Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31

Thread: The car running on water controversy - A 5D Lorentz Universe

  1. #1 The car running on water controversy - A 5D Lorentz Universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Planes, branes and automobiles.


    Paranoia, conspiracy theories and the truth about free energy.
    from:
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...n_suppress.htm


    “In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”

    -Homer Simpson



    There have been many sightings of a so-called over-unity phenomenon. These may vary greatly, according to the contemporary world of physics.But one thing all scientists, and even Homer Simpson agrees upon is the law of Thermodynamics. This one states that the amount of energy/matter that exists within a system cannot be greater or lesser than what we put in earlier.But somehow it seems there were some ‘experiments’ that fell through the cracks. Like the supposed car running on water. Well, I’ve never heard of such a ridicolous thing. Or have I?


    In fact I had heard of such a thing. Here’s how it breaks down: water (H2O) doesn’t burn, unless it gets broken down into its parts first.This is simple science. There are already running, fabricated cars running on burnable hydrogen(gas). This approach hasn’t really taken off, because as you know, you have to first use energy to get hydrogen. Whatever chemical, biological or nuclear reaction you use, you first have to put a lot of energy in, to get usable hydrogen(gas).


    There is also another burnable gas you can get from water, Oxyhydrogen. Now, this is the good stuff. This is a metastable gas, meaning because it is by definition electrically charged, and it will fall apart, and form water again, if the charges are gone. If you leave it near a magnetic object like some metal placings: gone! If you burn it: gone! Or better, turned back into water.


    There are two different ways to seperate water and this last burnable gas. There are also two distinctive verified “car running on just water” stories. One common way to seperate is to use electrolysis with electrodes at each end. This story, since 2001, is about a Australian engineer Joe, that uses his electrolysis fuel cell to power a normal car-engine. He is also getting great mileage. But he says, he doesn’t have to charge the water initially. He made a special coil and the result is a mobile bubbler. The coil is made of thin non-conducting diamagnetic metal tubes, in a circular shape, and using water as a resistor. (Joe Cell) Resist against what? What was this water resisting against? And why did this not jive with the law of Thermodynamics?


    On the other hand, a more illusive way to seperate gas from a substance, but nearly as easy, is zapping it with a spark; like a thermal lance, with an arc at the end. When zapped with this arc a ‘plasma’, a sun-like substance, is created at a very high temperature and rearranges the whole molecular state.This zapping since recently also happens with garbage. The result is a bit of rubble and a lot of the same burnable gases you’d get from electrolysis.The first real ‘cars on water’ were using this technology. The E.V. Gray Engine and the Geet Processor both use a spark to superheat into combustibles. Here the exhaust would be water. But you still have to light the spark don’t you? Yes. So what is all the fuss about?


    But there is however one problem with how this abundant molecule acts. And also how the subsequent parts, it falls apart in, act. In the first ‘Joe Cell’ example the resisting water could be bubbling by itself. And in the second example, this electrically charged magnetic gas or magnegas in short, gives out more energy when burned, then was needed to light the spark. The verified efficiency rates can go from 160% in normal cases and up to 300% if the heat is accounted for. They even had to make a new, controversial physics theory just to explain the particles, called hadronic mechanics (from Greek hadros heavy). The particles themselves are therefore called magnecules and it already reclassifies the standard model of physics. It does however not point to the reason for this purported over-unity.

    But how do the inventors themselves, of all the over-unity devices try to explain their work? They think space is full of electric radiation, that moves through everything. They call it ambient radiation or aether. But this was never measured and cannot function in physics because there is no particle or wave that gives away free energy. In this house we obey the law of thermodynamics.

    So these car engines on water(gas) do as a matter of fact seem to be able to display the so called “over-unity” symptoms talked about. And as we always say, in this house we obey the laws of physics. So you can’t sell, distribute, or invest in a technology that cannot possibly exist, now can you? This is in fact the reason why those cars never made it in our homes. Thankfully meanwhile garbage vaporisation (or should we say magnegas-isation) is going full steam ahead. The biggest economic breakthrough there was the inception of ‘hadronic mechanics’ physics, which allowed for this special oxyhydrogen variant to help with garbage reduction and fuel demands in garbage dump-sites near you. (hopefully not too near)


    It doesn’t mean that because contemporary physics uses a working model of reality (non-local realism to be really accurate), that there cannot be another, distinguished model of our world that works equally or better (local, mechanical realism). And all of the current ‘non-local’ theories seemed to end in endless problems with particle measurements and definitions. ‘Non-local’ actually just means there are particles at a distance distinctively related with the particle you are measuring. This all boils down to mathmatic principles held by the creators of the atom theory, way back when. The mantra in current physics “No local realistic theory is possible” is even in itself a paradox, for one cannot make such a conclusive metaphysical claim with mere physical experiments. (Duhem P.,"The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory.") Reality is thus big enough for the two of them.


    Which brings us right back to the times of Einstein, who died in 1955. He was one of the last great local realists, along with the rest of the pre-dating historic physicians. Back in the day journalists and fans would stalk him for interviews and quotes, anxiously awaiting explanations for how the whole world worked. His theories were more farfetching than anything they had previously read. For it included, postulate after postulate, reasoning behind the sky and the stars, and even light itself. He theorised time passes in 3-dimensional space and even introduced a new fourth dimension, time. The whole of the standard model of physics is still based on his 4 dimensions. He called his theory ‘relativity’ because as a localist, he believed that everything had a relation with the frame you are in.


    The last attempt in modern times to explain the world within relativity is the invention of ‘curvature’, wich says that the world and the universe is intrinsically curved. This can be derived from physics and mathmatics, and astronomical evidence even suggests some kind of curvature to space and time.

    "But how does this all relate to the smallest forms, the ones we can combust in our cars, your molecules and your magnecules," you may ask. All these over-unity sightings required some kind of electromagnetic theory. But where some current explanations were embedded in old ‘ambient radiation’ theory, this could not be permitted by physicists and quantumphysicists around the world, more specific because of an 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment wich says some things about light, the observer thereof and subsequently does deny any moving ‘aether’, where light itself is not part of the electromechanics.


