E=mc^2

[I_Like_Science]

I need to clarify some things here.

1. Unless and until I am linked to or given data about DePalma's ball, I am going solely off of the falling gyroscope test. They are both designed to test the exact same theorized effect, so one can stand in place of the other for positive or negative results.

Please, do not continue quoting an experiment that just as well could've come from someones imagination/ camera trickery.

2. If you all really think that this piece of paper of mine doesn't qualify me, that's OK by me.

So instead of attacking my credentials, please focus on the math. As I said before, it stands alone from those who do it.

3. Aaron, 80% of your post really is just arguing semantics and irrelevant points. You usually misunderstand me, then label it on my not understanding you. This is a completely stupid way to go about a discussion, and were I to fully counter and defend myself, it would take a LOT of space and more time than I'm willing to throw at it. There are only two main points I feel the urge to correct.

your response to my own question is that it is an angry post while ignoring the below condescending comments that you started it off with.

"BUT WAIT! There exists an oft cited paper that is a DIRECT TEST of DePalma's idea. ... And best of all, it has.....wait for it.....data!!!"

Sounded more like you're reading from an infomercial teleprompter than being sincere. Looks like a premeditated plan to try to debunk anything and everything that doesn't match what you already think you believe regardless of what the facts are.

I was actually trying to lighten the mood a bit, not to condescend. If that's how you took it, you simply demonstrate that you have very thin skin to a post that goes against what you say.

You claim - "you've even explicitly stated that you won't try to prove or disprove, instead relying on your own belief that you are right." - you are definitely speaking with a forked-tongue. That is 180 degrees opposite of what I actually did say. Yet another failure in simple comprehension of the English language. It would probably have been in your favor to not post a copy of your degree.

What I said was, "I'm always open to learning and to have my own ideas disproved or proved and I wish the conventionally minded skeptics/cynics would do the same."

Yes, you said what you quoted. You also said...

At least the model I'm sharing accounts for the way gyroscopes act. I'm not going into that with you because all your statements are rooted in the idea that you already have it all figured out so there is nothing for you to learn.

And this is what I was referring to.

So you won't go into your model to disprove mine or validate yours because I don't believe what you believe. Hence my statement, "you've even explicitly stated that you won't try to prove or disprove, instead relying on your own belief that you are right". Explicitly is the only word wrong in my sentence that should've been omitted. The rest of the sentence is completely valid and you're again showing your thin skin.


But despite the large amount of useless words I've read, there has ACTUALLY been sound logic used against my position.

A counter to your belief that the non spinning gyro in the case is able to tip in a way that causes more drag and the spinning gyro is stabilized keeping it from tipping and therefore falls faster is 100% speculation on your part and there is no rational counter to to an objection that is a figment of your imagination.
...
If you think the containers were positioned differently as they fell, which caused a difference in their falling speed, the burden of proof is on YOU to do the experiment and find out. Getting me to argue with your imagination is an effort in futility.

While the first paragraph is wrong in that it is not pure speculation (Seriously, did you ever try dropping a water bottle and looking at it Aaron?), the second paragraph is a perfectly valid point, the only one pertaining to my second post so far.

In the next couple of days, I'll come back and post a mathematical test using very sane real world assumptions demonstrating that the container likely did tilt more without the gyroscope running than with it on.

But before I do, you guys need to understand the goal of this. It's to cast very reasonable doubt that the conclusion of the falling gyro test is wrong, instead showing that their results can be duplicated using known aerodynamic forces that they overlooked.

In short, I believe that the force they claim to have determined that acts in the direction of gravity is better explained as a LACK of aerodynamic forces acting in the opposite direction.

And until someone here says that the falling gyroscope test is not a direct analog to DePalma's theoretical test (still waiting on data/link/anything besides testimonial), casting doubt on the falling gyro test casts doubt on them both. That's just science.

[Oh, and the next few lines are a joke. I need to clarify that otherwise panties'll bind like no other in here ]

And I Like Science.

And to help keep you occupied in my absence, Aaron, the answer to your question

1.56E-8 ft*lbf

Now go ahead and 'destroy' my ideas. Make me feel like this with your wisdom.

