Dear Rader,
Rather repetitive I'm afraid. The same story but told to a member of the media in terms - I hope - that are understandable.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
It is going to take me some time and also the reach into some considerable efforts to marshall the facts and indeed the energy - to write all this. The trade off is this. Please print this letter and then read it when you're relaxed and able to concentrate. On Wednesday you had a theme on the lines of 'if you were to die tomorrow or soon - what would you like to first achieve?'. Well. My dream would be to find a radio or television chat show host who would pick up on our story and rally - either before or after I die, but preferably before. Or, at least, the sooner the better. I cannot tell you how often I've wanted to reach you - telephonically. But I'm not sure that I'd have had the courage to tell the whole story publicly and - God knows - even if I did I wouldn't have the time. But you'd be my 'spokesperson' of choice - precisely because you're that interested and curious about most things. And I suspect that if this story did capture your interest - then I'm reasonably certain that you would be well able do it justice.
Here's the thing. We all know that looming large is an energy crisis that can only move into a disaster zone. We are running out of fossil fuels and we're polluting our atmosphere with toxic carbon waste . If we manage the improbable goals of containing our current usage then we'll run out of that abundant fuel source within 50 years. By then carbon pollution would have introduced a level of imbalance to our atmosphere that will be irreversible and catastrophic. 50 years is within your own life time. If you have children, or, like me, grandchildren - then you and they will confront an onslaught from Nature that will be unstoppable. It will inevitably devastate our coastal urban structures together with all predictable weather patterns and rising sea levels from global warming. Think of it - water encroaching 70 kilometers inland. That's the most of our own beautiful Cape. Then. If we also supplement this supply with something in the order of the manufacture of 1 nuclear atomic station every week - and the manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines - at the rate of 2 per hour for 24 hours for each day during that 50 year period - then we'll satisfy a mere 10% of the required level of energy to also satisfy our population growth and our requirements. It's a bleak picture and it's a reality that the most of us are simply not addressing.
Well. There's a solution. And this is where our story kicks in. I am not a scientist. But some 13 years ago, now, I read a book called 'The dancing Wu Li masters' by Gary Zukov, which entirely engrossed me. It was my first exposure to science and the book itself is a wonderful summary of the development of physics up to the time of writing that book . I think it was published in the late seventies. I'm also not a mathematician. But there's a principle in atomic physics which is determined by Bell's theorem. This states that 'the statistical predictions of quantum theory....... cannot be upheld by local hidden variables'. All this means is this. On a very profound level - at the level of our particles - there has to be an order and a symmetry. Else all would be chaos and life could not be sustained. And I've got a natural aptitude to find those symmetries - I think. In any event, I set to and did my own 'take' on the magnetic field and came up with a property in electric energy that is not part of the standard model. What was proposed is that electric current actually comprises little magnetic dipoles that comprise the basic structure a magnetic field. I'm not expecting you to comment on the physics. I do not expect anyone to understand this unless they too are scientists. But what is significant is that this actually also meant that we were and are using our electric energy supplies at a small fraction of their potential force.
Now. There's a very profound 'litmus test' to all theories. There has to be experimental proof. This is so fundamental to the progress of science that the adage is this. SCIENCE IS PROGRESSED BY EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE. That's it. In other words - if you cannot prove a thesis then the thesis has no relevance to science and is intellectually interesting at best. I therefore had to prove the thesis. And the proof was very quickly managed on simple apparatus. Then the next point. The experiment must also be REPEATABLE. We could repeat it. Then. It must be MEASURABLE. We could also measure it. In effect, at those early stages, we were able to get a battery to 'out perform' it's watt hour rating. Then the experiment must also be DEMONSTRABLE. We could demonstrate it. Then. To evaluate the MEASURABLE REPEATABLE DEMONSTRABLE EXPERIMENTAL PROOF we also had to find those experts to evaluate all that evidence. And this is where we fell on our face. In 13 years we have not been able to get one or more academic experts to the table to even witness a demonstration let alone evaluate it. The apparatus has, nonetheless, been demonstrated at the MTN Sciencentre - in the offices of Coopers and Lybrand - and latterly on a well known campus. Every academic electrical engineering expert in South Africa was invited to that last demonstration. And not a one of them attended. Ever. To any of those demonstrations.
This is understandable. Let me see if I can explain this. Scientists are schooled in Thermodynamic Laws which in essence states that energy can only be transferred - never created. Effectively, in terms of Kirchhoff's unity requirements you cannot get more out of a system than was first supplied by an energy supply source. In other words the energy in your battery is the most energy you can ever access. The energy from your plug is the sum of the energy you can route to your appliances. And so on. And what we're showing is that we're getting more out of the system than was ever supplied. Indeed. On our last tests we are showing that we are ONLY getting energy from the system with a zero cost of energy from the supply. This is known as INFINITE COP which is even more extreme than a co-efficient of performance that exceeds 1. Both results are considered IMPOSSIBLE by our mainstream scientists. And yet, as an example, we can even take water to boil without any energy at all measured to have been delivered by that battery supply source. These are results that are based on careful measurement. Our technology is well known on the internet. But the claims of 'more out than in' more energy from some hidden field - is often, too often - associated with those who are trying to capitalise on their discoveries. Or they're simply stories that are promulgated as hoaxes. This has tarnished this study to the point that if any academic were to openly accede to these results then they too would be 'tarnished' and their academic reputations would be destroyed. But think of it. It would enable cooking, running lights, heating water, assisting our poor, progressing knowledge, progressing society. Which is a very, very good thing.
We have gone to some considerable trouble to ensure that all of this is available to the public. It's in the public domain, so to speak. If you google my name you'll see many many references. Certainly in excess of a million hits. Which means that no-one, not even we who are progressing this - can ever call for any kind of royalty on the development. Our sincere wish is simply to get this to the academic forum so that our experts can FINALLY evaluate all this evidence for themselves. That's been my mission from the get go. To be perfectly frank - there's another point. I am intensely bored with this side of the exercise. I am way more interested in the thesis. It shows great promise - especially as it relates to gravitational forces which - I think - may be exceeded. But for now we urgently need to get this technology more widely known. For obvious reasons.
So. As it's said - if you can't get Mahomet to go to the mountain then the mountain must go to Mahomet. There's another way to get the 'story' known - which is through the well tried and tested route of publication in an academic journal. Consider if you will the enormous challenge of this to one - such as me, who has had no academic training and no formal schooling in science - tackling the explanation of these intuitively held concepts - based on nothing more than an analysis of charge, and patterns and some elementary science promoted simplistically for the layman through layman's literature. And all for the readership of those academic journals. They're skilled academics who require a technical excellence in scientific discourse. It's a mountain in and of itself. But I tackled this. We went mountaineering - and submitted a total of 5 - actually technically and correctly 6 papers to the IEEE or to IET who both have a stranglehold on journal publications in America and Europe respectively. The first 4 papers were rejected out of hand. These last two papers have, SURPRISINGLY, been forwarded for review. But the editor has put himself out of reach to me and I cannot ascertain whether this is now mired in bureaucratic delays or if it's been relegated to a 'never touch these papers - and do not answer emails from the author' - folder. So strange. I've now resigned myself to an inevitable declination. Or the editor is too scared to formally reject it as he's aware of my internet exposure and the kind of criticism that this will possibly generate.
Now. Just a little more on the 'internet' exposure and 'conspiracy theories' and I'm done. I apologise, profusely, for the length of this. But it's required for a reasonably sufficient overview of the facts. There are those personnel at Eskom that BLOCK every effort I make to get them to witness a demonstration. One doesn't have to dig too deep to find an explanation. Then. I've belonged to forums where I've tried to progress this knowledge. Here I was hounded by those who - I suspect - are paid to dismiss any 'over unity' evidence to protect the vested interests of our energy suppliers. I can only guess at this. I cannot confirm it. But it is strange that I was hounded on forums by characters and individuals who have disappeared from view as I desisted from those forums. It's a truth. No individual has been subjected to so much abuse ever, anywhere on the internet for doing nothing more damning than trying to advance a desirable technology. And here's the one delicious fact that I have kept for last. Where we could not get academics to a demonstration we certainly managed to get industry to take note. BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research NC (the mecca of electrical measurement and research), SPESCOM (SA), POWER ENGINEERS and many, many smaller firms, together with many hundreds of electrical engineers, have witnessed a demonstration and accredited these results from the get go. Those listed are public companies and they allowed us to reference them as accreditors in the only paper that we managed to publish - October edition of Quantum in 2002. But that magazine is only in a technical journal. Not the academic publication which is required. SASOL went further and offered UCT a bursary award to progress this research. I offer this information with a certain amount of reluctance - but a circumspect call to a Professor Gaunt will confirm this. That offer too - was simply DECLINED.
So. There you have it - . We have unequivocal proof that it is possible to generate cheap energy from an abundant potential supply source - at no risk to pollution and at zero cost other than installation. It's a technology that's consistent with standard model and calls ONLY for the inclusion of a particle in a magnetic field. And the existence of that particle which is proven in the experimental evidence recorded in these last two papers - also has the potential to reconcile quantum physics and classical physics as well as endorsing the findings of our string theorists and our dark energy experts. It answers many open questions that these fields ask. It is potentially an entire solution to our global energy requirements for clean green - and it is EASY to install - subject only to the development of robust transistors. It is more than desirable. It's required. And all this is easily proven by a simple 30 minute demonstration of the equipment and the results which are easily measured - to two or more experts. One would have thought it's possible.