    Now lets travel back to 2006. A scientist named Mark Fiorentino, publishes his theory on what light really is, on the internet and invents a new electromagnetic dimension in the proces. His theory of a ‘solid not moving’ aether, this space being twisted, and inverted, is his life’s work and he does have some great credentials. He got awards at IBM for being such a great trouble-shooter. As a software-engineer he is familiar with every kind of model. He takes the curvature of space-time and fabricates it into the effective twisted dimension that really does exist, and this 5D accounts for all the nuclear and electromagnetic forces, and gravity. But he only seeks science, not fame so he keeps working on his mechanics, obstaining from publishing such a ‘radical’ local theory in the journals that should by nature publish him.


    There is however a light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Fiorentino is currently using the so called ‘invariance mechanics’ to mathmatically determine his 5th dimension and to answer the unanswered question from e=mc², the speed of light. (“Energy equals mass times speed of light/squared”). This is a breakthrough not thought of since Einstein’s e=mc² itself. The paper will be out by the end of 2008. The entire 300-page equivalent “Super Relativity’, the book, will come out in the end of 2009.


    Let us hope that the world can come together in recognizing there is no free energy flying around, but the answer lies in the fact of a matter that we are all connected in this solid ‘5D’ world, where our better understanding of it gives open access to all sorts of exciting hopes and possibilities.



    For a deeper look with extensive wiki information into: Why Super-relativity? Visit Physcom (http://physcom.awardspace.com/)

    For a deeper look into Super Relativity please visit http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity

    For Mr. Fiorentino’s website, visit http://www.superrelativity.org/html/


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: The car running on water controversy 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Planes, branes and automobiles.


    Paranoia, conspiracy theories and the truth about free energy.
    from (http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...n_suppress.htm)


    “In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!”

    -Homer Simpson



    There have been many sightings of a so-called over-unity phenomenon. These may vary greatly, according to the contemporary world of physics.But one thing all scientists, and even Homer Simpson agrees upon is the law of Thermodynamics. This one states that the amount of energy/matter that exists within a system cannot be greater or lesser than what we put in earlier.But somehow it seems there were some ‘experiments’ that fell through the cracks. Like the supposed car running on water. Well, I’ve never heard of such a ridicolous thing. Or have I?


    In fact I had heard of such a thing. Here’s how it breaks down: water (H2O) doesn’t burn, unless it gets broken down into its parts first.This is simple science. There are already running, fabricated cars running on burnable hydrogen(gas). This approach hasn’t really taken off, because as you know, you have to first use energy to get hydrogen. Whatever chemical, biological or nuclear reaction you use, you first have to put a lot of energy in, to get usable hydrogen(gas).


    There is also another burnable gas you can get from water, Oxyhydrogen. Now, this is the good stuff. This is a metastable gas, meaning because it is by definition electrically charged, and it will fall apart, and form water again, if the charges are gone. If you leave it near a magnetic object like some metal placings: gone! If you burn it: gone! Or better, turned back into water.


    There are two different ways to seperate water and this last burnable gas. There are also two distinctive verified “car running on just water” stories. One common way to seperate is to use electrolysis with electrodes at each end. This story, since 2001, is about a Australian engineer Joe, that uses his electrolysis fuel cell to power a normal car-engine. He is also getting great mileage. But he says, he doesn’t have to charge the water initially. He made a special coil and the result is a mobile bubbler. The coil is made of thin non-conducting diamagnetic metal tubes, in a circular shape, and using water as a resistor. (Joe Cell) Resist against what? What was this water resisting against? And why did this not jive with the law of Thermodynamics?


    On the other hand, a more illusive way to seperate gas from a substance, but nearly as easy, is zapping it with a spark; like a thermal lance, with an arc at the end. When zapped with this arc a ‘plasma’, a sun-like substance, is created at a very high temperature and rearranges the whole molecular state.This zapping since recently also happens with garbage. The result is a bit of rubble and a lot of the same burnable gases you’d get from electrolysis.The first real ‘cars on water’ were using this technology. The E.V. Gray Engine and the Geet Processor both use a spark to superheat into combustibles. Here the exhaust would be water. But you still have to light the spark don’t you? Yes. So what is all the fuss about?


    But there is however one problem with how this abundant molecule acts. And also how the subsequent parts, it falls apart in, act. In the first ‘Joe Cell’ example the resisting water could be bubbling by itself. And in the second example, this electrically charged magnetic gas or magnegas in short, gives out more energy when burned, then was needed to light the spark. The verified efficiency rates can go from 160% in normal cases and up to 300% if the heat is accounted for. They even had to make a new, controversial physics theory just to explain the particles, called hadronic mechanics (from Greek hadros heavy). The particles themselves are therefore called magnecules and it already reclassifies the standard model of physics. It does however not point to the reason for this purported over-unity.

    But how do the inventors themselves, of all the over-unity devices try to explain their work? They think space is full of electric radiation, that moves through everything. They call it ambient radiation or aether. But this was never measured and cannot function in physics because there is no particle or wave that gives away free energy. In this house we obey the law of thermodynamics.

    So these car engines on water(gas) do as a matter of fact seem to be able to display the so called “over-unity” symptoms talked about. And as we always say, in this house we obey the laws of physics. So you can’t sell, distribute, or invest in a technology that cannot possibly exist, now can you? This is in fact the reason why those cars never made it in our homes. Thankfully meanwhile garbage vaporisation (or should we say magnegas-isation) is going full steam ahead. The biggest economic breakthrough there was the inception of ‘hadronic mechanics’ physics, which allowed for this special oxyhydrogen variant to help with garbage reduction and fuel demands in garbage dump-sites near you. (hopefully not too near)


    It doesn’t mean that because contemporary physics uses a working model of reality (non-local realism to be really accurate), that there cannot be another, distinguished model of our world that works equally or better (local, mechanical realism). And all of the current ‘non-local’ theories seemed to end in endless problems with particle measurements and definitions. ‘Non-local’ actually just means there are particles at a distance distinctively related with the particle you are measuring. This all boils down to mathmatic principles held by the creators of the atom theory, way back when. The mantra in current physics “No local realistic theory is possible” is even in itself a paradox, for one cannot make such a conclusive metaphysical claim with mere physical experiments. (Duhem P.,"The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory.") Reality is thus big enough for the two of them.