[Aaron]

DePalma's spinning ball

@I Like Science

DePalma's spinning ball test is valid as it stands and it does not need data to prove the spinning ball went higher and it is not camera trickery. You keep evading the simple fact that the spinning ball went 4-5 inches higher than the non-spinning ball and aerodynamic lift has no contribution to this increase in height. Both balls were put into the air with the same energy yet one went higher - that is a fact that simply is self evident.

The math is irrelevant. All you are doing is trying to make a hypothetical case that the container with the still gyroscope POSSIBLY tipped and caused more drag. I haven't denied the possibility, but pretending to debunk an experiment based on an imaginary idea that you have no proof that it happened just doesn't cut it. The facts remain that you have not experimentally proven that the container tipped and caused more drag on the way down to slow it down. It remains a hypothetical question, period - Did it tip? The only thing your claims that are based on ZERO evidence does is to give a reason to duplicate the test to see IF what you are claiming is even happening or not.

My opinion is that with such small differences in the results, it is a bad experiment to begin with and that casts ZERO doubt on the original spinning ball experiment.

Replicate the spinning ball experiment and take all the data you want, but the data is not necessary to prove the spinning ball went higher faster and came down faster as well. Since the rise and fall of the spinning ball is more than the one not spinning and there is NO aerodynamic advantage, the simplest explanation is that its interaction with gravitational and inertial effects are modified by the spinning.

The gyroscope test is not a direct analogy to the spinning ball experiment. The object spinning is isolated from the air, etc... it is not a good analogy and like I said, differences are so minute it is a bad experiment.

Take a 1 meter plastic cylinder for each gyroscope with a sealed bottom and in the base of each, have a metal stock shaft going up the center with identical springs around that shaft in both bases.

Take 2 identical steel spheres with good mass and mount a bearing in the dead center so they can rotate around the center of the bearing with minimal friction.

Slip each sphere with bearing over the steel shaft and make sure the bearings can freely slide up and down.

Have some stopper that can hold both towards the top and that it can be removed when the container is sealed.

Spin up one wheel to very high RPM - cap both cylinders - vacuum pump both containers to make sure there is no air and then pull the stoppers to release both rounds at the same time. The spinning one will still be spinning during the vacuuming process.

DePalma's experiment would predict multiple things - spinning one should hit the spring first and will bounce up higher compared to the one not spinning, etc... one will obviously come to a stand still faster.

This takes out any possible tipping, air resistance, etc... Spin the opposite wheel, switch shafts and whatever other permutations are available between these two. The mass would preferably be something significant as well as the RPM so differences won't be questionable.

You first make insults with references to "magical" zpe or whatever, that this is pseudo-science - and then you claim your other comments are to lighten the mood? Doesn't mean I have thin skin - I don't vibe with
self-proclaimed experts who claim their open minded when they're obviously not. I simply thought you were being rude in both cases, but after seeing you defend it as trying to "lighten the mood" coupled with insults in the same post, well, its sort of hypocritical.

If you disagree with the experiment, that is fine but don't mock it with pseudo-science insults, etc... because as of yet, you have yet to show anything to the contrary.

There is easily reasonable doubt with the gyroscope experiment because the differences are so minute regardless of why - but there is no reasonable doubt that the spinning ball went higher and you have no way to account for it in your model except to say you are going to ignore it because you don't have data. That is just avoiding the blatant result that shows your beliefs about it are incorrect. I might not be able to prove it is because the spinning mass is deflecting gravitational potential away from the center of mass reducing inertial effects, but I don't have to in order to prove that the conventional Einsteinian school of thought in the matter is just plain wrong.

If I'm in a 1/4 race in a car and beat someone by a few car lengths, I don't need data in order to ACCURATELY conclude that I got there first because it is overwhelmingly obvious - just like the spinning ball went higher - not by a sliver, but by 4-5 entire diameters of the ball creating enough of a difference that any 3 year old can tell it went higher - all without any data.

If you maintain that you need data to determine the results of that test, well, all I can say is that conventional science is not science - and there is an indoctrination in what you claim to be "science" that common sense is off limits and that is not just a shame, it is scary.

There is NO reasonable doubt that has been presented to show that the spinning ball test is invalid. It DID happen, it is a real photograph of the test, I know who was there to witness it and it wasn't done just once - the results are the same every time, etc...