Our sincere hope is that you could take up this story and challenge the required authorities to - at least - witness a demonstration. That way we would not need to publish which seems to be another impossible hurdle - another slippery summit. This news should be shouted across the roof tops. Across the world. Instead there are many, many authorities who are ignoring their own criteria of experimental proof - who are closing their eyes, gagging their mouths and blocking their ears. Alternatively, or perhaps concurrently, it would be wonderful if the public could be advised. They alone can put the required pressure on our academics to answer this unanswerable question. WHY DO YOU EXPERTS NOT WANT TO EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE which is so transparently - openly and freely offered by us? Isn't that, after all, the first and primary requirement of scientists?
Please let us know if you can assist us - if this story has piqued your interest. It will be wonderful if it has. I've included our last two papers. Please do not expect to understand them. But you could, perhaps, forward them to any engineer who most certainly should be able to understand it...... I simply can't get a breakthrough. Not on my own. We need someone to help and rally the public interest to pressure the experts to act like the responsible scientists that they profess to be. It's nothing to do with science to say 'I do not believe the apparatus will work'. It's only scientific to first test it.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Sunday, October 16, 2011
157 - on censorship. This is scarey
Dear Reader,
Here's another FACT. There's a 'flag ship' journal within the AIP that is the appropriate publication for NEW technologies and sundry scientific breakthroughs. That's a good thing. BUT. Having submitted your paper - in the normal way - it then goes straight to a certain venerable DOCTOR who decides whether or not to publish it. That's his RIGHT. One person ONLY required to approve a submission. THEN - and ONLY IF IT GETS HIS APPROVAL - it is submitted to the usual review process. Then. Even more alarming. He is contactable on an address that when we tried it - ALL OF US - were subject to an error message explaining that the ADDRESS WAS INVALID. I phoned about 5 numbers within the AIP to track down an alternate address. It's an AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ADDRESS. But it seems that this address is NOT accessible to any South African. Not at all sure why. One would have thought that an international publication would ensure that their email addresses were also internationally available - even when it was to reach the elusive DOCTOR ***.
All of which means this. New discoveries are FIRST assessed by an elusive American Governmental Civil Service - in a department which is not accessible to us in South Africa and - possibly - nowhere else in the world. Which puts them out of reach of the average author. And in rejecting any such submission then they are also in the happy position of knowing everything about the new discovery without having any obligations to publish that knowledge. What, in God's name is that? Surely it's censorship? Writ really, really LARGE? How many breakthroughs have been spurned by this simply procedure while the technologies detailed in those submissions may yet be exploited.
Here's my cover letter to that elusive Doctor. I have written proof that this has been forwarded by someone within that department. And it was sent to him to 'SPREAD THE WORD'. Who knows. It may be the best possible way of actually getting this to application - unless that Government department also possibly sees some threat to vested interests. Golly.
kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear Dr ***,
A Ms ********* has kindly offered to forward this communication to you. I have been advised that your authorisation is required to approve the submission of a paper for review to your journal - **********. I wonder if I could impose on you to read the attached papers ....- in order to cover the concerns detailed hereunder.
We have two papers which will be attached. These papers are the culmination of ten years of research and detail the experimental evidence of more energy being returned to a battery supply to recharge it, than delivered by that supply source. This is consistent with the predictions of a magnetic field model that required this effect, resting as it does, on the assumption of a dual charge in a material property of current. This proposal conflicts with mainstream assumption of an electron being the carrier particle in the exchange of electric energy. However, the proposed dipole also resolves the anomalous oscillating waveform that is detailed in that paper which, according to the standard model, should not be sustainable. The papers were written as a two-part paper where the experimental evidence is detailed in the first and the explanation detailed in the second. What is of particular interest is that the results point to an exploitable property in inductive and conductive material that enables it to become a supplementary energy supply source. However, the results also fly in the face of classical prediction as the amount of energy that is dissipated at the circuit components exceeds the amount of energy delivered from the supply. And the level of energy is significant - measured to the limit of the transistors' tolerance at 170 watts or thereby from the delivery of 72 volts from the battery supply. The experimental evidence is detailed.
What is significant is that these thermal properties have an exploitable potential especially as they relate to the generation of clean and abundant energy which is desirable in the face of our current energy crises. It is, therefore, in the nature of a discovery. But the arguments rest on Faraday's Lines of Force and therefore do not represent a major departure from mainstream. Only the results remain contentious. Fortunately the circuit can be replicated on simulation software such as PSpice, and therefore most engineers will be able to duplicate those waveforms if not precisely the same results. This may go some way towards acceptance of these experimental results. Certainly we hope so.
Over this ten year period we have written a total of 5 papers on variations of this experiment all of which were rejected prior to review. They were submitted to the IEEE and to IET respectively. This last paper has now been submitted for 9 weeks or thereby and we have still not heard whether they're to be published. I have written to the editor some two weeks ago and have not had a reply. Our suspicion is that they'll be rejected as there is a discursive analysis in an appendix to the second paper that may not be considered appropriate to electrical engineering disciplines.
To compound our concerns is the general resistance to acceptance of the experimental evidence notwithstanding the sophisticated measuring instruments used. We have not been able to get experts to witness a demonstration, notwithstanding repeated solicitations. And we held a public demonstration of the artifact on 15th of March of this year where many attended but not one of the invited experts. Had they done so then we suspect we would not have had to go through this onerous exercise of looking for academic publication. There is a blanket resistance amongst academics to be associated with these claims and I suspect it is because endorsement of the results will possibly tarnish the good reputations of those experts. It is an unfortunate truth that these claims of ours are associated with others that are variously false, or duplicitous and it is therefore understandable that experts are reluctant to be associated. However, the value of the technology together with the thoroughness of our own research, we hope may mitigate in favour of a sincere investigation into these potentials.
I have forwarded these papers to the major international academies and some of those applications have called for sincere interest and some favourable comments from some highly respected academics one of whom commended it for its clarity, another who saw the need for publication in a journal of some sort. I therefore presume that they may merit publication and, if so, that the many questions that are raised in those papers will then be addressed. It needs a wide assessment, which results from publication. Then the checks and balances that result from that assessment should be enough to protect this rather fragile technology.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Here's another FACT. There's a 'flag ship' journal within the AIP that is the appropriate publication for NEW technologies and sundry scientific breakthroughs. That's a good thing. BUT. Having submitted your paper - in the normal way - it then goes straight to a certain venerable DOCTOR who decides whether or not to publish it. That's his RIGHT. One person ONLY required to approve a submission. THEN - and ONLY IF IT GETS HIS APPROVAL - it is submitted to the usual review process. Then. Even more alarming. He is contactable on an address that when we tried it - ALL OF US - were subject to an error message explaining that the ADDRESS WAS INVALID. I phoned about 5 numbers within the AIP to track down an alternate address. It's an AMERICAN GOVERNMENT ADDRESS. But it seems that this address is NOT accessible to any South African. Not at all sure why. One would have thought that an international publication would ensure that their email addresses were also internationally available - even when it was to reach the elusive DOCTOR ***.
All of which means this. New discoveries are FIRST assessed by an elusive American Governmental Civil Service - in a department which is not accessible to us in South Africa and - possibly - nowhere else in the world. Which puts them out of reach of the average author. And in rejecting any such submission then they are also in the happy position of knowing everything about the new discovery without having any obligations to publish that knowledge. What, in God's name is that? Surely it's censorship? Writ really, really LARGE? How many breakthroughs have been spurned by this simply procedure while the technologies detailed in those submissions may yet be exploited.
Here's my cover letter to that elusive Doctor. I have written proof that this has been forwarded by someone within that department. And it was sent to him to 'SPREAD THE WORD'. Who knows. It may be the best possible way of actually getting this to application - unless that Government department also possibly sees some threat to vested interests. Golly.
kindest regards,
Rosemary
Dear Dr ***,
A Ms ********* has kindly offered to forward this communication to you. I have been advised that your authorisation is required to approve the submission of a paper for review to your journal - **********. I wonder if I could impose on you to read the attached papers ....- in order to cover the concerns detailed hereunder.
We have two papers which will be attached. These papers are the culmination of ten years of research and detail the experimental evidence of more energy being returned to a battery supply to recharge it, than delivered by that supply source. This is consistent with the predictions of a magnetic field model that required this effect, resting as it does, on the assumption of a dual charge in a material property of current. This proposal conflicts with mainstream assumption of an electron being the carrier particle in the exchange of electric energy. However, the proposed dipole also resolves the anomalous oscillating waveform that is detailed in that paper which, according to the standard model, should not be sustainable. The papers were written as a two-part paper where the experimental evidence is detailed in the first and the explanation detailed in the second. What is of particular interest is that the results point to an exploitable property in inductive and conductive material that enables it to become a supplementary energy supply source. However, the results also fly in the face of classical prediction as the amount of energy that is dissipated at the circuit components exceeds the amount of energy delivered from the supply. And the level of energy is significant - measured to the limit of the transistors' tolerance at 170 watts or thereby from the delivery of 72 volts from the battery supply. The experimental evidence is detailed.
What is significant is that these thermal properties have an exploitable potential especially as they relate to the generation of clean and abundant energy which is desirable in the face of our current energy crises. It is, therefore, in the nature of a discovery. But the arguments rest on Faraday's Lines of Force and therefore do not represent a major departure from mainstream. Only the results remain contentious. Fortunately the circuit can be replicated on simulation software such as PSpice, and therefore most engineers will be able to duplicate those waveforms if not precisely the same results. This may go some way towards acceptance of these experimental results. Certainly we hope so.