    Which brings us right back to the times of Einstein, who died in 1955. He was one of the last great local realists, along with the rest of the pre-dating historic physicians. Back in the day journalists and fans would stalk him for interviews and quotes, anxiously awaiting explanations for how the whole world worked. His theories were more farfetching than anything they had previously read. For it included, postulate after postulate, reasoning behind the sky and the stars, and even light itself. He theorised time passes in 3-dimensional space and even introduced a new fourth dimension, time. The whole of the standard model of physics is still based on his 4 dimensions. He called his theory ‘relativity’ because as a localist, he believed that everything had a relation with the frame you are in.


    The last attempt in modern times to explain the world within relativity is the invention of ‘curvature’, wich says that the world and the universe is intrinsically curved. This can be derived from physics and mathmatics, and astronomical evidence even suggests some kind of curvature to space and time.

    "But how does this all relate to the smallest forms, the ones we can combust in our cars, your molecules and your magnecules," you may ask. All these over-unity sightings required some kind of electromagnetic theory. But where some current explanations were embedded in old ‘ambient radiation’ theory, this could not be permitted by physicists and quantumphysicists around the world, more specific because of an 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment wich says some things about light, the observer thereof and subsequently does deny any moving ‘aether’, where light itself is not part of the electromechanics.

    You can pour a massive amount of water into a running eight cylinder engine. However mostly the water provides oxygen eight to one over hydrogen by weight.


    Now lets travel back to 2006. A scientist named Mark Fiorentino, publishes his theory on what light really is, on the internet and invents a new electromagnetic dimension in the proces. His theory of a ‘solid not moving’ aether, this space being twisted, and inverted, is his life’s work and he does have some great credentials. He got awards at IBM for being such a great trouble-shooter. As a software-engineer he is familiar with every kind of model. He takes the curvature of space-time and fabricates it into the effective twisted dimension that really does exist, and this 5D accounts for all the nuclear and electromagnetic forces, and gravity. But he only seeks science, not fame so he keeps working on his mechanics, obstaining from publishing such a ‘radical’ local theory in the journals that should by nature publish him.


    There is however a light at the end of the tunnel. Mr. Fiorentino is currently using the so called ‘invariance mechanics’ to mathmatically determine his 5th dimension and to answer the unanswered question from e=mc², the speed of light. (“Energy equals mass times speed of light/squared”). This is a breakthrough not thought of since Einstein’s e=mc² itself. The paper will be out by the end of 2008. The entire 300-page equivalent “Super Relativity’, the book, will come out in the end of 2009.


    Let us hope that the world can come together in recognizing there is no free energy flying around, but the answer lies in the fact of a matter that we are all connected in this solid ‘5D’ world, where our better understanding of it gives open access to all sorts of exciting hopes and possibilities.



    Benny Creemers,

    Communication Scientist

    VUB Brussel



    For a deeper look with extensive wiki information into: Why Super-relativity? Visit Physcom (http://physcom.awardspace.com/)

    For a deeper look into Super Relativity please visit http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity

    For Mr. Fiorentino’s website, visit http://www.superrelativity.org/html/
    They used to pour water down the carburetor years ago at the gas station for older women that did not run their car often. It would burn the carbon off the valves. The carbon would prematurely detonate the chamber. They would charge them for a tune up. Ha-ha.

    The carbon would cause a ping-ing in the engine like the timing was too far advanced.

    But as a fuel water seems a bit weak.

    They used to industrially make natural gas using water and carbon.


    You can hurl the planet like a beech ball with the free energy hurling around.

    The capacitor is a perpetual motion device when used in series. Sorry. There is all the free energy you can imagine. Your imagination is just not that good. And you are a poor scientist not questioning obvious flaws in current theories.

    My family worked at a defense plant that made perpetual motion planes. So say what you will. You will have a lot of friends if you want to call them that. That will deny the simple understanding of perpetual motion.

    Perpetual motion was the first thing you learned about before touching electrical equipment. Today it is better you just take your chances then learn about something taboo.

    How many watts are in a 9 volt battery? With a couple spools of wire and a large transformer and a large induction motor. I could probably bring the transformer to a powerful explosive end. Or just show you a few minutes of the most God awful mind bending electrical popping and crackling that anyone would want to see. All started with just a touch of a nine volt battery to the circuit. Then I will take it away.

    So starting perpetual motion is easy, stopping it is hard.

    The ether moves. It moves so fast that it does not deposit much of an effect. Unless you create a diode. Then it will cause ambient radiation to slow, and then you can observe it as radiation, light, heat, sound.

    We live in pure electricity just like Benjamin Franklin discovered. That is why they feared him and ridiculed him. He was right. And he hated law maker types, and stuffy scientific types.

    That latest movie about John Adams does not depict any of the characters as they were.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    William you are the poor scientist. Stop saying that other scientific types are 'afraid', why would we be? We want the same answers in the end as you do, you just go about it in a different way. Stop insulting everyones intelligence and slating everyone possible on the forum.

    Honestly I don't know how you've gotten away with it so far. Have you wondered WHY your theories haven't made it to mainstream? They're a load of horseshit is why. Now if you said everything is made of energy I'd get it yeah, because it is pretty much (e=mc^2) but claiming that it is free flowing electrons is complete bollocks. Electrons are measurable and interact with matter so why don't yours? I suppose they are "special" electrons that my small mind can't possibly comprehend because the government wants to keep this all a secret from me.

    Right.

    In conclusion, unless you have something VALID or CONSTRUCTIVE to add to the conversation then you can damned well stay out of it. You are a terrible scientist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    William you are the poor scientist. Stop saying that other scientific types are 'afraid', why would we be? We want the same answers in the end as you do, you just go about it in a different way. Stop insulting everyones intelligence and slating everyone possible on the forum.

    Honestly I don't know how you've gotten away with it so far. Have you wondered WHY your theories haven't made it to mainstream? They're a load of horseshit is why. Now if you said everything is made of energy I'd get it yeah, because it is pretty much (e=mc^2) but claiming that it is free flowing electrons is complete bollocks. Electrons are measurable and interact with matter so why don't yours? I suppose they are "special" electrons that my small mind can't possibly comprehend because the government wants to keep this all a secret from me.