And no, I won't explain in my terms why gyroscopes act the way they do because that isn't relevant to anything you have claimed so far. Whether gyroscopes work the way you think or the way I think doesn't change the results of either experiment. And by not explaining my opinion on this matter still doesn't mean that I'm just relying on what I believe as you claim.

"1.56E-8 ft*lbf" = Spell it out in terms that I referred to - 3rd grade math and junior high school equations - just like on this page: https://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361...ergyBasics.htm

The energy to lift that object to that height that I'm talking about is WORK that it takes to lift it.

What is the basic formula for work to lift 3 kg to 3 meters?

Maybe we can just start with that part of the question, then after I understand your perspective on it, let's go to the next. All you posted was exactly I said to not post, and you did it intentionally to play games.

[Aaron]

p.s.

p.s. I would hope this can be a discussion but also be light-hearted. Insults of being pseudo-science, etc... is not welcome or appreciated and don't add anything of value. Just be cool - I'd rather just have fun with this all.

[indio007]

I'm glad you posted about the FDA. The organization is a sad joke and it's easy to prove.

Simply put, the FDA approves drugs with LESS efficacy than placebo.
Case Closed.

Anyhow, back onto the subject.

I'm still trying to figure out what the justification is for the second C in E=MC^2...

[Allcanadian]

@Aaron

p.s. I would hope this can be a discussion but also be light-hearted. Insults of being pseudo-science, etc... is not welcome or appreciated and don't add anything of value. Just be cool - I'd rather just have fun with this all.

I agree 100%, to me math proves absolutely nothing unless it is based on a real experiment and real data. This is what got us into all this trouble in the first place isn't it?, when people manipulate some numbers for or against something then say look it must be true.
Personally I understand this all to well, I used to design and build gas turbines and it took me 20 pages of paper(both sides) to calculate a simple turbine to match point. It worked fine on paper but most of the time it failed in reality. I used to write 5000+ lines of code in one sitting and wrote my own turbine simulators. Worked fine in theory but again reality is a completely different animal and it took 10x longer than expected. Personally I can make the numbers show anything you want, you want pigs to fly?, no problem.

My point is that nobody here will ever prove anything to anyone, we are here to debate our perspective and little more and yes I agree we should lighten up and have a little fun with it. Proof is when something is happening right in front of us and there is no denying what is going on, what happens here is debate of our opinions and I do enjoy it.

As well you make some good arguments and make an effort to justify your thoughts. Right, wrong or otherwise I enjoy reading your posts.

AC

[BroMikey]

Over Bearing

I need to clarify some things here.

1. Unless and until I am linked to or given data about DePalma's ball, I am going solely off of the falling gyroscope test. They are both designed to test the exact same theorized effect, so one can stand in place of the other for positive or negative results.

Please, do not continue quoting an experiment that just as well could've come from someones imagination/ camera trickery.

2. If you all really think that this piece of paper of mine doesn't qualify me, that's OK by me.

So instead of attacking my credentials, please focus on the math. As I said before, it stands alone from those who do it.

3. Aaron, 80% of your post really is just arguing semantics and irrelevant points. You usually misunderstand me, then label it on my not understanding you. This is a completely stupid way to go about a discussion, and were I to fully counter and defend myself, it would take a LOT of space and more time than I'm willing to throw at it. There are only two main points I feel the urge to correct.



I was actually trying to lighten the mood a bit, not to condescend. If that's how you took it, you simply demonstrate that you have very thin skin to a post that goes against what you say.



Yes, you said what you quoted. You also said...



And this is what I was referring to.

So you won't go into your model to disprove mine or validate yours because I don't believe what you believe. Hence my statement, "you've even explicitly stated that you won't try to prove or disprove, instead relying on your own belief that you are right". Explicitly is the only word wrong in my sentence that should've been omitted. The rest of the sentence is completely valid and you're again showing your thin skin.


But despite the large amount of useless words I've read, there has ACTUALLY been sound logic used against my position.



While the first paragraph is wrong in that it is not pure speculation (Seriously, did you ever try dropping a water bottle and looking at it Aaron?), the second paragraph is a perfectly valid point, the only one pertaining to my second post so far.

In the next couple of days, I'll come back and post a mathematical test using very sane real world assumptions demonstrating that the container likely did tilt more without the gyroscope running than with it on.