Over this ten year period we have written a total of 5 papers on variations of this experiment all of which were rejected prior to review. They were submitted to the IEEE and to IET respectively. This last paper has now been submitted for 9 weeks or thereby and we have still not heard whether they're to be published. I have written to the editor some two weeks ago and have not had a reply. Our suspicion is that they'll be rejected as there is a discursive analysis in an appendix to the second paper that may not be considered appropriate to electrical engineering disciplines.
To compound our concerns is the general resistance to acceptance of the experimental evidence notwithstanding the sophisticated measuring instruments used. We have not been able to get experts to witness a demonstration, notwithstanding repeated solicitations. And we held a public demonstration of the artifact on 15th of March of this year where many attended but not one of the invited experts. Had they done so then we suspect we would not have had to go through this onerous exercise of looking for academic publication. There is a blanket resistance amongst academics to be associated with these claims and I suspect it is because endorsement of the results will possibly tarnish the good reputations of those experts. It is an unfortunate truth that these claims of ours are associated with others that are variously false, or duplicitous and it is therefore understandable that experts are reluctant to be associated. However, the value of the technology together with the thoroughness of our own research, we hope may mitigate in favour of a sincere investigation into these potentials.
I have forwarded these papers to the major international academies and some of those applications have called for sincere interest and some favourable comments from some highly respected academics one of whom commended it for its clarity, another who saw the need for publication in a journal of some sort. I therefore presume that they may merit publication and, if so, that the many questions that are raised in those papers will then be addressed. It needs a wide assessment, which results from publication. Then the checks and balances that result from that assessment should be enough to protect this rather fragile technology.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary Ainslie
Saturday, October 8, 2011
156 - a general update - and ancient aliens.
Dear Reader
Still no news. And frankly I've not got the courage yet to contact the IEEE to find out why no progress. My sister in law is an academic and has advised me that I must complain only if I've still not heard after 6 months or so. Golly. That's calling on reserves of patience and tolerance that I simply do not have. As you all know I've taken a breather and have been working on a story book for my grandchildren. It's progressing - slowly - as I'm developing the register and the general plot line. And the pleasure of painting again. It's all been a welcome distraction. But my thesis nags at the back of my mind and I return to it constantly - like a tongue to a sore tooth. I took the trouble today to read through the model and it's far from sufficient and equally distanced from completion. My overriding intention was to write it that all us poor laymen would understand it. Frankly, on a re-read - I find that I also am confused. God alone knows how you must all have struggled to wrap your mind around it. So. For those that managed it - it speaks to your own remarkable intelligence and an equally remarkable tolerance of an utterly clumsy rendition of concepts. I can only apologise.
The good news is this. I have worked out a way to explain gravity using those Lines of Force. It begs a certain departure into pure geometry - but I've been finding symmetries that I've not yet been aware of and - these last three days - I think I've found a way of arguing it. It's kept me awake - but I've enjoyed it - not so much the exhaustion that comes with these obsessive interests of mine. But the challenge was there and I could not resist it.
I've had the good fortune - always - of working with some very clever people. Riaan Theron is going to help with the diagrams and the rest of the team, hopefully - as ever, will give me their input and criticisms. Then the intention is to finish a paper on gravity and submit this to AIP. I'll be using the same experimental proofs - where required - so all that hard work on our first paper will not go to waste.
What actually motivated me was another one of those Discovery programs - this time on Stonehenge. What a fascinating subject. If the thesis is right - then I think Stonehenge was designed to isolate a locality from the Earth's magnetic fields. And again, given that our thesis is even half way on the mark - then that would have resulted in a feeling of, if not actual weightlessness. Would that they could restore that monument to its earlier state. I think the English National Trust would then find the real purpose of that construct. It was surely no accident that it was located in the heart of the Wiltshire Moors resting, as it does on a chalk bed. Nor was it an accident that they chose those granite stones - rich, as they are, in iron. To my mind they created a super conductor and charged it with the Earth's own magnetic fields. Then they created a potential voltage source with the broken line of those taller inner standing stones. And then? Who knows. I think that it would have generated a flux field that would have delighted the likes of Tesla and God knows - the most of our energy enthusiasts. You see this. The voltage generated on that inner 'half moon' alignment of standing stones would have released that potential difference onto the 'alter' - whether or not the stone was standing. That would have been shocking. lol
On another subject - I've been watching a new series on television. Ancient Aliens. I wonder if - indeed - our ancients do, indeed, have a history that predates the 5000 years BC as required by our anthropologists. If we were instructed by these aliens - and if that instruction predates the 'cave man' era - then it is a puzzle as to why they left us. Presumably we needed to evolve our own knowledge. It makes sense - on some kind of intuitive level. But there are way more questions in this than answers and all is purely speculative.
Very interesting - nonetheless.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Still no news. And frankly I've not got the courage yet to contact the IEEE to find out why no progress. My sister in law is an academic and has advised me that I must complain only if I've still not heard after 6 months or so. Golly. That's calling on reserves of patience and tolerance that I simply do not have. As you all know I've taken a breather and have been working on a story book for my grandchildren. It's progressing - slowly - as I'm developing the register and the general plot line. And the pleasure of painting again. It's all been a welcome distraction. But my thesis nags at the back of my mind and I return to it constantly - like a tongue to a sore tooth. I took the trouble today to read through the model and it's far from sufficient and equally distanced from completion. My overriding intention was to write it that all us poor laymen would understand it. Frankly, on a re-read - I find that I also am confused. God alone knows how you must all have struggled to wrap your mind around it. So. For those that managed it - it speaks to your own remarkable intelligence and an equally remarkable tolerance of an utterly clumsy rendition of concepts. I can only apologise.
The good news is this. I have worked out a way to explain gravity using those Lines of Force. It begs a certain departure into pure geometry - but I've been finding symmetries that I've not yet been aware of and - these last three days - I think I've found a way of arguing it. It's kept me awake - but I've enjoyed it - not so much the exhaustion that comes with these obsessive interests of mine. But the challenge was there and I could not resist it.
I've had the good fortune - always - of working with some very clever people. Riaan Theron is going to help with the diagrams and the rest of the team, hopefully - as ever, will give me their input and criticisms. Then the intention is to finish a paper on gravity and submit this to AIP. I'll be using the same experimental proofs - where required - so all that hard work on our first paper will not go to waste.
What actually motivated me was another one of those Discovery programs - this time on Stonehenge. What a fascinating subject. If the thesis is right - then I think Stonehenge was designed to isolate a locality from the Earth's magnetic fields. And again, given that our thesis is even half way on the mark - then that would have resulted in a feeling of, if not actual weightlessness. Would that they could restore that monument to its earlier state. I think the English National Trust would then find the real purpose of that construct. It was surely no accident that it was located in the heart of the Wiltshire Moors resting, as it does on a chalk bed. Nor was it an accident that they chose those granite stones - rich, as they are, in iron. To my mind they created a super conductor and charged it with the Earth's own magnetic fields. Then they created a potential voltage source with the broken line of those taller inner standing stones. And then? Who knows. I think that it would have generated a flux field that would have delighted the likes of Tesla and God knows - the most of our energy enthusiasts. You see this. The voltage generated on that inner 'half moon' alignment of standing stones would have released that potential difference onto the 'alter' - whether or not the stone was standing. That would have been shocking. lol
On another subject - I've been watching a new series on television. Ancient Aliens. I wonder if - indeed - our ancients do, indeed, have a history that predates the 5000 years BC as required by our anthropologists. If we were instructed by these aliens - and if that instruction predates the 'cave man' era - then it is a puzzle as to why they left us. Presumably we needed to evolve our own knowledge. It makes sense - on some kind of intuitive level. But there are way more questions in this than answers and all is purely speculative.
Very interesting - nonetheless.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, September 26, 2011
155 - still no news
Dear Reader,
Still no news. If we don't hear anything by the end of next week then I'll write in and ask why it's all taking so long.
This waiting for news is hard.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Just uploading my latest picture. Ignore this as it's way off topic. When I can get someone to do it I"ll open another blog for my art. Apologies to those who are not into this sort of thing.
Still no news. If we don't hear anything by the end of next week then I'll write in and ask why it's all taking so long.
This waiting for news is hard.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Just uploading my latest picture. Ignore this as it's way off topic. When I can get someone to do it I"ll open another blog for my art. Apologies to those who are not into this sort of thing.
Monday, September 12, 2011
154 - what I've been working on
Dear Reader,
This is somewhat off topic. I'm just dying to see how the picture scanned. If it works I'll just keep it here for the record.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Well. It uploaded. That's my version of Twinkletoes - with a rather tenuous daisy chain. My granddaughters in the foreground. We're still to find a name for the fairy. I'll leave that my my children to choose.
I can't get too depressed when I'm exploring this dimension of kitsch. It's been fun. I'm now going to work on my dragon. It's one way of killing time while we wait for results from our submission.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
This is somewhat off topic. I'm just dying to see how the picture scanned. If it works I'll just keep it here for the record.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Well. It uploaded. That's my version of Twinkletoes - with a rather tenuous daisy chain. My granddaughters in the foreground. We're still to find a name for the fairy. I'll leave that my my children to choose.
I can't get too depressed when I'm exploring this dimension of kitsch. It's been fun. I'm now going to work on my dragon. It's one way of killing time while we wait for results from our submission.