    Right.

    In conclusion, unless you have something VALID or CONSTRUCTIVE to add to the conversation then you can damned well stay out of it. You are a terrible scientist.
    Lets hope everyone in the forum is not a multi particle scientist.
    If you want the same thing I do, why do you want it in the end. Rather then in the beginning. When you are young enough to use it. I have it.

    My reality is what works in the real world. Your stuff gets thrown out by those that know better, when they go to build. Or turn it on for the first time.
    And yes it is just fear and paranoia that hold you back. You are on the evil lazy side.

    My electrons are racing through solid matter. So fast that there single repulsive charge has no time to do much. Slow them down create a Hiroshima blast, and you have only made them highly visible. That is not ultimate ambient radiation full stop.

    A capacitor when used in series with a supply source and device to be powered, can easily double your input power from the source. You can power the device with twice the wattage you take from the battery.

    Before I would dispute that, I would take a look at it, and do some experimenting. But to say that doubling your input power, is impossible is just a lie.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    William you are the poor scientist. Stop saying that other scientific types are 'afraid', why would we be? We want the same answers in the end as you do, you just go about it in a different way. Stop insulting everyones intelligence and slating everyone possible on the forum.

    Honestly I don't know how you've gotten away with it so far. Have you wondered WHY your theories haven't made it to mainstream? They're a load of horseshit is why. Now if you said everything is made of energy I'd get it yeah, because it is pretty much (e=mc^2) but claiming that it is free flowing electrons is complete bollocks. Electrons are measurable and interact with matter so why don't yours? I suppose they are "special" electrons that my small mind can't possibly comprehend because the government wants to keep this all a secret from me.

    Right.

    In conclusion, unless you have something VALID or CONSTRUCTIVE to add to the conversation then you can damned well stay out of it. You are a terrible scientist.

    I think William Mccormick is a secret undercover agent come here to quote everybody and then throw his convoluted and non-pertaining bullocks under every sensible post just to dillute the picture. He is in cohoots with the same people we are all afraid of, I tells you!


    William, you are way wrong on both a physical and metaphysical level.
    the ether does not move. It's it's own dimension.


    That is why you were never able to make sense of any of this!


    Any mumbojumbo about we can't see energy cuz it moves too fast, and stopping it makes it visible is not documented at all.

    In fact I do believe you are proven wrong in an instance just by looking at the phenomenon of the polariton. (EM energy encompassing atoms)
    (This is not the energy being stopped, it is only parts that become energized; in fact, the headline is wrong as explained further)

    Pictures and explanations:
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._stoplight.htm



    Just to adress THE POINT, this is the final explanation to the car running on water controversy. In its 2 pages lies the answers on why you don't have a car running on water, how YOU can build one, solutions on making the car companies build you one, and timetables on when they are going to do it



    Greetings,
    HeebieJeebies

    PS

    The people we are all afraid of, are ofcourse, the spammers :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    William you are the poor scientist. Stop saying that other scientific types are 'afraid', why would we be? We want the same answers in the end as you do, you just go about it in a different way. Stop insulting everyones intelligence and slating everyone possible on the forum.

    Honestly I don't know how you've gotten away with it so far. Have you wondered WHY your theories haven't made it to mainstream? They're a load of horseshit is why. Now if you said everything is made of energy I'd get it yeah, because it is pretty much (e=mc^2) but claiming that it is free flowing electrons is complete bollocks. Electrons are measurable and interact with matter so why don't yours? I suppose they are "special" electrons that my small mind can't possibly comprehend because the government wants to keep this all a secret from me.

    Right.

    In conclusion, unless you have something VALID or CONSTRUCTIVE to add to the conversation then you can damned well stay out of it. You are a terrible scientist.

    I think William Mccormick is a secret undercover agent come here to quote everybody and then throw his convoluted and non-pertaining bullocks under every sensible post just to dillute the picture. He is in cohoots with the same people we are all afraid of, I tells you!


    William, you are way wrong on both a physical and metaphysical level.
    the ether does not move. It's it's own dimension.


    That is why you were never able to make sense of any of this!


    Any mumbojumbo about we can't see energy cuz it moves too fast, and stopping it makes it visible is not documented at all.

    In fact I do believe you are proven wrong in an instance just by looking at the phenomenon of the polariton. (EM energy encompassing atoms)
    (This is not the energy being stopped, it is only parts that become energized; in fact, the headline is wrong as explained further)

    Pictures and explanations:
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2..._stoplight.htm



    Just to adress THE POINT, this is the final explanation to the car running on water controversy. In its 2 pages lies the answers on why you don't have a car running on water, how YOU can build one, solutions on making the car companies build you one, and timetables on when they are going to do it



    Greetings,
    HeebieJeebies

    PS

    The people we are all afraid of, are ofcourse, the spammers :wink:
    With that link alone, NASA should be shut down.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Any mumbojumbo about we can't see energy cuz it moves too fast, and stopping it makes it visible is not documented at all.
    What does "it is not documented mean"? If I burn all the laws for child molestation will you start or stop molesting children?

    What kind of a scientific statement is that?

    What does documentation have to do with reality?

    I am not joking, this is a serious flaw in your thinking. You will never be a scientist with that kind of mentality.

    When Hitler burned all the books, about Germany's very powerful "all are welcome constitution", Germans had free rain to burn Jews?

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: The car running on water controversy 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,036
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Planes, branes and automobiles.


    On the other hand, a more illusive way to seperate gas from a substance, but nearly as easy, is zapping it with a spark; like a thermal lance, with an arc at the end. When zapped with this arc a ‘plasma’, a sun-like substance, is created at a very high temperature and rearranges the whole molecular state.This zapping since recently also happens with garbage. The result is a bit of rubble and a lot of the same burnable gases you’d get from electrolysis.The first real ‘cars on water’ were using this technology. The E.V. Gray Engine and the Geet Processor both use a spark to superheat into combustibles. Here the exhaust would be water. But you still have to light the spark don’t you? Yes. So what is all the fuss about?