But before I do, you guys need to understand the goal of this. It's to cast very reasonable doubt that the conclusion of the falling gyro test is wrong, instead showing that their results can be duplicated using known aerodynamic forces that they overlooked.

In short, I believe that the force they claim to have determined that acts in the direction of gravity is better explained as a LACK of aerodynamic forces acting in the opposite direction.

And until someone here says that the falling gyroscope test is not a direct analog to DePalma's theoretical test (still waiting on data/link/anything besides testimonial), casting doubt on the falling gyro test casts doubt on them both. That's just science.

[Oh, and the next few lines are a joke. I need to clarify that otherwise panties'll bind like no other in here ]

And I Like Science.

And to help keep you occupied in my absence, Aaron, the answer to your question

1.56E-8 ft*lbf

Now go ahead and 'destroy' my ideas. Make me feel like this with your wisdom.

You Sir are not worth any of my time.

[Aaron]

phony math interpretations

I agree 100%, to me math proves absolutely nothing unless it is based on a real experiment and real data. This is what got us into all this trouble in the first place isn't it?, when people manipulate some numbers for or against something then say look it must be true.

I certainly don't have the mathematical or programming experience you do, but conceptually, the understanding of and application of math is fairly easy to understand.

Even the most basic of formulas give the right numbers but it is the context or perspective of what those numbers mean that can be altered out of a misunderstanding. The basic formulas for potential energy in an object at a certain height (mgh or mass * gravity * height) will actually give an accurate representation of the potential energy for an object at a certain height.

However, the perspective of what that number represents has always been flawed in the popular understanding. It is said that as we lift a mass up, we are "storing energy" in the object and that amount of stored energy or potential energy is expressed by mgh. That formula is accurate.

However, where manipulation is easy is that the formula is right, but the common perspective is wrong. mgh does not tell us how much potential energy is stored in the object - it tell us how much potential energy EXTERNAL gravitational potential energy will happen when the object is allowed to fall and then meet resistances.

Although the formula gives the right number, it is the interpretation that conveniently cuts out environmental source potential and my interpretation of this is not theoretical - it can be quantified by adding up the numbers that show how much work was done.

Also, anyone buying into the conventional interpretation of what mgh means cannot in any way, shape or form show any intrinsic change to the mass at a certain height - where is this potential energy stored? Nobody can answer that - it is a figment of the imagination.

If I have one gallon of gasoline in my car and I drive up a mountain pass that is a gradual 20 mile climb and I keep going until I ran out of gas. My input is that small amount of gas being burned up at 20% efficiency. When I run out of gas, none of the potential energy from the gas is stored anywhere as it turned into motive force, wasted heat and emissions. I don't have one iota of that left at the peak of my drive when the gas ran out.

What I got out of what I put into it was a 20 mile gradual climb of my car up that pass. I ALREADY got out what I put in. What I got out was the climb of the car in and of itself - there is nothing left. That is measurable in joules of energy dissipated.

There is NO potential energy stored in the car because I had nothing to store since I used it all up.

MGH accurately describes that for the mass of the car and myself as the passenger at a certain height from a fixed flat land where I started from, there is a certain amount of potential energy that gravitational potential will contribute to when I push the car into a 180 so the nose is pointed downhill, I get in and coast down the hill.

Conventional believers will erroneously say that mgh shows that it is potential energy that I put into the car because of the climb, but the fact that the gas tank is energy at I got 20% efficiency out of that gas and nothing is left at the peak, I didn't store a single joule of potential energy in the car.

When it coasts down the hill, gravitational potential comes in and pushes on the mass of the car, there is rolling resistances and air resistances, and as long as there is just a straight downhill ride until my car coasts to a stop where I started from, the REAL ENERGY DISSIPATED on the way down will equal what mgh said would be there at the peak.

That didn't come from anything I put into the car, I already got out what I put into it, which was the climb or lift of the car in and of itself and I have an empty tank and distance up the hill to prove it and it is all measurable in joules of energy dissipation - real work that happened.

For the fact that the tires created heat on the way down, there was resistance against the air, etc... that is also REAL WORK that happened on the way down until it came to a stop.

The work that happened on the way down was made possible not by potential energy that I put into the car by driving it up the hill - I already used up what I put into it and there was nothing left. When the car came down, free gravitational potential entered the system and went from gravitational potential into actual real dissipation work energy.

