overdue, to revisit - not so much our answers, which are increasingly shown to be incorrect - but to revisit our questions about physics? I personally, think that time would be well spent in exploring the conditions required for a sustained field. And I think the evidence now is overwhelming that the field itself holds matter - and, for obvious reasons, this unhappy, this uncomfortable, this inconvenient truth - needs to be fully explored. Just perhaps a whole world exists out there that remains out of touch of our actual realities. It leads - we follow. It proceeds in one time frame - and we interact with it in another time frame. That way - just that one small inclusion into our theoretical constructs - and we would be able to reconcile so much with what is evident. I suspect it's our aether energies - and reference to this has now been long been considered to be politically incorrect. Perhaps the time is now that this poor, abused concept be revisited and revitalised by our theoreticians. Certainly we may then salvage some logical coherence that is entirely exempt in current thinking.
Friday, April 1, 2011
100 - on the much needed finalisation of the model
Dear Reader,
I have finally finished adding illustrations to the model. But it's a work in progress and likely to be amended here and there. I believe there's a contradiction in my argument somewhere in there that I have to ferret out. And there's a few additions that I need to highlight related to the way the forces are an expression of the different dimensions in the field.
the model - click here
Poynty has sent me an email to advise me that I'm foolish - to try and pretend that I'm a scientist. I hope I'm not guilty of this. To the best of my knowledge, I have never made any such pretense. All I have done is try, within the constraints of my limited knowledge, to explain something that I have seen. It's a 'pattern' behind all that is manifest. And it does not contradict known physics. I believe this may be the first excusion into 'field physics' which, I firmly believe, will be the the new reach of this new age science.
And I am entirely satisfied that there are no readily formed mathematical constructs to explain all this. The best that our string theorists have proposed is a static backdrop. How would one resolve all that energy if, as proposed here, that backdrop is that fast that it exceeds light speed. I am certain that a new math and a new geometry will be required to do this justice. That I cannot - is a good thing. It is better that this is progressed by mainstream.
I do hope that there are those amongst you readers who are able to understand it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I have finally finished adding illustrations to the model. But it's a work in progress and likely to be amended here and there. I believe there's a contradiction in my argument somewhere in there that I have to ferret out. And there's a few additions that I need to highlight related to the way the forces are an expression of the different dimensions in the field.
the model - click here
Poynty has sent me an email to advise me that I'm foolish - to try and pretend that I'm a scientist. I hope I'm not guilty of this. To the best of my knowledge, I have never made any such pretense. All I have done is try, within the constraints of my limited knowledge, to explain something that I have seen. It's a 'pattern' behind all that is manifest. And it does not contradict known physics. I believe this may be the first excusion into 'field physics' which, I firmly believe, will be the the new reach of this new age science.
And I am entirely satisfied that there are no readily formed mathematical constructs to explain all this. The best that our string theorists have proposed is a static backdrop. How would one resolve all that energy if, as proposed here, that backdrop is that fast that it exceeds light speed. I am certain that a new math and a new geometry will be required to do this justice. That I cannot - is a good thing. It is better that this is progressed by mainstream.
I do hope that there are those amongst you readers who are able to understand it.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)