    But there is however one problem with how this abundant molecule acts. And also how the subsequent parts, it falls apart in, act. In the first ‘Joe Cell’ example the resisting water could be bubbling by itself. And in the second example, this electrically charged magnetic gas or magnegas in short, gives out more energy when burned, then was needed to light the spark. The verified efficiency rates can go from 160% in normal cases and up to 300% if the heat is accounted for. They even had to make a new, controversial physics theory just to explain the particles, called hadronic mechanics (from Greek hadros heavy). The particles themselves are therefore called magnecules and it already reclassifies the standard model of physics. It does however not point to the reason for this purported over-unity.

    But how do the inventors themselves, of all the over-unity devices try to explain their work? They think space is full of electric radiation, that moves through everything. They call it ambient radiation or aether. But this was never measured and cannot function in physics because there is no particle or wave that gives away free energy. In this house we obey the law of thermodynamics.
    Well, garbage usually contains methane, so there's where we'd be getting our power from.

    As for the rest, I suppose it's possible that maybe some cosmic rays are at a weird wavelength that doesn't resonate with most matter in the atmosphere, and a custom molecule might resonate with it. But it's unlikely that any of those rays contains any exceptional amount of energy more than you'd get from a solar cell when the sun's out.

    The most credible.... indeed the only credible... over-unity claim I've ever seen on the web was Jim Grigg's hydro-sonic pump. It operates by creating massive numbers of sono-luminescent bubbles in water and claims to produce up to 30% more heat than the energy going into it.

    I only believed it because it happened to coincide with some other articles I'd read in Scientific American about the possibility of sonoluminescent bubbles creating the necessary conditions for fusion to occur when certain conditions are met. Mind you, not a chain reaction, just a reaction.

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...n-c&sc=I100322
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=sonic-fusion
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-produced-by-u

    The third link is the most informative, because it points out the limitations. The bubble must collapse spherically, which is probabilistically an unlikely way for any random bubble to collapse, and it may additionally need a secondary shock wave to occur inside it.

    I'm inclined to believe in Grigg's device because of how it works, and because people are actually buying it. It is, at the very least, a very efficient water heater, whether it actually achieves over-unity or not.

    It operates by creating millions and millions of sono-luminescent bubbles per second, which might be enough to overcome the odds just by rolling enough dice. Of course, 30% over-unity in an electricity-to-heat conversion is not enough to be able to convert that heat back into electricity and sell it, so it may have no practical use as an electric power source. Heat-to-anything-else conversions are always very inefficient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Thanks Kojax!

    There are however some other verified over-unity claims.
    But I'll begin by adressing this:

    Well, garbage usually contains methane, so there's where we'd be getting our power from.
    If you're not researching garbage magnegas-isation specifically, you'd never find out about it, but it actually has very little to do with what the garbage is actually made of. So methane does not have anything to do with it

    It's got more to do with superheating, plasma's, and subsequent gravity(?) and heat conversion.
    And there actually is already a reported, over-unity, in stores today:

    Magnecule-generating process is over-unity


    http://pesn.com/2006/08/28/9500230_S...c_feedback.htm

    Greetings,

    Heebiejeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    With that link alone, NASA should be shut down.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    The other, over-unity phenomenon, and simple science, I wanted to talk about is:



    the 'mobile bubbler'


    the over-unity claimed by the self-sustaining creation of magnecules



    'water as a resistor'

    1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pGO7aRECik

    2.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS6r2VILw9c

    3.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7QgUIihNF4

    4.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_V7y25y734

    5.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOBtilCqQ6Q





    If you analyse, this Joe Cell's magnecule combustion with Cavity QED, you get:

    Lightning in your engine:

    http://www.thejoecell.com/


    For a movie to see how all of this (mobile bubbler+lightning) operates see:
    http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ulOvJl46U
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick

    With that link alone, NASA should be shut down.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Why?
    Because if you stop light it would be a bomb. If you accelerate it, it will disappear.

    Matter is believed to be 90 percent space.
    Try to block light with something 90 percent space, and only a few thousandths of an inch thick. Yet it is done everyday. The reason is that as light hits a plate of metal, it is accelerated, into black dark radiation.

    The electrons that carry light according to how I learned the universe, pass right through objects. They only leave a charge at the surface of the object they bombard. It is ambient radiation that comes from behind a metal plate that is being lit, that carry the surface voltage to you.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Instow, Devon, UK
    Posts
    99
    Unfortunately you learned the universe wrong Billy. If you stop light it wont go boom. They stopped a single photon using absolute zero temperatures. Once it was stopped they were able to accurately measure it. Stop making crap up it's making you look like a fool.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    William, electrons do not carry light, they, when given energy, can release photons at different frequencies which makes different colours of light.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    William, electrons do not carry light, they, when given energy, can release photons at different frequencies which makes different colours of light.
    So let me see if I have this theory down right. You take two prisms and you shine photons through them? Not electrons?

    And these photons first emit different color light, once passed through the prism, and then go through the second prism and become white light again?

    I don't buy it. But I could explain it with the all electron universe.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    William, electrons do not carry light, they, when given energy, can release photons at different frequencies which makes different colours of light.
    So let me see if I have this theory down right. You take two prisms and you shine photons through them? Not electrons?

    And these photons first emit different color light, once passed through the prism, and then go through the second prism and become white light again?

    I don't buy it. But I could explain it with the all electron universe.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    I was thinking more of chemistry when you pump electricity through some elements the electrons will go to an outer shell, then as it drops it release energy, a specific photon of a specific frequency giving a specific colour of light. Example for this is neon lights.

    As for the prism, light at different frequencies travel at different speeds as they refract, i believe, or it may be something to do with the refractive index at that frequency, i am not entirly sure on that. Maybe someone else can explain that one better.

    The photons are a specific frequency which gives a colour, white light is when all the different frequencies of photons are together, so as they pass the prism they seperate and are seen as invidual colours.

    I realise i didn't explain my point well before, i hope this makes slightly more sence.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by Tenacity
    Unfortunately you learned the universe wrong Billy. If you stop light it wont go boom. They stopped a single photon using absolute zero temperatures. Once it was stopped they were able to accurately measure it. Stop making crap up it's making you look like a fool.
    They accelerated an electron using absolute zero temperatures. Anything really cold. Is short of electrons, in its core or mass. It will often create an arc ray, if you try to increase voltage near a very cold object. That can be dangerous. The outside surface can become abundant with electrons.