The rhetoric about "you can only get out what you put in" is not based on any real world experiment in the history of the world. That is where the math might give real accurate numbers, but it is in a phony context to hide the fact that free environmental potential can come in so that the total work done is more than what we contribute.

I can PROVE dissipated energy - real work - that was done to drive the car up the hill. And I can PROVE, that there was dissipated energy - real work - that was done on the way down until the car stopped. None of that came from the gasoline or mystical potential energy I "stored" in the car, etc... I simply got x joules of dissipated energy work to drive it up the hill and I got back x joules of dissipated energy work on the way down contributed freely from nature which means total work done from the time I went up the hill and came down was 200% what I had to pay for since nature gives us a freebie.

Work done I had to pay for, dipole established (height of car from ground), free environmental source potential comes in, free work done. It is free because I already got what I paid for - the climb up the hill. Any other work done above and beyond that is free.

So math is easily manipulated and exploited to hide what nature is really doing. The car examples applies to every other single pass system where there is no regauging event. Any regauging would simply delay full entropy so more work can be extracted - if the car went down and up some hills and down, total work done would be more than just going down and stopping.

If we compress a spring, the compression in and of itself dissipated 100% of every bit of work we put into it. When we're done compressing it, 0% of what we put in is stored in the spring. We simply created a dipole or potential difference with the material of the spring and when we let go, that spring can do more work against our hand or other object. If we expend 1 joule of dissipated energy to compress the spring, the spring will gives us back 1 joule of dissipated energy on the flyback. That is 2 joules, but we only paid 1.

When we bring in regauging processes whereby the very act of dissipation establishes a new potential difference, we can delay entropy even more while free environmental potential comes in and does more work so it can be way more than twice as much.

In more complex situations, mathematical "proof" is used to "disprove" free energy kind of claims and similar, but it is done in a context that has no relationship with what is really going on and is always in a convenient context that doesn't even take reality into consideration.

Almost all typical Einstein believers are supporting crackpot science unbeknownst to them because a few erroneous perspectives have tainted their analysis. As long as they use interpretations of the math that cuts out free environmental potential input, they will keep coming up with degenerate claims that we only got out what we put in when any child can do the do the math to see the cumulative amount of dissipated energy is more than we put in.

This is how legitimate free energy has been hiding in plain site. It isn't that it is impossible or hasn't been here - it is the only way that nature has always operated and most have been hoodwinked into believing a faulty paradigm instead of learning how to simply apply elementary school addition to add up all work done.

[Ruphus]

Your hill anology is not correct. You are not thinking in term of conservation. You are converting the gasoline into kenetic energy. The kenetic energy is being converted into potential as you drive up the hill. There is tremendous loss in heat. The remainder is the potential. No free energy is given by rolling back down because you used so much more going up.

[Allcanadian]

@Aaron

However, the perspective of what that number represents has always been flawed in the popular understanding. It is said that as we lift a mass up, we are "storing energy" in the object and that amount of stored energy or potential energy is expressed by mgh. That formula is accurate.

However, where manipulation is easy is that the formula is right, but the common perspective is wrong. mgh does not tell us how much potential energy is stored in the object - it tell us how much potential energy EXTERNAL gravitational potential energy will happen when the object is allowed to fall and then meet resistances.

I would agree with that summation as the mass has not changed it's energy state in itself. The Energy is inherent in the G field which imparts a force on the mass leading to motion which is of course work.

Also, anyone buying into the conventional interpretation of what mgh means cannot in any way, shape or form show any intrinsic change to the mass at a certain height - where is this potential energy stored? Nobody can answer that - it is a figment of the imagination.

Again I would agree and for many the construct of "Energy" is elusive. Personally I do not use the concept of potential energy and early on I understood it was ambiguous. Fundamentally we start with the applied force due to the field G which does not actually apply to the mass in itself. It relates to the field inherent in every part which constitutes the mass. As well no field has ever acted on a mass, the interaction must always be one field acting on another. We cannot ignore the concept of space, if there is a force which acts on a mass through a distance then how could this force not exist within this space.

In truth it is one very large snafu which only makes sense so long as one does not think about it. In my opinion the people who simply insert the constant g and assume a potential energy must take a leap of faith verging on religion, one I am not willing to take. I want to know the truth, the why and how and to my knowledge there is no piece of paper one can hang on the wall which might magically give one this level of understanding.

