E=mc^2

[Ben2503]

mpc755

Ben, you really don't know what you're asking for. He is not a critic - he will flood this thread with so many posts that it becomes useless.

I'm very much for for new ideas but he is a copy and paster. He won't give real conversation. He will find an article and then copy and paste it and will repeat it over and over and will destroy any possible chance of real communication.

Just like Bro Mikey said he remembers him - well, he did that in the other forum and many other sites all over the internet and I'm not going to let him sabotage this discussion.

If I was going to "mute a critic" - I would have completely deleted his posts and wouldn't have given you a link that actually goes to countless posts where you can find everything you want to know about him to your hearts content.

Hi Aaron.
I didn't mean to criticize you. Like I said, I am quite new to this forum and I found his double slit explanation quite creative.
It seems to me that this guy is 'on a mission' and has a serious communication or ego problem (like quite a few on this forum) . Personally I would just ignore him, we gave him to much attention already.
of course THX1138 and you are the 'discussion leaders' and as such fully entitled to ban somebody from a discussion.

Best regards,
Ben

[Aaron]

discussion thread

Hi Aaron.
I didn't mean to criticize you. Like I said, I am quite new to this forum and I found his double slit explanation quite creative.
It seems to me that this guy is 'on a mission' and has a serious communication or ego problem (like quite a few on this forum) . Personally I would just ignore him, we gave him to much attention already.
of course THX1138 and you are the 'discussion leaders' and as such fully entitled to ban somebody from a discussion.

Best regards,
Ben

Thanks but I wouldn't really be a discussion leader in this thread. I know I get long winded but I like to be extremely thorough, which includes why I state what I do.

He was banned because I know what he is going to do. For him to have that many posts in all those websites all over the internet, I think he uses an auto submit program to put those posts in all those forums, etc... Otherwise, that literally would have to be a full time job. Then he watches for anything that contradicts what he says in response and he goes and does more of his copy paste tactics. Yes, already too much attention.

[Aaron]

Space is One Dimension & Standardized Definitions

With definitions - unless we standardize them, its the tower of babel. The dictionary is supposed to serve this purpose, but when the dictionary definitions are incorrect that is a big problem.

For the most part, the most common idea of energy is the "capacity to do work" but capacity = potential meaning energy = potential. Just like we can't store energy in a capacitor or battery, the common use of the word even contradicts the original "metaphysical" meaning of simply being activity or lively.

Not having standardized definitions, models, etc... have been one of the greatest barriers to progress in the "free energy" or even conventional field because inside out perspectives of what is what is being used.

With working models of physical systems, it took a long time to accelerate "proper" builds of the Bedini SG. When Peter and I put out the Beginner's book, finally there was a standardized build based on John's own exacting specifications and it shot off like a rocket as far as standardized builds. Always had a lot of incredible builds by people all over the world but was hard to compare results since it was like apples and oranges. Now we can make apples and apples comparison when so many people are using the same specs in their build and many people can be on the same page now.

With language, the faster we adapt standardized definitions, the faster we're steamroll this out.

With Space - space has one single dimension with coordinates (x, y, and z). Those coordinates are not 3 dimensions. Each of us are at different coordinates in this volumetric space throughout the surface of this earth, but we are all in the same singular dimension of space.

Space is also not filled with aether, it is aether. Without the aether, there is no volumetric space with coordinates - it would be a void.

For a long time, I did casually think of space as being 3D as this is an extremely common paradigm, but it is a misinterpretation - although I did see that space is aether and not something that is filled with aether, I still assigned 3 dimensions to it.

After spending time with Eric Dollard, his distinctions of space being a single dimension with volumetric space that has coordinates in it refined my perspective and made sense of space being aether and that it really doesn't have 3 dimensions, but coordinates.

[Aaron]

energy language

Language that has failed us in the energy sciences.

Overunity - this is an oxymoron but you can't have more than everything and shouldn't be used. I'm guilty of using it, but I know that what I mean when I use it even though I'm aware the term is incorrect.

Efficiency - this is a valid word but it is used as incorrectly as energy. If the SG has 90% recovery on the back end battery and the wheel is giving an equivalent of 25% mechanical work in attraction mode, that is 115% compared to what left the input battery as an oversimplified example. Most people say 115% efficient but it is not, that is 1.15 COP or coefficient of performance comparing all work done compared to only what we pay for. Efficiency is total work done compared to all input including free environmental input and in all these common real "free energy" systems, it is always 100% efficient of less. COP should be used instead of over 100% efficiency claims. Can get over 100% efficient theoretically in some time reversal phenomena but for the most part, this will never be the case.