    Did you know that mass is actually just weight. The original standard mass, was a chunk of platinum one avoirdupois pound in weight. It is or was in the Westminister standards office.
    And since there is no direct way to check its mass to any other piece of matter. An indirect method is used, they weigh both objects next to one another. And compare the mass/weight.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    My Computer
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Did you know that mass is actually just weight.
    weight is a measurement of the gravitational force acting on an object

    mass is the amount of matter there is in an object

    Please if you want to prove your theories, get your basic physics right.
    ~Edd
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    I understand what you are saying. However there is a bit of common sense needed in this.

    You cannot know what an objects mass is without knowing what it is made of and how much it weighs.
    Or what it is made of and how much volume it has. Then you can calculate the weight, from a standard somewhere. And perform a check.






    Knowing what the substance is and weighing it seem like two needed things. Or else it might be sponge like or hollow. The weighing checks, the knowledge you have of its material, against its physical size. To make sure it is not hollow.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Yes but we are talking about relativistic mass being a function of newtonian mass you are talking about.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

    so again your messing up quantum mechanics (electron) up with relativity (a 5D Lorentz universe)

    Please do not make this mistake again William, you're just running in circles.

    Your premise is wrong so your conclusion is wrong

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise
    In discourse and logic, a premise is a claim that is a reason (or element of a set of reasons) for, or objection against, some other claim. In other words, it is a statement presumed true within the context of an argument toward a conclusion. Premises are sometimes stated explicitly by way of disambiguation or for emphasis, but more often they are left tacitly understood as being obvious or self-evident ("it goes without saying"), or not conducive to succinct discourse. For example, in the argument

    Socrates is mortal, since all men are

    it is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:

    Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.

    In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.

    In the context of ordinary argumentation, the rational acceptability of a disputed conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.


    Greetings,
    HeebieJeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmund
    William, electrons do not carry light, they, when given energy, can release photons at different frequencies which makes different colours of light.
    So let me see if I have this theory down right. You take two prisms and you shine photons through them? Not electrons?

    And these photons first emit different color light, once passed through the prism, and then go through the second prism and become white light again?

    I don't buy it. But I could explain it with the all electron universe.

    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Photons do not emit light. They are light. And white light is made up of light of many different frequencies, but a prism refracts the different frequencies by different amounts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Yes but we are talking about relativistic mass being a function of newtonian mass you are talking about.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

    so again your messing up quantum mechanics (electron) up with relativity (a 5D Lorentz universe)

    Please do not make this mistake again William, you're just running in circles.

    Your premise is wrong so your conclusion is wrong

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise
    In discourse and logic, a premise is a claim that is a reason (or element of a set of reasons) for, or objection against, some other claim. In other words, it is a statement presumed true within the context of an argument toward a conclusion. Premises are sometimes stated explicitly by way of disambiguation or for emphasis, but more often they are left tacitly understood as being obvious or self-evident ("it goes without saying"), or not conducive to succinct discourse. For example, in the argument

    Socrates is mortal, since all men are

    it is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:

    Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, it follows that Socrates is mortal.

    In this example, the first two independent clauses preceding the comma (namely, "all men are mortal" and "Socrates is a man") are the premises, while "Socrates is mortal" is the conclusion.

    In the context of ordinary argumentation, the rational acceptability of a disputed conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.


    Greetings,
    HeebieJeebies
    Relativistic mass is just unscientific. It does not exist scientifically. And since on a technical level, there is no such thing as energy, just velocity. It is totally outrageous. That is why it is stated that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Because it does not exist.

    Energy is the measurement of velocity of objects over time. It can be a measurement of positive or negative acceleration of objects, or ambient radiation. However it technically is just a change in velocity. Heat is a slowing of ambient radiation. We consider it an energy. However it is technically a change in velocity.

    How or why would you state the weight of the object, based on its velocity? Nonsense. Its weight at sea level earth no matter how fast it is going is going to be its weight.

    You would state the objects dimensions x,y,z at least approximately, its composition, density, weight at sea level, and velocity, if you were going to describe its possible impact force at given velocity.

    Anything short of all of those and you are guessing without a whole picture.

    I am highlighting that we do not have basic English grammar school covered yet. Much less are we capable of making up new terms. Or resurrecting old wrong ones.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    I'll light your ass on fire, William and then we'll see if energy doesn't exist

    It all boils down to this:


    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.


    -Bertrand Russel


    I am glad only the craziest person on this forum is already trying to falsify this correct theory of Super Relativity

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Port Saint Lucie, Florida
    Posts
    135
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    You seem to be pretty near William's level of self-certainty yourself, chief =)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    sure? maybe...

    see

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philoso...ific_reasoning

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-H...correspondence

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_...and_philosophy

    More to the point even is one of the last sentences on this TOE (physics) page,

    if physicalism is true, a physical TOE would coincide with a philosophical theory of everything

    Next to the fact that the author of SR is a software model engineer, and self-taught theorethical physicist, he is also a philosopher. One of the main physical implications of SR's correct metaphysical and mathmatical thought, is the non-existence of a vacuum. You know, a physical/metaphysical vacuum is where there is literally nothing there. One of the more famous metaphysically/mathmatically correct quotes of Mark Fiorentino is

    "You cannot put something into nothing".

    Think about that for a minute..

    Thought about it?

    This in itself implies a 5th dimension. It implies this dimension is solid (From What is outer space?)
    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies

    (anybody get that Bertrand Russell joke at the beginning?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    I'll light your ass on fire, William and then we'll see if energy doesn't exist

    It all boils down to this:


    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.


    -Bertrand Russel


    I am glad only the craziest person on this forum is already trying to falsify this correct theory of Super Relativity

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies

    No energy, just a change in velocity as I dive for the dirt. Ha-ha.

    The heat rays are slowed down ambient radiation. No energy actually. Just velocity technically. That change in velocity will destroy structures my cells. But no actual energy. Just a change in velocity and structure. Which is velocity.

    That saying you quote is to be aimed at law makers. Not hard working types that share and learn everyday.