Kindest again,
Rosemary
Sunday, September 11, 2011
153 - still no news and still more petitioning
Dear Reader,
I'm posting hereunder yet another application to yet another learned and revered - to advance publication. Thus far not successful. But I'm like that widow in the parable. I keep at it. lol
Also. Still no news from our editor. But after this much time - then? Maybe they've finally tested it for themselves. I do hope so. Plenty questions there folks.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Had I asked you to report favourably on anything at all then I would have been obliged to involve you in a discussion of the thesis. Thus far you have not engaged. Therefore I could not expect it. If that is what you concluded from my request then you clearly have not understood it.
We have experimental evidence that - as you put it - a switch passes current when it should not. There is nothing wrong with the switch. The results are repeatable. And they are replicable. They have been widely replicated. Not only have they been widely replicated but they can also be replicated on simulation software. We are attempting to bring this to the attention of the academic fraternity through the publication of a paper. Why it is important is that it results in more energy been returned to than delivered by a battery supply source. This appears to fly in the face of mainstream assumption. The more so as there is also evidence of energy being dissipated at the load resistor.
The evidence is unarguable. There are NO apparent measurement errors and - if there are - then those errors are evident by many experimentalists. I personally know of 5 successful replications. They all seem to generate that same oscillation. I put it to you that the experiment results in a catastrophic defeat of thermodynamic laws unless there is an alternate supply of energy identified. We identify this energy in the circuit material. This then also conforms to Einstein's mass energy equivalence. This explanation also has the merit of endorsing the Dark Energy requirements of our astrophysicists as it localises that energy in bound matter. However we propose that it is extraneous to the atom itself. We argue that current flow comprises a magnetic material that binds matter and that it compromises that bound condition when it is induced through voltage imbalances.
I specifically asked that you do NOT endorse our findings but that you would, nonetheless, recommend publication. I was given to understand that you viewed publication as a requirement regardless of the evidence. Science is progressed by experimental evidence. We have that evidence. And we would, most assuredly, require that it is progressed. But we are not anticipating anything less than some considerable resistance to that evidence. Provided that publication also results in wide experimentation to test that evidence - then that would be a very good thing. Because this effect will then also be widely seen. One hopes that it will not then be ignored.
What is required is that those personalities in the scientific world who are still inclined to let the experimental evidence lead our science - stand up in defense of publishing. I was hoping to number you among them. And again. I am absolutely not looking for endorsement. I do not even require you to report positively. I simply ask that you advance this to publication. As it is we can't even get an academic expert to the table to evaluate that evidence. It's hardly conducive to the disinterested impartiality that is required to evaluate anything at all. A blanket refusal to acknowledge repeated evidence that is carefully measured is not actually even scientific. With very few exceptions this - indeed - has been our unhappy experience. Your own credentials in this regard are impeccable. Is that any clearer? We are absolutely not asking for endorsement. We are asking that we can number you with those who recommend publication - is the point.
Golly. If I first had to get endorsement or any favourable comment - then there would never be any hope of publishing. I don't think any academic would ever be that reckless. These are contentious claims. We're just looking for those people who have influence and who will also recommend that this is widely tested - before it could possibly be accepted. And that wide testing cannot happen unless it's first published. That has always been the purpose of academic publication. And that's why we're asking for this to be published.
I'm posting hereunder yet another application to yet another learned and revered - to advance publication. Thus far not successful. But I'm like that widow in the parable. I keep at it. lol
Also. Still no news from our editor. But after this much time - then? Maybe they've finally tested it for themselves. I do hope so. Plenty questions there folks.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Had I asked you to report favourably on anything at all then I would have been obliged to involve you in a discussion of the thesis. Thus far you have not engaged. Therefore I could not expect it. If that is what you concluded from my request then you clearly have not understood it.
We have experimental evidence that - as you put it - a switch passes current when it should not. There is nothing wrong with the switch. The results are repeatable. And they are replicable. They have been widely replicated. Not only have they been widely replicated but they can also be replicated on simulation software. We are attempting to bring this to the attention of the academic fraternity through the publication of a paper. Why it is important is that it results in more energy been returned to than delivered by a battery supply source. This appears to fly in the face of mainstream assumption. The more so as there is also evidence of energy being dissipated at the load resistor.
The evidence is unarguable. There are NO apparent measurement errors and - if there are - then those errors are evident by many experimentalists. I personally know of 5 successful replications. They all seem to generate that same oscillation. I put it to you that the experiment results in a catastrophic defeat of thermodynamic laws unless there is an alternate supply of energy identified. We identify this energy in the circuit material. This then also conforms to Einstein's mass energy equivalence. This explanation also has the merit of endorsing the Dark Energy requirements of our astrophysicists as it localises that energy in bound matter. However we propose that it is extraneous to the atom itself. We argue that current flow comprises a magnetic material that binds matter and that it compromises that bound condition when it is induced through voltage imbalances.
I specifically asked that you do NOT endorse our findings but that you would, nonetheless, recommend publication. I was given to understand that you viewed publication as a requirement regardless of the evidence. Science is progressed by experimental evidence. We have that evidence. And we would, most assuredly, require that it is progressed. But we are not anticipating anything less than some considerable resistance to that evidence. Provided that publication also results in wide experimentation to test that evidence - then that would be a very good thing. Because this effect will then also be widely seen. One hopes that it will not then be ignored.
What is required is that those personalities in the scientific world who are still inclined to let the experimental evidence lead our science - stand up in defense of publishing. I was hoping to number you among them. And again. I am absolutely not looking for endorsement. I do not even require you to report positively. I simply ask that you advance this to publication. As it is we can't even get an academic expert to the table to evaluate that evidence. It's hardly conducive to the disinterested impartiality that is required to evaluate anything at all. A blanket refusal to acknowledge repeated evidence that is carefully measured is not actually even scientific. With very few exceptions this - indeed - has been our unhappy experience. Your own credentials in this regard are impeccable. Is that any clearer? We are absolutely not asking for endorsement. We are asking that we can number you with those who recommend publication - is the point.
Golly. If I first had to get endorsement or any favourable comment - then there would never be any hope of publishing. I don't think any academic would ever be that reckless. These are contentious claims. We're just looking for those people who have influence and who will also recommend that this is widely tested - before it could possibly be accepted. And that wide testing cannot happen unless it's first published. That has always been the purpose of academic publication. And that's why we're asking for this to be published.
Saturday, September 3, 2011
152 - 32 days after submission
Dear Reader,
We submitted our paper on the 29th July - and still no word. Clearly the review process takes time.
I've been meeting more and more energy enthusiasts - which has been delightful. I had no idea that there were so many South Africans who are prepared to entertain some eccentric and non-classical thinking. I'm not sure that we'll be that much of a minority for that much longer. It seems to be a membership that's growing exponentially. Which is very nice indeed.
And what has been a real pleasure is to have removed myself from the dialogue offered by our forums. Looking back - it now seems that the forums are really NOT intended to advance free energy concepts. If that is their intention then they fail. Dismally. I realise now, rather belatedly, that there is nothing to replace the eye to eye contact with people to get a measure of their trustworthiness. Anything less than this and one runs the real risk of entering into relationships with outright rogues - which has been part and parcel of my own rather brutal exposure. Not that I'm complaining. I sincerely believe that I needed that exposure to discover the level of protection that this science requires. And God knows. I had to sharpen my wits to confront that onslaught.
Bottom line - my problem is that we're advancing free energy concepts that sit uncomfortably with both classicists and the wooly thinking of the more tolerant free energy enthusiasts. I think that everyone would have forgiven us our thinking if it weren't also that simple and self-evident. lol. Magnetism as the cause and not the effect of the electromagnetic interaction. It's as revolutionary in its own way as our world being the center of the universe. And the trouble then, with this line of thought - is that it does not, in fact, contradict known physics. Just a question of perspective.
Anyway - dear reader. I'm still sitting on hands - and waiting to hear if we'll get our paper into print. I'll certainly post the outcome here whether it's accepted or rejected. And meanwhile - hopefully - I'll continue to find those many supporters who - thus far - have not had a voice within mainstream. Surprisingly - that seems to be where they come from.
I've said this before. If any of you have a hotline to the Good Lord - then I think prayer may well go some way to securing our publication. It certainly needs something about it that's miraculous.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
We submitted our paper on the 29th July - and still no word. Clearly the review process takes time.
I've been meeting more and more energy enthusiasts - which has been delightful. I had no idea that there were so many South Africans who are prepared to entertain some eccentric and non-classical thinking. I'm not sure that we'll be that much of a minority for that much longer. It seems to be a membership that's growing exponentially. Which is very nice indeed.
And what has been a real pleasure is to have removed myself from the dialogue offered by our forums. Looking back - it now seems that the forums are really NOT intended to advance free energy concepts. If that is their intention then they fail. Dismally. I realise now, rather belatedly, that there is nothing to replace the eye to eye contact with people to get a measure of their trustworthiness. Anything less than this and one runs the real risk of entering into relationships with outright rogues - which has been part and parcel of my own rather brutal exposure. Not that I'm complaining. I sincerely believe that I needed that exposure to discover the level of protection that this science requires. And God knows. I had to sharpen my wits to confront that onslaught.
Bottom line - my problem is that we're advancing free energy concepts that sit uncomfortably with both classicists and the wooly thinking of the more tolerant free energy enthusiasts. I think that everyone would have forgiven us our thinking if it weren't also that simple and self-evident. lol. Magnetism as the cause and not the effect of the electromagnetic interaction. It's as revolutionary in its own way as our world being the center of the universe. And the trouble then, with this line of thought - is that it does not, in fact, contradict known physics. Just a question of perspective.
Anyway - dear reader. I'm still sitting on hands - and waiting to hear if we'll get our paper into print. I'll certainly post the outcome here whether it's accepted or rejected. And meanwhile - hopefully - I'll continue to find those many supporters who - thus far - have not had a voice within mainstream. Surprisingly - that seems to be where they come from.