Perpetual Motion - this is used more by skeptics than anything. It is supposed to be a mechanical activity of mass moving perpetually. Even if it does get some potential from gravitational potential to keep doing work, it is about a mechanical mechanism at work - not magnetic, electrical, etc... I've seen skeptics call HHO boosters perpetual motion claims because "we can't use electricity from the car to make the gas and get a gain - that would be over 100% efficient and would violate the laws of thermodynamics and this would constitute perpetual motion". That is all lunatic talk since the hho only helps release more energy from the fuel, which the engine it runs is at 15-30% efficient so the energy is already there in the fuel not being used well and has nothing to do with perpetual motion.

There are obviously a lot more examples. Scalar, charge, etc...

Bearden has done this for years trying to develop language for it that would be palatable to academia. He's done an amazing job. I think some of it needs to be updated, but just teaching the distinction of COP as a principle that can easily apply to non-heat pump systems is one of the single most important things that has helped to make free energy systems a reality in many people's minds and has helped to legitimize it.

So many brilliant developers over the years come up with all kinds of awesome machines but they sound like they are nuts and have no credibility when trying to explain them because of no standardized language to describe legitimate overunity systems. Of course someone with no background in all of this would have to create their own language but this day and age - that kind of excuse is fading away with access to the internet, etc...

[Allcanadian]

@ckurtz

One answer could be that any particular space which at a particular time is not occupied by any mass is empty at that time.

Generally speaking the term Empty means:
1. containing nothing; having none of the usual or appropriate contents: an empty bottle. 2. vacant; unoccupied

Containing nothing, at which point perspective is required. Is "nothing" a lack of tangible matter or is it only a lack of particles or is it only a lack of all tangible matter altogether including that which we cannot even detect or is it only electromagnetic waves or is it the fields we detect around all matter supposedly extending to infinity?. You see it can become next to impossible to determine exactly which "nothing" or "empty" people are referring to.

Of course I can see how philosophy devotees would prefer that no definition be offered as that takes all the fun out of things. And since my medical based thoughts were offered in the same spirit I certainly don't want to be viewed as a spoil sport so if you wish to use the definition that the term space is inclusive of all spaces at all levels be they aetheric or cosmic or whatever then of course there can be no empty space since even the existence of a single stray proton or fleck of dandruff would contaminate the purity of it all.

Personally I think it is apparent, for instance we see the empty space between planets but we know as a fact it is not empty otherwise light and EM waves/fields would be impossible. We see the empty space between objects here on Earth but we know there is air, particles, fields, energy inbetween. On the atomic scale we know there are smaller particles whizzing about and we know there are electromagnetic waves and fields present as well. So it is not a matter of a single particle drifting in the cosmo's open to interpretation. Every fact we know leads us to believe that no space anywhere is empty on any level and the fact nobody can give me even one example of "nothing" seems to verify this assumption.

I think the proposition is simple enough.... one example.

Could it be that this is the message Einstein meant to convey with E=mc^2. Space, all space everywhere is occupied by either Matter or Energy or in a state of transition from one to the other?. Which leads to another question which seems self-evident, if it is in transition then is it both Energy and Matter or neither?. Could it it be that the Aether is simply a transition state which may be both or neither but never Matter or Energy in itself?.

AC

[BroMikey]

Inventors Gift

Language that has failed us in the energy sciences.
So many brilliant developers over the years come up with all kinds of awesome machines but they sound like they are nuts and have no credibility when trying to explain them because of no standardized language to describe legitimate overunity systems. Of course someone with no background in all of this would have to create their own language but this day and age - that kind of excuse is fading away with access to the internet, etc...

Hello Aaron

This has struck a powerful note that inventors who have wonderful gifts of varying types are not all teachers at the same time nor do they have any frame of reference for present day terminology that others are associated with.

Spending their life in wonder of their gift they create beautiful things as they dream their daily dream.

It is a gift.

Now if someone thinks it is non-sense, what is that to a dreamer?

Zero. That's our problem we need to take the time to see what they see is all.

Mike

[Allcanadian]

@All
Speaking of terminology and language does anyone find it odd that we have no meaningful term for the transition state?. Now let's say I apply E=mc^2to an apple and a grape which just so happens to transition between the two states at the speed of light. Is it an apple, a grape, neither or a grapple?.