Personally I like the fact that an old farm boy like myself can usually tear apart the logic of most with impeccable credentials without breaking a sweat. It was never about paper and pen, not numbers and equations but an intimate understanding of how nature works. There are no numbers in nature, there are no equations written in stone, there are no straight lines... it is what it is. The sooner we understand this the better off we will be in my opinion.

AC

[Allcanadian]

@Ruphus

Your hill anology is not correct. You are not thinking in term of conservation. You are converting the gasoline into kenetic energy. The kenetic energy is being converted into potential as you drive up the hill. There is tremendous loss in heat. The remainder is the potential. No free energy is given by rolling back down because you used so much more going up.

I think you may have it all backwards, the conservation of Energy must prove itself in every case and it is not something we need apply or assume. The facts must reflect it's existence first, it is not the first step it is the last one.

Personally I always found it odd why so many start with the conservation of energy, then make the equations and math fit the model finally giving them the result they believe is correct. Why you may as well assume it cannot be correct unless it is blessed by a priest and a live chicken is sacrificed in it's honor, lol.
For instance the conservation of energy is dependent on the properties of mass remaining constant which is why we call them "constants". Now if the property of inertia was modified in some way then it should be obvious the conservation of energy as we know it could not apply. If the field interactions concerning Gravity were modified then it should be obvious the conservation of energy as we know it could not apply. Here we should understand that Energy does not have to be created nor destroyed to violate the conservation of energy. If the conditions or properties relating to constants are changed then it would appear as if Energy was created however everything is not always as it appears.

As well "kenetic energy" is spelled Kinetic Energy and there is no conversion to potential energy persay. For instance when a ball rolls up a hill due to it's velocity the energy state relates to where the fields inherent in the mass are positioned within the field G. Therefore the Energy must relate to a force imparted by the fields present interacting with one another. Not to mention the fact nobody know's what the fields actually are in reality or the mechanism whereby they may act through a space we consider empty. One word.... snafu.

AC

[Ruphus]

AC

I am assuming you are refering to the fields of each atomic and subatomic parts that make up the ball, so correct me if I am wrong. If so we can energize the fields by heating it. A steel ball bearing heated red hot will not roll farther than one at room temperature as far as I know, it would be interesting to find out differently.

I find everyone's points interesting as well as the discussion.

[Aaron]

no conservation of energy

Your hill anology is not correct. You are not thinking in term of conservation. You are converting the gasoline into kenetic energy. The kenetic energy is being converted into potential as you drive up the hill. There is tremendous loss in heat. The remainder is the potential. No free energy is given by rolling back down because you used so much more going up.

That is the whole point - there is no such thing as conservation of energy. It is a magical idea not based on the results of any experiment or any observable results. Elementary school math can quantify dissipated energy and when you add up all dissipated energy, it just can't get more obvious.

There is no such thing as storing potential energy. The only thing that happens is that new dipoles are created and new gravitational potential comes in. The idea of conservation of energy is a hoodwinking concept to prevent people from seeing that environmental source potential can actually enter a system and do work.

The car/hill example is an open dissipative system so closed system thermodynamic claims that the energy in a closed system remains the same - do not apply to this. There is nothing being conserved - not even in a closed system because there really are no closed systems. A closed system is really an open system where there is no mechanism to turn free environmental source potential like gravity, etc... into usable work thereby delaying entropy while doing more work. And opens systems are meant to utilize free environmental source potential.

Every bit of potential energy in the gas is 100% dissipated when the car gets to its peak. There is nothing left and there is no such thing as converting it to potential. It is all used up, nothing left to store, a new dipole is created, which is a potential difference that allows new fresh and free gravitational potential to enter and do more work. The gasoline did not turn into a new potential diference, it was dissipated during the creation of a new potential difference (dipole).

When making and breaking bonds, the energy released to run the engine is not intrinsic in the gasoline - all the electrochemical potential differences breaks the symmetry of the virtual photons (source potential) or polarizes the aether. The aether then comes into the system from the local environment and that is where the potential comes from that turns into work from the gasoline. This is the case with every chemical reaction.