    Law makers think they know more then George Washington, and are breaking every good policy that George Washington put into place. The law makers are playing God, rather then leading.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.


    -Bertrand Russel

    I am glad only the craziest person on this forum is already trying to falsify this correct theory of Super Relativity

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies

    No energy, just a change in velocity as I dive for the dirt. Ha-ha.

    That saying you quote is to be aimed at law makers. Not hard working types that share and learn everyday.


    Sincerely,
    William McCormick

    Bertrand Arthur William Russell (18 May 1872–2 February 1970), was a philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, and pacifist.

    A prolific writer, he was a populariser of philosophy and a commentator on a large variety of topics. Continuing a family tradition in political affairs, he was a prominent anti-war activist, championing free trade between nations and anti-imperialism.[1][2] He wrote the essay On Denoting and was co-author (with Alfred North Whitehead) of Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on the laws of logic. Both works have had a considerable influence on logic, set theory, linguistics and analytic philosophy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel


    Why did you make another lie, William?
    BR is not a lawyer.

    Give me your velocity-energy equation then, if you're already so smart, William?

    Come on William?
    Can you even?

    ---------


    But the Theory of Super Relativity will explain exactly the speed of light, and how it even relates to the universal constants

    So you're saying you don't need a mathmatical, physical and metaphysical energy dimension to explain things like velocity when you don't even have the right frame of reference

    http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Undisc...ment&id=483994

    The Universal Constant chapter, with speed of light formulae,
    available within the next summer months...

    see "Status Update"
    for a status update
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...#Status_Update
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.


    -Bertrand Russel

    I am glad only the craziest person on this forum is already trying to falsify this correct theory of Super Relativity

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies

    No energy, just a change in velocity as I dive for the dirt. Ha-ha.

    That saying you quote is to be aimed at law makers. Not hard working types that share and learn everyday.


    Sincerely,
    William McCormick

    Bertrand Arthur William Russell (18 May 1872–2 February 1970), was a philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, and pacifist.

    A prolific writer, he was a populariser of philosophy and a commentator on a large variety of topics. Continuing a family tradition in political affairs, he was a prominent anti-war activist, championing free trade between nations and anti-imperialism.[1][2] He wrote the essay On Denoting and was co-author (with Alfred North Whitehead) of Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on the laws of logic. Both works have had a considerable influence on logic, set theory, linguistics and analytic philosophy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel


    Why did you make another lie, William?
    BR is not a lawyer.

    Give me your velocity-energy equation then, if you're already so smart, William?

    Come on William?
    Can you even?

    ---------


    But the Theory of Super Relativity will explain exactly the speed of light, and how it even relates to the universal constants

    So you're saying you don't need a mathmatical, physical and metaphysical energy dimension to explain things like velocity when you don't even have the right frame of reference

    http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Undisc...ment&id=483994

    The Universal Constant chapter, with speed of light formulae,
    available within the next summer months...

    see "Status Update"
    for a status update
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...#Status_Update

    Who said he did not coin that phrase? To look like the good guy.

    Law makers often talk of going to war with farmers or pigmies, in the name of God, to stop the atrocities in that far off land, that our troops will, rape, plunder and murder in.

    Law makers and even poor scientists often bring out the most emotional of speeches and phrases. It does not mean that they mean them or will back them.

    I back what I say.


    Also he was a liar if only to himself if he went to politicians for help or change.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick
    Quote Originally Posted by HeebieJeebies

    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.


    -Bertrand Russel

    I am glad only the craziest person on this forum is already trying to falsify this correct theory of Super Relativity

    Greetings,
    Heebiejeebies

    No energy, just a change in velocity as I dive for the dirt. Ha-ha.

    That saying you quote is to be aimed at law makers. Not hard working types that share and learn everyday.


    Sincerely,
    William McCormick

    Bertrand Arthur William Russell (18 May 1872–2 February 1970), was a philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, and pacifist.

    A prolific writer, he was a populariser of philosophy and a commentator on a large variety of topics. Continuing a family tradition in political affairs, he was a prominent anti-war activist, championing free trade between nations and anti-imperialism.[1][2] He wrote the essay On Denoting and was co-author (with Alfred North Whitehead) of Principia Mathematica, an attempt to ground mathematics on the laws of logic. Both works have had a considerable influence on logic, set theory, linguistics and analytic philosophy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russel


    Why did you make another lie, William?
    BR is not a lawyer.

    Give me your velocity-energy equation then, if you're already so smart, William?

    Come on William?
    Can you even?

    ---------


    But the Theory of Super Relativity will explain exactly the speed of light, and how it even relates to the universal constants

    So you're saying you don't need a mathmatical, physical and metaphysical energy dimension to explain things like velocity when you don't even have the right frame of reference

    http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Undisc...ment&id=483994

    The Universal Constant chapter, with speed of light formulae,
    available within the next summer months...

    see "Status Update"
    for a status update
    http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directo...#Status_Update
    Relativity is a word. And it is from the Universal Scientists vocabulary. It was in just about one of every five sentences. When talking to intelligent individuals that wanted to quickly get information from a Universal Scientist. Often the individual would have an idea already formed. And it was not the truth or the reality.

    So as the Universal Scientist would try to quickly smash the students ideas, the student would sometimes start in with, well what about this, what about that.

    And the universal scientist would say yes relative to the movement of this other far off body, they are moving very quickly. But relative to the earths surface where they are located, they are not moving quickly. This could cause frustration, but it should have quickly made the student happy to have found out.

    I would squash super relativity with military might, in the name of God, and truly mean it, and stand by it. And offer up some real solid science instead. Stuff that every American could go downtown Washington DC with and get some good old fashioned George Washington Satisfaction.


    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by William McCormick again
    And the universal scientist would say yes relative to the movement of this other far off body, they are moving very quickly. But relative to the earths surface where they are located, they are not moving quickly. This could cause frustration, but it should have quickly made the student happy to have found out.

    I would squash relativity with military might, in the name of God, and truly mean it, and stand by it. And offer up some real solid science instead. Stuff that every American could go downtown Washington DC with and get some good old fashioned George Washington Satisfaction.
    Then I have some very good news for you.

    Relativity and local mechanics have been researched and publicized ever since 2006.