I've said this before. If any of you have a hotline to the Good Lord - then I think prayer may well go some way to securing our publication. It certainly needs something about it that's miraculous.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
151 - marking time
Dear Reader,
I see that many of you keep coming back here to check if there's an update. It leaves me feeling guilty that I'm neglecting this blog. The fact of the matter is that I can do nothing significant at the moment except wait and see. We need to know if that paper is to be published - or re-written - or, indeed, if it is rejected. And I doubt that there's anything I can do to hurry the review process. My earnest hope is that the reviewers will - at least - try the simulation of the circuit. That would be an early and easy validation of the claims. But I have no idea what goes on there. And all we can really do is sit on hands.
I keep speculating on what will happen if it is published. I think the first thing will be a wide and wild denial of the fact. But that won't last. It's an easy test to put up and validate. And then, hopefully, our mainstream intellectuals will start looking at the questions that the circuit raises. Regardless of anything else the repeated evidence is that the measurements require an absolute conservation of battery charge. And that does not vibe with mainstream assumption. My hope is that they'll also see that nor does it conflict with conventional knowledge related to charge and to Inductive Laws. In fact, we modestly propose that the thesis may resolve some outstanding questions in physics. But those issues are way beyond my competence to determine. I can only propose what I think is the solution.
And then - dear Reader - we should be able to start some real work on applying this technology. Another hope is that it will revitalise those many - many experiments that are conducted on forums. I am reasonably satisfied that this can be applied to a motor to get precisely the same benefit. And with luck we may be in the happy position of testing this - fairly soon. What we have found is someone who is more than willing to get applications up and out there - regardless of publication. Which is a really good thing. I'll update you all - as and when I learn more.
But my overarching objective - as ever - is to get our brilliant academics onto this. Then there will be no stopping it. It is an enduring shame that 'free energy' has so many dreadful connotations. It is considered fraudulent or naively optimistic - at best. And its history is peppered with some outrageous attempts to capitalise on effects - when all that it should be doing is promoting a wide interest. Certainly until the measurements are more conclusive than has been advanced by Steorn et al. Hopefully our own experimental evidence does something to mitigate this lack.
Meanwhile - apart from the promotion of its understanding and on our own ideas related to potential applications - I'm taking a break. And what a pleasure. I've been painting. I'm doing some illustrations for my grandchildren. And I shall then write a small story for them. It's about the fairy who brings flowers to the world. I think - somewhere - somehow - it's analogous? lol.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I see that many of you keep coming back here to check if there's an update. It leaves me feeling guilty that I'm neglecting this blog. The fact of the matter is that I can do nothing significant at the moment except wait and see. We need to know if that paper is to be published - or re-written - or, indeed, if it is rejected. And I doubt that there's anything I can do to hurry the review process. My earnest hope is that the reviewers will - at least - try the simulation of the circuit. That would be an early and easy validation of the claims. But I have no idea what goes on there. And all we can really do is sit on hands.
I keep speculating on what will happen if it is published. I think the first thing will be a wide and wild denial of the fact. But that won't last. It's an easy test to put up and validate. And then, hopefully, our mainstream intellectuals will start looking at the questions that the circuit raises. Regardless of anything else the repeated evidence is that the measurements require an absolute conservation of battery charge. And that does not vibe with mainstream assumption. My hope is that they'll also see that nor does it conflict with conventional knowledge related to charge and to Inductive Laws. In fact, we modestly propose that the thesis may resolve some outstanding questions in physics. But those issues are way beyond my competence to determine. I can only propose what I think is the solution.
And then - dear Reader - we should be able to start some real work on applying this technology. Another hope is that it will revitalise those many - many experiments that are conducted on forums. I am reasonably satisfied that this can be applied to a motor to get precisely the same benefit. And with luck we may be in the happy position of testing this - fairly soon. What we have found is someone who is more than willing to get applications up and out there - regardless of publication. Which is a really good thing. I'll update you all - as and when I learn more.
But my overarching objective - as ever - is to get our brilliant academics onto this. Then there will be no stopping it. It is an enduring shame that 'free energy' has so many dreadful connotations. It is considered fraudulent or naively optimistic - at best. And its history is peppered with some outrageous attempts to capitalise on effects - when all that it should be doing is promoting a wide interest. Certainly until the measurements are more conclusive than has been advanced by Steorn et al. Hopefully our own experimental evidence does something to mitigate this lack.
Meanwhile - apart from the promotion of its understanding and on our own ideas related to potential applications - I'm taking a break. And what a pleasure. I've been painting. I'm doing some illustrations for my grandchildren. And I shall then write a small story for them. It's about the fairy who brings flowers to the world. I think - somewhere - somehow - it's analogous? lol.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Friday, August 19, 2011
150 - on a belated tribute and history going round in circles
Dear Reader,
I provided a link here and then decided to simply 'reprint' this, first posted here in November last year. It's strangely apt - which shows how history repeats itself.
I have slept almost 14 hours - with a one hour break divided into two short wakes of less than 1 half hour each. More to the point - I've woken up to find none of those alarming email notifications '***** has replied' with that dreaded link directly back to another flamed thread. It's the first time in over 3 months that I've have missed that faint early morning light where I see our wild syringa tree silhouetted against the sky. It's also the first time in months that I've missed seeing the full promise of day announce itself in great washes and varieties of red. And I missed those horrible hours before this - from midnight to early dawn - where I struggled to explain one thing after another, within the limits of my poor skills and huge efforts. I am delighting in this removal from public comment that I seem to have achieved. And the greatest delight is that I have watched the stats on this blog of mine. They are that manageably small that I feel I'm moving about - incognito - so to speak, recording what needs must. And all this being done outside the glare of all that highly polarised attention. Long may this last. Where I asked, before, that you tell everyone about this new vehicle of mine - this blog. Well. Now I would much prefer it that you keep it secret. Certainly for the time being.
My last upload was my article on 'more inconvenient truths' and I've just re-read this. Its rather outspoken but was written in an explosion of anger after reading the absurdities on 'what is electric current flow' and sundry other mutterings and mouthings from some rather pretentious posters. Also, in fairness, it all needed to be said. But I'm not sure that it warranted that level of criticism. What I would like to mention - belatedly and much needed - is that our scientists - those exceptional theorists who, through the ages have taken us from a study of the wheel to the study of quantum physics. They have all diligently applied their exceptional work led as they were and are, by our even more exceptional Greats. Our progress in all matters scientific is entirely due to their hard work and their amazing skills at measurement and observation. To me their greatest miracle is that they have unfolded the properties, not only of the atom, but in an even greater miracle of observation - they then unfolded the actual properties - almost the entire mug shot - of the atoms' constituent particles. Consider this scale of small. Whole galaxies of atoms could fit on the tip of a needle. And then if that doesn't leave one with the mouth agape at the wonder of it all - consider this also. They also showed us their particles - the population and its distribution, so to speak of the atom itself. And the particles within the atom are just fractions of a fraction of the size of that body - that atomic geography. We are here talking about a scale of small that quite simply beggars belief. And this unfolding, these amazing insights, could not be have been done without their genius and their applied disciplines - those extraordinary applications of observation and measurement applied both from empirical evidence and from the logic of math. I most certainly owe them. We all do. We owe them everything that we know about science. We owe them a tribute of sincere thanks for the miracles of explanation and breadth of knowledge that they have progressed. And I, personally, owe them. Hugely. I owe them a debt of gratitude for learning something of their amazing work and for the passionate interest it has afforded me albeit rather late in life.
Indeed I have no quarrel with scientists and their exceptional abilities. I only quarrel with some of their theories - based as they are on the problems that I've recounted hereunder.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I provided a link here and then decided to simply 'reprint' this, first posted here in November last year. It's strangely apt - which shows how history repeats itself.
I have slept almost 14 hours - with a one hour break divided into two short wakes of less than 1 half hour each. More to the point - I've woken up to find none of those alarming email notifications '***** has replied' with that dreaded link directly back to another flamed thread. It's the first time in over 3 months that I've have missed that faint early morning light where I see our wild syringa tree silhouetted against the sky. It's also the first time in months that I've missed seeing the full promise of day announce itself in great washes and varieties of red. And I missed those horrible hours before this - from midnight to early dawn - where I struggled to explain one thing after another, within the limits of my poor skills and huge efforts. I am delighting in this removal from public comment that I seem to have achieved. And the greatest delight is that I have watched the stats on this blog of mine. They are that manageably small that I feel I'm moving about - incognito - so to speak, recording what needs must. And all this being done outside the glare of all that highly polarised attention. Long may this last. Where I asked, before, that you tell everyone about this new vehicle of mine - this blog. Well. Now I would much prefer it that you keep it secret. Certainly for the time being.