As soon as the source potential moves from one potential to another and meets any resistance on the way, it is dissipated back to the local vacuum in a disorganized way. The "energy" did not change from one form to another. The aetheric source potential was polarized > it hit resistance and is depolarized. There was no changing forms at all. The source potential stayed just as it was before, during and after it came in, it did work and got dissipated. It just became unpolarized > polarized > unpolarized.

When a NEW dipole is created, NEW fresh and free environmental gravitational potential comes in to impart the gravitational push of the car back down the hill. NONE of the original energy changed or transformed into any other form of energy. Simply, new source potential enters the dipole (mass at a height) does work and is disorganized back to the local active vacuum.

Conservation of energy has always been a scam just like conservation of momentum, etc... because of not even knowing what energy or potential is.

Newton's Cradle ironically laughs all of those conventional flawed principles. When you lift a ball on one end and let go, it hits other balls and the one on the end goes up and dissipates 100% of the potential energy put into it at the peak. A NEW dipole is created, the ball comes down from NEW fresh gravitational potential and pushes it down. NONE of the original movement was conserved - no conservation of momentum. On each back and forth cycle - 100% of potential energy is dissipated at the peak of each cycle and each cycle there is less and less, but nothing is conserved or transferred. And at the peak of each cycle a NEW dipole is created so NEW gravitational potential comes in.

Each cycle allows the system to regauge itself, which just means that the energy dissipation happens in a way that establishes a new dipole. When that is done, entropy can be delayed all while work is being done, which when you add up the mathematically PROVABLE work on each cycle, it is far more than what we put in.

This is the principle of EVERY device that regauges itself and demonstrates more than 1.0 COP. All you have to do is make up for the loss on each cycle in order to get the FULL amount of work on each cycle. In Newton's Cradle for example, when you release the ball on one end, if you simply grabbed the ball on the other end at its peak and lift it just a hair higher to the same height that you lifted the original ball and let go and you do that on every single cycle, you will get the FULL amount of work by only contributing a fraction. That is "overunity" or over 1.0 COP thereby defeating the bogus concepts of conservation of energy or momentum.

The idea of conservation of energy is not rooted in facts or experimentally provable results. It is nothing more than an idea that is easily proven wrong with 3rd grade math and junior high school equations by simply adding up all energy dissipation and comparing that to the input that we contributed.

Did you read the whole thread?

[Ben2503]

That is the whole point - there is no such thing as conservation of energy. It is a magical idea not based on the results of any experiment or any observable results. Elementary school math can quantify dissipated energy and when you add up all dissipated energy, it just can't get more obvious.

There is no such thing as storing potential energy. The only thing that happens is that new dipoles are created and new gravitational potential comes in. The idea of conservation of energy is a hoodwinking concept to prevent people from seeing that environmental source potential can actually enter a system and do work.

The car/hill example is an open dissipative system so closed system thermodynamic claims that the energy in a closed system remains the same - do not apply to this. There is nothing being conserved - not even in a closed system because there really are no closed systems. A closed system is really an open system where there is no mechanism to turn free environmental source potential like gravity, etc... into usable work thereby delaying entropy while doing more work. And opens systems are meant to utilize free environmental source potential.

Every bit of potential energy in the gas is 100% dissipated when the car gets to its peak. There is nothing left and there is no such thing as converting it to potential. It is all used up, nothing left to store, a new dipole is created, which is a potential difference that allows new fresh and free gravitational potential to enter and do more work. The gasoline did not turn into a new potential diference, it was dissipated during the creation of a new potential difference (dipole).

When making and breaking bonds, the energy released to run the engine is not intrinsic in the gasoline - all the electrochemical potential differences breaks the symmetry of the virtual photons (source potential) or polarizes the aether. The aether then comes into the system from the local environment and that is where the potential comes from that turns into work from the gasoline. This is the case with every chemical reaction.

As soon as the source potential moves from one potential to another and meets any resistance on the way, it is dissipated back to the local vacuum in a disorganized way. The "energy" did not change from one form to another. The aetheric source potential was polarized > it hit resistance and is depolarized. There was no changing forms at all. The source potential stayed just as it was before, during and after it came in, it did work and got dissipated. It just became unpolarized > polarized > unpolarized.

When a NEW dipole is created, NEW fresh and free environmental gravitational potential comes in to impart the gravitational push of the car back down the hill. NONE of the original energy changed or transformed into any other form of energy. Simply, new source potential enters the dipole (mass at a height) does work and is disorganized back to the local active vacuum.