Or I have a magnet with a North pole and a South pole and inbetween at the midway point I measure no magnetism. Is it North, South, Neither or both or something else and why is there no term which is agreed upon for this region?. I mean we have had a few hundred years to decide and many supposed experts disagree that it even exists despite the fact even a child could prove it for themselves. If it cannot be one or the other but something else then what is it and what should we call it?.

Personally I call it the Zero Point however it just seems odd that there is so little debate over something I find very important and base most of my technologies on. It seems odd that many perspectives are so polarized to one side or the other but seldom consider what is inbetween.

AC

[BroMikey]

Twice the speed of Light

@All
Speaking of terminology and language does anyone find it odd that we have no meaningful term for the transition state?. Now let's say I apply E=mc^2to an apple and a grape which just so happens to transition between the two states at the speed of light. Is it an apple, a grape, neither or a grapple?.

Or I have a magnet with a North pole and a South pole and inbetween at the midway point I measure no magnetism. Is it North, South, Neither or both or something else and why is there no term which is agreed upon for this region?. I mean we have had a few hundred years to decide and many supposed experts disagree that it even exists despite the fact even a child could prove it for themselves. If it cannot be one or the other but something else then what is it and what should we call it?.

Personally I call it the Zero Point however it just seems odd that there is so little debate over something I find very important and base most of my technologies on. It seems odd that many perspectives are so polarized to one side or the other but seldom consider what is inbetween.

AC

Hello AC

What are you going to do with 10X the speed of light? Any terminology?

Mike

[Allcanadian]

@BroMikey

What are you going to do with 10X the speed of light? Any terminology?

I would simply call it 10x the speed of light because the speed of light is just a reference point. If I am driving my car at 10x the legal speed limit do I need a special term to describe my speed to the police officer?, well no I would just say Oh ****... Really, was I going that fast?.

Any thoughts on how to exceed the speed of light?... since you have brought it up?.

AC

[Aaron]

transition

Personally I call it the Zero Point however it just seems odd that there is so little debate over something I find very important and base most of my technologies on. It seems odd that many perspectives are so polarized to one side or the other but seldom consider what is in between.

Are you using "Zero Point" in the same concept as "Zero Point Energy"?

ZPE is a reference to the energetic fluctuations that appear at absolutely zero implying there is some source for this. So ZPE is the concept given to the source potential. ZPE appears to be identical to the aether, virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum, etc...

But that seems to not necessarily be transitions but references to the symmetrical or equilibrium state of the source potential.

When Dollard and Polakowski was testing the CIG, with certain frequencies, a lot of energy just seemed to literally disappear right into counterspace so that is a transition from here to that inverse space dimension. Not sure what the name of the actual transition is. Maybe Dollard calls that the energy de-synthesis.

With organized potential transitioning to unorganized potential is dissipation. Act of dissipation is a transition activity.

Not sure if that is what you're exactly referring to.

[Aaron]

faster than the speed of light

@BroMikey


I would simply call it 10x the speed of light because the speed of light is just a reference point. If I am driving my car at 10x the legal speed limit do I need a special term to describe my speed to the police officer?, well no I would just say Oh ****... Really, was I going that fast?.

Any thoughts on how to exceed the speed of light?... since you have brought it up?.

AC

Here is a faster than light speed IF the transfer was actually traveling a distance - Speed of Light No Longer the Limit - ABC News I remember when that came out almost 15 years ago. About 300 times the speed of light.

[Aaron]

Definition of Time

Speed of light is different everywhere in the Universe depending on the density of aether it is moving through. When it makes it to your local area in your own density it will appear to be the speed of light since you perceive it in your own aetheric density frame of reference.

If light is in an area of very high density aether like around a very very dense star, the light will travel slow and when it gets to an area of less density, it will speed up - compared to each other.

But if an observer is in high and low density, they will see it as though it were light speed.

If you were able to observe this from a non local place and had omnipotent vision - you would see that the light is slower in the high density place and is faster in a low density place.

In a high density environment, you're subject to it so won't see light at any different speed. Time also ticks slower but to the local observer it looks like normal time.

"Time" is simply a measure of progression of movement through the aether. Clocks only give you graduated intervals of movement of mass through the aether. The higher density aether restricts movement and has a much higher electrostatic repulsion against mass's movement. If you're in that higher density - light hitting your eyes slows down, your biochemical actions are slower from the high density, you don't notice because since you're perception is slowed down and light is slower, etc... it will look normal to you.