My last upload was my article on 'more inconvenient truths' and I've just re-read this. Its rather outspoken but was written in an explosion of anger after reading the absurdities on 'what is electric current flow' and sundry other mutterings and mouthings from some rather pretentious posters. Also, in fairness, it all needed to be said. But I'm not sure that it warranted that level of criticism. What I would like to mention - belatedly and much needed - is that our scientists - those exceptional theorists who, through the ages have taken us from a study of the wheel to the study of quantum physics. They have all diligently applied their exceptional work led as they were and are, by our even more exceptional Greats. Our progress in all matters scientific is entirely due to their hard work and their amazing skills at measurement and observation. To me their greatest miracle is that they have unfolded the properties, not only of the atom, but in an even greater miracle of observation - they then unfolded the actual properties - almost the entire mug shot - of the atoms' constituent particles. Consider this scale of small. Whole galaxies of atoms could fit on the tip of a needle. And then if that doesn't leave one with the mouth agape at the wonder of it all - consider this also. They also showed us their particles - the population and its distribution, so to speak of the atom itself. And the particles within the atom are just fractions of a fraction of the size of that body - that atomic geography. We are here talking about a scale of small that quite simply beggars belief. And this unfolding, these amazing insights, could not be have been done without their genius and their applied disciplines - those extraordinary applications of observation and measurement applied both from empirical evidence and from the logic of math. I most certainly owe them. We all do. We owe them everything that we know about science. We owe them a tribute of sincere thanks for the miracles of explanation and breadth of knowledge that they have progressed. And I, personally, owe them. Hugely. I owe them a debt of gratitude for learning something of their amazing work and for the passionate interest it has afforded me albeit rather late in life.
Indeed I have no quarrel with scientists and their exceptional abilities. I only quarrel with some of their theories - based as they are on the problems that I've recounted hereunder.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, August 18, 2011
149 - some answers to some questions
Dear Reader,
Many of you coming back to me on the paper. Just to answer a few questions - YES - the thesis absolutely does away with the need for those 'holes' which have always been problematic from a theoretical perspective. But it also does away with electrons - which will probably generate a howl of protest from most of our physicists. But we're on safe ground. They have NEVER found a spare or loose electron anywhere to account for current flow. And I'll append my own link to my personal protest against this - hereunder.
We have absolutely NOT been able to raise the funds to get this onto a continual 'show' on the internet. But that's just for now. I'll make alternate applications in due course - even if I have to use a different battery manufacturer.
And no word back yet - from the reviewer. All I can assure you all is that if this is 'rejected' then we've got a few alternative journals. But I do hope it won't come to that. I'm rather committed to getting this through the IEEE. Which is why I kept the argument to Faraday's 'Lines of Force' and to inductive laws which our engineers know very well. And that's only because I also know that it's our engineers who are best suited to progressing these applications. The tricky part is getting them to accept it and, more to the point, to understand the implications. Which are mind boggling. lol.
Anyway - here's the link to the 'protest' and another reminder of where to find the paper.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Click here for some 'inconvenient truths'
and this - belated tribute - lest anyone think I'm not aware of the amazing contribution by our scientists
And click here for another view of the paper
Many of you coming back to me on the paper. Just to answer a few questions - YES - the thesis absolutely does away with the need for those 'holes' which have always been problematic from a theoretical perspective. But it also does away with electrons - which will probably generate a howl of protest from most of our physicists. But we're on safe ground. They have NEVER found a spare or loose electron anywhere to account for current flow. And I'll append my own link to my personal protest against this - hereunder.
We have absolutely NOT been able to raise the funds to get this onto a continual 'show' on the internet. But that's just for now. I'll make alternate applications in due course - even if I have to use a different battery manufacturer.
And no word back yet - from the reviewer. All I can assure you all is that if this is 'rejected' then we've got a few alternative journals. But I do hope it won't come to that. I'm rather committed to getting this through the IEEE. Which is why I kept the argument to Faraday's 'Lines of Force' and to inductive laws which our engineers know very well. And that's only because I also know that it's our engineers who are best suited to progressing these applications. The tricky part is getting them to accept it and, more to the point, to understand the implications. Which are mind boggling. lol.
Anyway - here's the link to the 'protest' and another reminder of where to find the paper.
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Click here for some 'inconvenient truths'
and this - belated tribute - lest anyone think I'm not aware of the amazing contribution by our scientists
And click here for another view of the paper
Monday, August 15, 2011
148 - ungagged
Dear Reader,
I've been re-instated at one of the forums - in fact I think at 2 forums. But I've no intention of going back there unless and until our paper is published. It's just an awful lot of noise and does nothing whatsoever to progress anything at all. The trouble with promoting any new concepts in the full glare of public opinion - is that those opinions are usually immoderate and unmoderated. Especially when it relates to new ideas. It seems that there's a great deal of abuse justified under the banner of 'extraordinary results' requiring 'extraordinary proof'. But that's a particularly unhappy road to walk - ever. Especially for me. I have rather bruised memories of this intervention. But from the distance of nearly two months - it is now - I return to those threads and see the same horrible confusions and pretensions that I tolerated before. It's not a happy place. Just a parade of ego and self-interest
But here's the thing. I've just seen a documentary that lists what's required if we're to satisfy our energy needs in the future. It's something in the order of the needed manufacture of 3 solar panels a second - 1 wind turbine every 10 minutes - 1 nuclear power station every month - for a period of 10 years - just to satisfy 10% of the needed alternative energy by the year 2025. That's simply not doable. I would have thought an alternate option would be the voluntary reduction to our birth rate as a preferred route. But for some reason it also seems that we, as a species, become inordinately creative when we're under the hammer - so to speak. It could, perhaps be that we are flirting with these catastrophic potentials in order to 'dig deep' and find that much required solution.
These are all big questions. Right now I'm banking on the human potential to evolve into something considerably better. That would be nice. But to get there I think we first need to get rid of those restraints that are associated with classical and quantum thinking - and reach for the 'impossible'. Historically I see a crisis growing - like the ground under a volcano - really with nowhere to go but upwards and outwards. That's a desirable direction provided only that it does not conclude with an explosion of magma. My money is on achieving that paradigm shift. It would certainly be a desirable evolutionary consequence.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
I've been re-instated at one of the forums - in fact I think at 2 forums. But I've no intention of going back there unless and until our paper is published. It's just an awful lot of noise and does nothing whatsoever to progress anything at all. The trouble with promoting any new concepts in the full glare of public opinion - is that those opinions are usually immoderate and unmoderated. Especially when it relates to new ideas. It seems that there's a great deal of abuse justified under the banner of 'extraordinary results' requiring 'extraordinary proof'. But that's a particularly unhappy road to walk - ever. Especially for me. I have rather bruised memories of this intervention. But from the distance of nearly two months - it is now - I return to those threads and see the same horrible confusions and pretensions that I tolerated before. It's not a happy place. Just a parade of ego and self-interest
But here's the thing. I've just seen a documentary that lists what's required if we're to satisfy our energy needs in the future. It's something in the order of the needed manufacture of 3 solar panels a second - 1 wind turbine every 10 minutes - 1 nuclear power station every month - for a period of 10 years - just to satisfy 10% of the needed alternative energy by the year 2025. That's simply not doable. I would have thought an alternate option would be the voluntary reduction to our birth rate as a preferred route. But for some reason it also seems that we, as a species, become inordinately creative when we're under the hammer - so to speak. It could, perhaps be that we are flirting with these catastrophic potentials in order to 'dig deep' and find that much required solution.
These are all big questions. Right now I'm banking on the human potential to evolve into something considerably better. That would be nice. But to get there I think we first need to get rid of those restraints that are associated with classical and quantum thinking - and reach for the 'impossible'. Historically I see a crisis growing - like the ground under a volcano - really with nowhere to go but upwards and outwards. That's a desirable direction provided only that it does not conclude with an explosion of magma. My money is on achieving that paradigm shift. It would certainly be a desirable evolutionary consequence.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Friday, August 12, 2011
148 - something at last
Dear Reader,
I think our paper has actually been passed for 'review'. We're all of us more or less expecting a rewrite. We also rather urgently hope that it won't be rejected. That would simply not be fair.
Here again is the cover letter to our editor - which explains this.
The following two papers refer. The experimental results appear to fly in the face of classical prediction but nowhere do we assert that there is a contradiction in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is detailed is the proposal that the source of the extra energy measured in the experiments is due to magnetic properties that are located within that circuit material but extraneous to its atomic structures. This is required in terms of a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. Our second paper refers. Also, we have gone to some lengths to explain that the measured results, albeit anomalous, comply with predictions required by the standard model. The modification relates exclusively to the proposed material properties of the magnetic field which modification is then able to fully account for the path required for induced CEMF during the discharge half of each cycle of the oscillation. We would presume to suggest that the purpose of academic publication is not for endorsement or otherwise of the thesis related to this research, but to circulate the findings in order to provide opportunity for a broad assessment of the claim by actively proving or disproving these results and their conclusions. Therefore, by submitting the paper we are initiating precisely this engagement. And, therefore too, disagreement with any or all of these proposals is not only inevitable but required. The following is a synopsis of the difficulties we’ve experienced in trying to get these results into the public domain.
We have, for a period of 10 years, been trying to get these results to the academic forum. We all live within easy reach of four highly respectable academies and in 10 years, have not been able to get a single academic expert to even witness a demonstration. When these efforts failed we turned to industry to do the accreditation of the results. This included BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research in North Carolina, Spescom (SA), Power Engineers (part of the Alstom group) and many other smaller industries. Those referenced above are listed companies. SASOL (SA) offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further, which offer was declined. ABB Research was sent a prototype model to do their own independent testing. All those listed gave us written permission to quote their names as accreditors in a paper that we published in October 2002 edition of Quantum magazine, which followed a prior rejection from our submission of a paper to the IET. To date that is the only publication of these tests and their results and Quantum is not an academic journal. What followed from this publication was a small flurry of media interest and the directors at MTN ScienCentre then asked us to do a demonstration of the artifact at their center for an international conference of scientists. Not one scientist came to that demonstration which was available for the duration of that conference.