Conservation of energy has always been a scam just like conservation of momentum, etc... because of not even knowing what energy or potential is.

Newton's Cradle ironically laughs all of those conventional flawed principles. When you lift a ball on one end and let go, it hits other balls and the one on the end goes up and dissipates 100% of the potential energy put into it at the peak. A NEW dipole is created, the ball comes down from NEW fresh gravitational potential and pushes it down. NONE of the original movement was conserved - no conservation of momentum. On each back and forth cycle - 100% of potential energy is dissipated at the peak of each cycle and each cycle there is less and less, but nothing is conserved or transferred. And at the peak of each cycle a NEW dipole is created so NEW gravitational potential comes in.

Each cycle allows the system to regauge itself, which just means that the energy dissipation happens in a way that establishes a new dipole. When that is done, entropy can be delayed all while work is being done, which when you add up the mathematically PROVABLE work on each cycle, it is far more than what we put in.

This is the principle of EVERY device that regauges itself and demonstrates more than 1.0 COP. All you have to do is make up for the loss on each cycle in order to get the FULL amount of work on each cycle. In Newton's Cradle for example, when you release the ball on one end, if you simply grabbed the ball on the other end at its peak and lift it just a hair higher to the same height that you lifted the original ball and let go and you do that on every single cycle, you will get the FULL amount of work by only contributing a fraction. That is "overunity" or over 1.0 COP thereby defeating the bogus concepts of conservation of energy or momentum.

The idea of conservation of energy is not rooted in facts or experimentally provable results. It is nothing more than an idea that is easily proven wrong with 3rd grade math and junior high school equations by simply adding up all energy dissipation and comparing that to the input that we contributed.

Did you read the whole thread?

Nice theory, but where is the proof of all this?
I have spend the last 6 months looking for simple non-conventional theories with experiments / measurements that proof the theory.
I am quite convinced that 'over unity' exists and some very good solutions are available, but I haven't seen any detailed test results that could convince me.

If anybody could show me the way, I would be most grateful

[Aaron]

lifting work

Nice theory, but where is the proof of all this?
I have spend the last 6 months looking for simple non-conventional theories with experiments / measurements that proof the theory.
I am quite convinced that 'over unity' exists and some very good solutions are available, but I haven't seen any detailed test results that could convince me.

If anybody could show me the way, I would be most grateful

Hi Ben,

I could ask you the same thing - where is the proof of conservation of energy? It doesn't exist.

However, I actually can prove with basic math that more is happening than is claimed by conventional flawed theories showing that gravitational potential does come into the system to do more work.

Let's take the example of a perfectly spherical ball of clay that weights 3kg and lift it from the ground to 3 meters.

3 kg x 9.81 mss = 29.43 (force)

Then 29.43 x 3 meters (distance) = 88.29 joules of real work - real dissipated energy to lift the 3kg ball of clay to 3 meters.

88.29 joules of work is not theoretical work, that is actual work to lift that 3kg ball to 3 meters and we have the results to prove it. For the fact that the object was lifted 3 meters and the object actually is at 3 meters, which required real work - real dissipated energy to get there - I would say it is pretty much an indisputable fact proven by 3rd grade math and junior high school equations that it took 88.29 joules to get it there and conventional physics agree with this.

Before I go on, this has to be considered - if we just expended a COMPLETE 88.29 joules of energy, how can there be anything left of the 88.29 joules of energy left in any form - actual energy or potential energy since it was REQUIRED to use an entire 88.29 joules of energy to lift the 3kg ball to 3 meters.

Ben, what are you comments on this so far?

You can look up any conventional website and they will show you this exact formula - mass x gravity = force and force x distance equals real work that was EXPENDED to lift the object to that height.

[indio007]

I think the only thing you proved is mankind has a piss-poor model for gravity.

Modern Science doesn't truly believe in conservation of energy. If it did an electron wouldn't exist. According to their mathematical model for the electron, it has infinite energy. That mathematical model hinges on conservation of energy. Just about all models of elementary particles are derived from "electron math". Just as long as you ignore the infinite self-energy thing!

The only reason the idea conservation of energy exists is because mathematicians like bounded symmetry. Then as long as the equation balances the answer will be presumed correct.