A
Anonymous
Guest
Surely they've had their scientists write up some 'papers' on this and can send off the info for pee review...go on say it ain't so :lol:
GadaffiDuck said:
Surely they've had their scientists write up some 'papers' on this and can send off the info for pee review...go on say it ain't so :lol:
Don't be daft!coldelephant said:Would it be wrong or blasphemous to wonder if the laws of physics are outdated?
Science likes to believe things can only happen in the way that's already been observed. I like to think there's more than one way to gas a cat...
Mattattattatt said:I would, however, be a little worried in getting energy for free from nowhere. Surely, if something like this IS true, it's more likely that we're sucking it from somewhere else than creating energy. And surely that energy could be integral to a process we haven't identified yet...
feen5 said:Science likes to believe things can only happen in the way that's already been observed. I like to think there's more than one way to gas a cat...
Thats quite a generalization and wrong (imo). Yes science is based on observation but your also forgetting that its based on experimentation and theory. Experimentation will involve trying things that have not been seen before and trying to comprehend the results. Science is also based on creating theorys and then carrying out experimentation and observation to prove your theory. How can that in any way be described as 'believing things can only happen in the way thats already been observed'.
The sum of these claims is that our technology creates free energy.”
It would be preferable that the latter statement have been “the sum of these claims is that our technology produces free energy.
Meanwhile, for awhile now we have also been urging several inventors and groups, highly skilled in nonlinear magnetics, to develop little “rotary toy” kits of nonlinear magnetic assemblies with just such overall asymmetry in the line integration of F dot ds around the closed loop taken by the rotor. The condition for overall rotary asymmetry is that the line integral of F dot ds around the circular path does not equal zero, but is greater than zero. That’s exactly what McCarthy in Ireland (with that Steorn unit) describes. And that “nonzero line integral condition” type of system is exactly what Lorentz discarded way back in 1892, and that our EE departments still arbitrarily discard from electrical engineering.
Another way to put it is that, in a symmetrical permanent magnet system, the forward mmf is equal and opposite to the back mmf. So in the forward mmf region, the system self-accelerates and freely gives you some power, but in the back mmf region it is self-braking and freely takes back power. If the two are equal and opposite, then the device deliberately takes back as much as it gives, and it cannot self-power anything. Specifically, that and the manner usually used for a rotary closed loop, means that the system is arbitrarily symmetrized because the fields are arbitrarily fixed and do not change.
The self-enforcing symmetry way is precisely the basic way we are taught to build all our EM systems, so that we have to put in energy continually, lose some, and get some out to the load. The only reason we input energy (such as cranking the shaft of a generator) is to forcibly break symmetry by forcibly producing an internal dipolarity in the generator. Then the proven asymmetry of a dipolarity (separated opposite charges) will absorb ordered virtual photon energy from the vacuum and coherently integrate it into observable real EM photon energy, and thus emit real observable photons continually without any observable energy input. When there is a broken symmetry, then “something virtual has become observable”, according to Nobelist Lee. The two scientists Lee and Yang, of course, predicted broken symmetry in physics back in the early 50s (particularly 1956 and early 57). So startling was this proposed giant revolution in physics -- if real -- that experimenters promptly proved it (Wu and her colleagues proved it experimentally in Feb. 1957. Again, this was such a giant revolution in physics that with unprecedented speed the Nobel Committee then awarded the Nobel Prize to Lee and Yang, in Dec. 1957.
And since then, the implications of that vast revolution in all of physics has not even made it across the campus from the physics department to the electrical engineering department.
It reminds me of the invention of amorphous semiconductors by Ovshinsky. “Everybody knew” that a semiconductor had to have a crystalline structure, and – so they said – Ovshinsky was either a fool or a charlatan. They called him every name in the book, etc. But he persisted, and finally a Japanese company funded the effort. Then one day our beloved scientific community awoke to find that all the Xerox machines had Ovshinsky amorphous semiconductors in them and those semiconductors were working just fine. Bummer! No one ever apologized to Ovshinsky (who is doing well and still has his website, his company, and good success, etc.). But gradually the youngsters did doctoral theses on amorphous semiconductors and post docs got amorphous semiconductor programs funded to work in them. So that’s how our scientific community “discovered” and gradually adopted amorphous semiconductors.
As Max Planck once said,
"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning." [Max Planck, as quoted in G. Holton, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1973.]
According to information available from the Irish Companies Registration Office, Steorn has not filed accounts since October 28, 2004. Under current Companies Registration Office practice[7] strike-off procedures could begin against Steorn by the end of October 2006. A strike-off would have serious consequences, such as the loss of Steorn's limited liability status. Furthermore, any assets of the company, including any patents or other intellectual property, would become the property of the Irish State. [7] On August 24, 2006, in a live chat event Steorn responded that they are ready to file the 2004 returns within a week.[8]
Experimentation will involve trying things that have not been seen before and trying to comprehend the results.
It's not exactly experimentation, since we can't try out different arrangements of galaxies, etc (yet! ), but modern astronomical observations have led to many contradictions with accepted physical theory.almond13 said:Experimentation will involve trying things that have not been seen before and trying to comprehend the results.
Can you give us an example of this please? :idea:
Can you give us an example of this please?
misterwibble said:What are 'gravitational effects' if not direct interaction with normal matter?