My son eventually put the information onto a blogspot for us and that did attract attention. We were then variously engaged with sundry replicators all over the world and it eventually caught the attention of some of the lecturers at Cape Peninsular University of Technology. At the beginning of 2010 a couple of lecturers invited us to develop another prototype in their labs, where we worked for the last 16 months or thereby. We were fortunate in getting the loan of some sophisticated oscilloscopes, and were then able to even improve on our earlier results. Those results were the subject of yet another report that was circulated, this time to every university in South Africa - with an invitation to attend a public demonstration of the device in March of this year. Not one expert attended. That was when we decided, again, to try and get this technology published. We have now completed those papers and we are, yet again, trying to get this to the academic forum.
We are well aware of the contentious nature of the claim. If the results are flawed then we can, none of us, find that flaw. What has been suggested is that it may be due to grounding errors. But the oscilloscope that we use shows us the same numbers as a Tektronix that was loaned to us, which is not earthed. It has also been suggested that the functions generator that we use is responsible for the extra energy. But we get the same results with a simple 'flip flop' circuit. The only reason that we used the Functions generator is that it gives us a better handle on the switching cycle. Then too is the fact that these results are easily replicated on simulation software which, at its least, suggests that our classical algorithms allow for these results.
It is difficult to compute exactly how many hours have been spent on these latest tests. We have more than 230 tests on the database at different settings that all show variations to these waveforms and the results. But what does not vary is the consistent evidence of more energy being dissipated than delivered by the supply source. It is this evidence that needs to be evaluated by our academics - preferably by replicating that experiment. And preferably it needs to be widely disseminated that many different academies and experts evaluate this to enable the checks and balances required in the promotion of new technologies and to then prove or disprove it as required.
Therefore we cannot do more than submit the evidence and the thesis that predicted these results. We are not claiming finality in these proofs but asking that these results be evaluated through those required checks and balances that are available to the discipline when the experimental evidence is widely disseminated. And it will not get exposure without prior publication. It may be that the experiments are not clearly explained, or that the language in the paper is obtuse or confusing. But those are editing functions and can be corrected. The results are what they are. And they have been variously filmed, downloaded on flash drives, recorded in these and other reports and papers, accredited, witnessed and publicly demonstrated. The proof has been overwhelming. Only the credibility is still heavily taxed.
I think our paper has actually been passed for 'review'. We're all of us more or less expecting a rewrite. We also rather urgently hope that it won't be rejected. That would simply not be fair.
Here again is the cover letter to our editor - which explains this.
The following two papers refer. The experimental results appear to fly in the face of classical prediction but nowhere do we assert that there is a contradiction in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is detailed is the proposal that the source of the extra energy measured in the experiments is due to magnetic properties that are located within that circuit material but extraneous to its atomic structures. This is required in terms of a non-classical magnetic field model that predicted these results. Our second paper refers. Also, we have gone to some lengths to explain that the measured results, albeit anomalous, comply with predictions required by the standard model. The modification relates exclusively to the proposed material properties of the magnetic field which modification is then able to fully account for the path required for induced CEMF during the discharge half of each cycle of the oscillation. We would presume to suggest that the purpose of academic publication is not for endorsement or otherwise of the thesis related to this research, but to circulate the findings in order to provide opportunity for a broad assessment of the claim by actively proving or disproving these results and their conclusions. Therefore, by submitting the paper we are initiating precisely this engagement. And, therefore too, disagreement with any or all of these proposals is not only inevitable but required. The following is a synopsis of the difficulties we’ve experienced in trying to get these results into the public domain.
We have, for a period of 10 years, been trying to get these results to the academic forum. We all live within easy reach of four highly respectable academies and in 10 years, have not been able to get a single academic expert to even witness a demonstration. When these efforts failed we turned to industry to do the accreditation of the results. This included BP (SA), SASOL (SA), ABB Research in North Carolina, Spescom (SA), Power Engineers (part of the Alstom group) and many other smaller industries. Those referenced above are listed companies. SASOL (SA) offered UCT a bursary award to take the study further, which offer was declined. ABB Research was sent a prototype model to do their own independent testing. All those listed gave us written permission to quote their names as accreditors in a paper that we published in October 2002 edition of Quantum magazine, which followed a prior rejection from our submission of a paper to the IET. To date that is the only publication of these tests and their results and Quantum is not an academic journal. What followed from this publication was a small flurry of media interest and the directors at MTN ScienCentre then asked us to do a demonstration of the artifact at their center for an international conference of scientists. Not one scientist came to that demonstration which was available for the duration of that conference.
My son eventually put the information onto a blogspot for us and that did attract attention. We were then variously engaged with sundry replicators all over the world and it eventually caught the attention of some of the lecturers at Cape Peninsular University of Technology. At the beginning of 2010 a couple of lecturers invited us to develop another prototype in their labs, where we worked for the last 16 months or thereby. We were fortunate in getting the loan of some sophisticated oscilloscopes, and were then able to even improve on our earlier results. Those results were the subject of yet another report that was circulated, this time to every university in South Africa - with an invitation to attend a public demonstration of the device in March of this year. Not one expert attended. That was when we decided, again, to try and get this technology published. We have now completed those papers and we are, yet again, trying to get this to the academic forum.
We are well aware of the contentious nature of the claim. If the results are flawed then we can, none of us, find that flaw. What has been suggested is that it may be due to grounding errors. But the oscilloscope that we use shows us the same numbers as a Tektronix that was loaned to us, which is not earthed. It has also been suggested that the functions generator that we use is responsible for the extra energy. But we get the same results with a simple 'flip flop' circuit. The only reason that we used the Functions generator is that it gives us a better handle on the switching cycle. Then too is the fact that these results are easily replicated on simulation software which, at its least, suggests that our classical algorithms allow for these results.
It is difficult to compute exactly how many hours have been spent on these latest tests. We have more than 230 tests on the database at different settings that all show variations to these waveforms and the results. But what does not vary is the consistent evidence of more energy being dissipated than delivered by the supply source. It is this evidence that needs to be evaluated by our academics - preferably by replicating that experiment. And preferably it needs to be widely disseminated that many different academies and experts evaluate this to enable the checks and balances required in the promotion of new technologies and to then prove or disprove it as required.
Therefore we cannot do more than submit the evidence and the thesis that predicted these results. We are not claiming finality in these proofs but asking that these results be evaluated through those required checks and balances that are available to the discipline when the experimental evidence is widely disseminated. And it will not get exposure without prior publication. It may be that the experiments are not clearly explained, or that the language in the paper is obtuse or confusing. But those are editing functions and can be corrected. The results are what they are. And they have been variously filmed, downloaded on flash drives, recorded in these and other reports and papers, accredited, witnessed and publicly demonstrated. The proof has been overwhelming. Only the credibility is still heavily taxed.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
147 - the real paradigm that needs shifting
Dear Reader,
I admit to being in a horrible place at the moment. It's that point in time where I can do nothing but wait. I've had one feedback from the many people included on a circulation list. And still nothing from the IEEE.
Just for the minute I'd be glad to indulge in a little bit of philosophy. History has record of those holy men - and women for that matter - who were somehow miraculously endowed with the ability to defeat the laws of physics. Instant healing - the ability to walk on water - fly through the air - change water to wine - and on and on. Well. I also seem to recall that Christ said we must faith. And faith is within ourselves. 'Believe and it will be so'.
What intrigues me is this. If indeed, this field of magnetic energy is all around us and IF - as is proposed here - this field is the source of all energy - then the implications are, indeed, marvelous. Here's why. It means, theoretically that this field and it's energy 'leads' our observed reality. It shapes the present and the future because, in fact - it moves in our future.
Let me see if I can explain this better. We, our observable and measurable realities, are constrained to the speed of light. If light cannot find it - then it will forever remain dark. Therefore the speed of light is NOT necessarily the limit of reality but only the limit to our own observable and measurable reality. Think of it like this. A wind blows a balloon. We do not see the wind. Or think of the tortoise and the hare analogy - where the hare will always outpace the tortoise. Then think of those photons that cannot ever find a single magnetic particle because it's always out of reach. When it gets to the general locality of the magnetic particle then that particle has already 'been and gone' - to be replaced by another that 'comes and goes' before the photon has interacted or 'focused' - so to speak. The best that light can do is find a 'halo' around the general area - that only, at best, rather insubstantially, reflects the presence of a field. That's our magnetic field.
Now. The proposal is that these little particles fall outside a boundary constraint. They operate in a 'future' time dimension. Therefore they can only directly interact with other little magnetic dipoles in juxtaposed fields. But it is also proposed that these fields are EVERYWHERE. But, by the same token, everything else is 'out of reach'. And herein lies the dimension of the miracle. Assume also that the substance of thought is NOT restricted to light speed. Therefore thought itself is able to interact directly with the future. Or within a dimension that is not constrained to 'present time'. We know that when we think there's a sequential pattern to that logic and to all observations that are somehow shaped by time. And it all happens within a certain 'quotient' of time. If I am any kind of 'bench mark' then that speed of thought is somewhat ponderous - and heavily constrained by 'time'. Especially when it comes to explaining that 'thought' or 'sequence of logic' - or whatever. But. There's a quintessential dimension that absolutely has nothing to do with time. It's a pervasive state of being. It's the yearning and longing that 'speaks nothing' and simply feels. It's that response of outrage against injustices. Or its the love that we invest in our families and friends. Or it may be destructive feelings - which are equally powerful. Now. Assume, for a minute that these feelings, these inner yearnings - are of the very same substance of the 'magnetic field' that also then communicate directly with these hidden particles. Then? Indeed. We would be in the happy position of shaping our own future precisely because we'd be in direct contact with these fields.