If you're in a very low density area, light moves faster, mass moves faster, there is less electrostatic resistance to movement of mass, clocks tick faster, and since our perception is getting everything quicker, it will appear normal.

That is what "relativity" should properly be in my opinion of course - that is my own theory of relativity, which takes out the mysticism of time.

The faster we accelerate, the more inertia because the more aether we encounter per unite of "time", which gives an apparent increase in density of aether for that, which is accelerating through the aether. If we encounter more aether per unit of time, then of course this is higher density as if we're standing still and gravity is stronger. When accelerating and creating a situation of an apparent increase of density of aether, light slows down, the clocks slows down, etc... because the electrostatic resistance of the accelerating movement of the mass through the aether restricts this movement. To the observer, everything looks normal because their own perceptual systems are also subject to the higher density aether and it slows proportionately with slowing of light speed, etc... all looks normal.

So light moving through the universe is constantly slowing down and speeding up depending on the density of the aether it is moving through. Light speed is only constant to the local observer since their observational apparatus is subject to the same density of the aether of the light they are observing.

Light is not constant throughout the Universe. Regardless of what density of the aether light is moving through, when it is observed by an observer, it will always be light speed because they are perceiving it since their observation is from the same density of aether.

[indio007]

the speed of light gets exceeded daily on millions of electronic devices.
LED's use the tunneling effect to work.
It was demonstrated years ago that the time a particle spends in a tunnel barrier is zero.

[chasson321]

Flywheels and E=MC^2

Gen-E-SysII

backgauges.com - Page 2

To Quote: 4. Would the "energy" DEVELOP progressively with Velocity or just poof into existence all of a sudden?

What do we get if we DEVELOP and ADD ADDITIONAL "ENERGY" exceeding the very real losses at every such conversion we currently accept as just the way it is?

End Quote.

Notice in Bedini's work the flywheel - Spinning mass. It is in his free energy generator. In is in his "Watson Machine". It is in his Ferris wheel. It is used in the Kromrey converter.


Another quote from backgauges:

SIMPLE PROCESS - OVER EFFICIENT DESIGN
Small electrical input to a motor, converting electrical to mechanical power,

Use the mechanical power to place solid matter in motion at velocity to develop KE equal to converted input power,

Use mechanical advantage to multiply/develop torque at reduced rpm,

Use the increased torque to place an additional greater volume of solid matter in motion thereby developing more KE, greater Inertia & momentum,

Use another mechanical advantage to again multiply/develop more torque at reduced rpm, and use a mechanical disconnect from previous rotating matter.

Use the increased torque to again place an additional greater volume of solid matter in motion thereby developing even more KE, greater Inertia & momentum,

Use a final mechanical advantage to adjust/match rpm for output to an electrical power generator/alternator.

Understand, comprehend this process alone yields more HORSEPOWER output than input without burning one drop of extra fuel, that is FREE ENERGY.

End quote.

[I_Like_Science]

Speed of Light No Longer the Limit - ABC News

Cool enough that I just had to check into this one. Turns out they are referring to the 'group' velocity of the light (Link to contemporary BBC article spelling out difference).

Best gif I've found of the difference comes from wikipedia. It shows what happens to a packet of light as it passes from one medium to another, say vacuum to air, or air to water.



In this gif, it is the rate of separation between the red and blue dots which is the 'group' velocity, and it is that which exceeds speed c. The green dot is the 'phase' velocity, and importantly, it never exceeds the speed of light.

Main thing out of this is that relativity is not challenged. It really comes down to a trick between the frequency of the light and the index of refraction of the medium. The packet never truly goes faster than light, just two points on one packet can relative to each other.

So it's not nearly as cool as actual faster than light travel, but pretty darn cool nevertheless!

Another way to cancel inertia is proven by DePalma's experiments.

Skeptics that claim it is an effect of air resistance or that the extra energy to lift it higher came from putting energy into spinning the ball - all of that is rooted in ignorance because that energy is dissipated in the spinning of the ball and is not being applied to lifting the ball.

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to correct you on this one. The funny thing is that you said it right, but didn't get the right conclusion.

The spinning ball slows down during its flight. The reduction in its rotational kinetic energy IS transferred to the air, and is made to do the work of creating lift for the ball. If this experiment was attempted in a vacuum chamber, the result would be null.

Link to NASA site showing the math behind lift due to rotating sphere.