I often remind myself that - if indeed, this is the case, then we, mankind, needs must grow much more civilized in order to exploit all that potential - lest our desires are not in the general interest of the general good. But here's the exciting bit. In order to level the playing fields we all need equal access to all that free energy because that is the first ingredient required to improve our general lot. And 'free energy' is a reality. It has been conclusively proven on our own tests and - I'm sure - by many others. But I can only speak about what I know. And our tests I know. Intimately. Which also means that - provided there are inductive and conductive materials within reach of anyone at all on this planet - and provided there is some kind of electrolytic material to make a battery of some sort - then everyone - theoretically - will be in reach of enough energy to power their lights? warm their houses? drive their cars? The whole 'catastrophe'! What a pleasure! That will - most assuredly - reduce the conflict between the 'haves' and 'have nots' which is the source of all confrontations. And then? Peace and prosperity. That, after all, is the reach of civilization. Surely?
This paradigm shift - the actual unfolding of this 'field' science - is, I fondly believe - the root cause of what will be a profound evolutionary change which will bring about all the much needed peace and goodwill - that is so urgently required. And the 'kick off' is acceptance of this particle. It holds enormous promise - to my way of thinking.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I admit to being in a horrible place at the moment. It's that point in time where I can do nothing but wait. I've had one feedback from the many people included on a circulation list. And still nothing from the IEEE.
Just for the minute I'd be glad to indulge in a little bit of philosophy. History has record of those holy men - and women for that matter - who were somehow miraculously endowed with the ability to defeat the laws of physics. Instant healing - the ability to walk on water - fly through the air - change water to wine - and on and on. Well. I also seem to recall that Christ said we must faith. And faith is within ourselves. 'Believe and it will be so'.
What intrigues me is this. If indeed, this field of magnetic energy is all around us and IF - as is proposed here - this field is the source of all energy - then the implications are, indeed, marvelous. Here's why. It means, theoretically that this field and it's energy 'leads' our observed reality. It shapes the present and the future because, in fact - it moves in our future.
Let me see if I can explain this better. We, our observable and measurable realities, are constrained to the speed of light. If light cannot find it - then it will forever remain dark. Therefore the speed of light is NOT necessarily the limit of reality but only the limit to our own observable and measurable reality. Think of it like this. A wind blows a balloon. We do not see the wind. Or think of the tortoise and the hare analogy - where the hare will always outpace the tortoise. Then think of those photons that cannot ever find a single magnetic particle because it's always out of reach. When it gets to the general locality of the magnetic particle then that particle has already 'been and gone' - to be replaced by another that 'comes and goes' before the photon has interacted or 'focused' - so to speak. The best that light can do is find a 'halo' around the general area - that only, at best, rather insubstantially, reflects the presence of a field. That's our magnetic field.
Now. The proposal is that these little particles fall outside a boundary constraint. They operate in a 'future' time dimension. Therefore they can only directly interact with other little magnetic dipoles in juxtaposed fields. But it is also proposed that these fields are EVERYWHERE. But, by the same token, everything else is 'out of reach'. And herein lies the dimension of the miracle. Assume also that the substance of thought is NOT restricted to light speed. Therefore thought itself is able to interact directly with the future. Or within a dimension that is not constrained to 'present time'. We know that when we think there's a sequential pattern to that logic and to all observations that are somehow shaped by time. And it all happens within a certain 'quotient' of time. If I am any kind of 'bench mark' then that speed of thought is somewhat ponderous - and heavily constrained by 'time'. Especially when it comes to explaining that 'thought' or 'sequence of logic' - or whatever. But. There's a quintessential dimension that absolutely has nothing to do with time. It's a pervasive state of being. It's the yearning and longing that 'speaks nothing' and simply feels. It's that response of outrage against injustices. Or its the love that we invest in our families and friends. Or it may be destructive feelings - which are equally powerful. Now. Assume, for a minute that these feelings, these inner yearnings - are of the very same substance of the 'magnetic field' that also then communicate directly with these hidden particles. Then? Indeed. We would be in the happy position of shaping our own future precisely because we'd be in direct contact with these fields.
I often remind myself that - if indeed, this is the case, then we, mankind, needs must grow much more civilized in order to exploit all that potential - lest our desires are not in the general interest of the general good. But here's the exciting bit. In order to level the playing fields we all need equal access to all that free energy because that is the first ingredient required to improve our general lot. And 'free energy' is a reality. It has been conclusively proven on our own tests and - I'm sure - by many others. But I can only speak about what I know. And our tests I know. Intimately. Which also means that - provided there are inductive and conductive materials within reach of anyone at all on this planet - and provided there is some kind of electrolytic material to make a battery of some sort - then everyone - theoretically - will be in reach of enough energy to power their lights? warm their houses? drive their cars? The whole 'catastrophe'! What a pleasure! That will - most assuredly - reduce the conflict between the 'haves' and 'have nots' which is the source of all confrontations. And then? Peace and prosperity. That, after all, is the reach of civilization. Surely?
This paradigm shift - the actual unfolding of this 'field' science - is, I fondly believe - the root cause of what will be a profound evolutionary change which will bring about all the much needed peace and goodwill - that is so urgently required. And the 'kick off' is acceptance of this particle. It holds enormous promise - to my way of thinking.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
146 - feeling a bit smug
Dear Reader,
I'm feeling a little heady because it seems that our paper may actually be comprehensible. Which rather inspires me to see if I can perhaps do something similar with a paper on gravity. If that were also understandable - then all that's left would be the strong nuclear force - which is the most obtuse - but, doable? Maybe?
Anyway. That's my undertaking. I intend giving it my best shot.
Meanwhile - still no word about funding the filming of our experiment. And more to the point, still no word on our submission to the IEEE. It's not a holiday over there - so I'll be able to at least contact them - this evening. I'll let you know when I hear more.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I'm feeling a little heady because it seems that our paper may actually be comprehensible. Which rather inspires me to see if I can perhaps do something similar with a paper on gravity. If that were also understandable - then all that's left would be the strong nuclear force - which is the most obtuse - but, doable? Maybe?
Anyway. That's my undertaking. I intend giving it my best shot.
Meanwhile - still no word about funding the filming of our experiment. And more to the point, still no word on our submission to the IEEE. It's not a holiday over there - so I'll be able to at least contact them - this evening. I'll let you know when I hear more.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, August 8, 2011
145 - thinking aloud
Dear Reader,
Here's what's exciting about this model that we're trying to prove. It depends on a particle that is capable of exceeding light speed. To be precise, it's been determined that, in a field condition, it moves at 2C. If anything is capable of exceeding light speed then it would, effectively, have the potential to communicate at a rate that - within our own rather clumsy and gross dimensions - would effectively be instantaneous. Which is HUGE. It's the first small opening of a potential that not only explains but would justifiably require telepathy, far viewing - all those magical concepts that are related to time itself. That's the first point
Then. IF indeed these little particles are there - then this is the source of energy itself. The model argues that one dimensional fields - that single 'binding' field - is responsible for 'gluing' atoms together into identifiable structures. Two dimensional fields hold the atom's nucleus locked in an interaction between its particles and the particle's quarks. It also holds the electron imprisoned between it's energy levels. And three dimensional fields would be the source or the gravitational field. I've tried to explain all this in the model. I'll give a link here when I've finished this post.
But the most exciting aspect of all is this. If the three dimensional field - proposed as the source of gravity - is also just our standard toroidal magnetic field - and if this is all that is required to determine the 'pull' of material towards certain positions in the field - then it's relatively easy to defeat this as well. I need to explain all this better than I've managed in the rendition of the model. But I'll work on it. I think I just need to take the trouble to draw the appropriate illustrations.
So. What I'm actually proposing is that we may yet be able to defeat ALL the physical barriers required by our classical and quantum theorists. That's got to be a good thing. lol
Why I'm prepared to tackle this again is that I see the enormous interest that is associated with this second paper of ours. It's gratifying. I'm beginning to feel less lonely here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
this will take you back to the model
Here's what's exciting about this model that we're trying to prove. It depends on a particle that is capable of exceeding light speed. To be precise, it's been determined that, in a field condition, it moves at 2C. If anything is capable of exceeding light speed then it would, effectively, have the potential to communicate at a rate that - within our own rather clumsy and gross dimensions - would effectively be instantaneous. Which is HUGE. It's the first small opening of a potential that not only explains but would justifiably require telepathy, far viewing - all those magical concepts that are related to time itself. That's the first point
Then. IF indeed these little particles are there - then this is the source of energy itself. The model argues that one dimensional fields - that single 'binding' field - is responsible for 'gluing' atoms together into identifiable structures. Two dimensional fields hold the atom's nucleus locked in an interaction between its particles and the particle's quarks. It also holds the electron imprisoned between it's energy levels. And three dimensional fields would be the source or the gravitational field. I've tried to explain all this in the model. I'll give a link here when I've finished this post.
But the most exciting aspect of all is this. If the three dimensional field - proposed as the source of gravity - is also just our standard toroidal magnetic field - and if this is all that is required to determine the 'pull' of material towards certain positions in the field - then it's relatively easy to defeat this as well. I need to explain all this better than I've managed in the rendition of the model. But I'll work on it. I think I just need to take the trouble to draw the appropriate illustrations.
So. What I'm actually proposing is that we may yet be able to defeat ALL the physical barriers required by our classical and quantum theorists. That's got to be a good thing. lol
Why I'm prepared to tackle this again is that I see the enormous interest that is associated with this second paper of ours. It's gratifying. I'm beginning to feel less lonely here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
this will take you back to the model
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)