    If energy is only velocity does this not mean your god could not come to rest?

    (also known as the Mccormick-God paradox)




    now let's stick to science



    The SR Theory Model

    (http://www.superrelativity.org/flash...NF_Scroll.html)
    (http://peswiki.com/index.php/The_Cosmology_of_SR_Theory)


    The SR Theory model is a simple model that states the three primary forces of nature control everything.

    The Founding Principles and Core Structure of SR Theory

    1. God creates the Physical Universe from the spiritual realm. I believe that the Universe is too perfect and it works to well to not have been created by a Supreme Being. This of course cannot be proved or disproved as it is beyond the capability of physical beings to extend beyond our physical Universe to obtain the proof needed to verify this. We are at the point at which Science crosses over into the Spiritual Realm.


    2. The Universe is a self supporting system in which no more direct interaction is required by the Supreme Being to maintain the Universe. The physical laws have been cast and they are IMMUTABLE. This is supported by the fact that we have never observed violations of the laws of physics. For example, planets or stars suddenly appearing or disappearing, nothing travels faster than the speed of light, etc. Everything has a direct cause and effect. Not even God violates the rules he created. He does not in any way directly interfere with how the Universe functions.


    3. The Universe has no detectable beginning or end. This statement requires additional explaining as current scientific measurements indicate that there was a beginning to the Universe. The background microwave radiation detected is clear evidence that the Universe in its current incarnation did start about 15 billion years ago. SR Theory does not disagree with the idea that the Universe started at that time. What SR Theory suggests is that the Universe was restarted at that time, and it has been recycling and it will continue to recycle forever. In other words the Universe reincarnates or recycles itself every so many billions years.





    For all of these questions of how action-at-a-distance can occur so speedily you can see this gem


    The EPR Paradox ...

    (by Mark Michael Fiorentino)

    (http://www.superrelativity.org/flash/EPR_Scroll.html)

    By my definition, in order for any Reality Model or TOE theory to be successful it has to explain several paradoxes. One of the paradoxes that must be explained is the EPR paradox. This paradox was the most challenging of all the mysteries that I have attempted to explain. For the people who do not know of the EPR Paradox I will give a brief history of EPR followed by the solution to the Paradox
    In the world of Physics, the EPR paradox (which stands for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) is a thought experiment which in time turned into an actual experiment that was designed to prove that Quantum Theory violates classical intuitions and is therefore fundamentally flawed and incomplete.
    The EPR paradox draws on a phenomenon predicted by quantum mechanics, known as quantum entanglement, to show that measurements performed on spatially separated parts of a quantum system can apparently have an instantaneous influence on one another. This effect is now known as "nonlocal behavior" (or colloquially as "quantum weirdness").
    This is a most disturbing fact. To state it more precisely, if you emit from the same light source twin photons, photon A and photon B and these particles are phase correlated (means twin like) and you let them travel away from each other and separate by a great distance something amazing will happen. If you in some way observe and change some attribute of particle A and then measure particle B you will find that particle B has been affected by the change in Photon A. Particle B has changed instantaneously even though it is separated by a great distance. Some how, the particles are interconnected even though they are physically separated by a great distance. This definitely violates Einsteinian Relativity, information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light. How can information be transferred between any two objects at a speed greater than the speed of light?
    Although nowadays this little detail does not really seem to bother Quantum Mechanics enthusiasts it has not been physically explained. The results of EPR experiments are accurately predicted by Quantum Mechanical computations but how it happens has not been explained.
    This on the surface seems to support Quantum Mechanics. Most physicists today regard the EPR Paradox as an illustration of how Quantum Mechanics violates classical intuitions, and not as an indication that Quantum Mechanics is fundamentally flawed. Thats just a fancy way of saying that, yeah this phenomena makes no sense but thats ok with us.
    We have to stop settling for this laid back approach to solving the problems. The fact remains that this phenomena is completely unexplained.
    It needs to be understood and if quantum mechanics cannot explain it, it means that the theory is not a theory that describes physical reality. It is in some way incomplete. I believe that all quantum mechanics really is, is a tool that can be used to statistically predict sub-atomic particle behavior and events. It in no way should be used to describe physical reality.
    I will now attempt to define and explain precisely what is happening. Since changing Particle A instantaneously effects and changes particle B our physical reality must be adhering to the principle of locality. I know what you are thinking right now. We have two very distant objects and they are having an effect on one another therefore this is nonlocality.
    In reality although the particles are separated by a great distance spatially speaking I can prove in some respects the particles are not separated at all. So, therefore the photons are in reality a local system. Therefore the philosophical concept of causality is also enforce here and is not violated. Using the formulas in Relativity it can be proven that the particles are never separated. This solves the instantaneous communication problem.
    The problem we are having is that we are thinking 3 dimensionally when trying to solve this problem. We must think of this problem as a 4 dimensional problem. If photon A is traveling away from photon B at the speed of light and vice versa then we need to use Special Relativity's Addition of Velocities to compute their relative speed to each other.




    If you work out the math you will find that the photons are of course moving away from each other at the speed of light. This is important do not forget this.
    Any object traveling at this speed according to the Special Theory of Relativity should have an infinite mass and be infinitely small. While this does not seem to be the case with photons as they appear to have very little to no mass at all. Also time passage for objects traveling at the speed of light should be zero. The photon appears to have 2 out of 3 things going for it. Basically what is happening is that the photon has some of the characteristics of a ultra miniature Black Hole.
    If photon A looks at Photons B clock it will have stopped running. Also if Photon B looks at Photon's A clock it will not be moving as well. According to the equations of Special Relativity the photons should be locked in a single moment that lasts for an eternity.
    Although the equations of Special Relativity the Lorentz Transformations do not apply to the microscopic world of sub-atomic particles the equations of special relativity imply that photons should be locked in a single moment that lasts for an eternity. (See the Time Dilation effect.) Since each photon is traveling at the speed of light as so far as the rest of the Universe is concerned time has stopped for each of the photons, relative to any observer and relative to each other. Since there is no progress of time the value for time goes to zero. If the value of time=0, for both of the photons then by the equation Distance=Rate*Time. The distance separating the photons mathematically speaking goes to zero. 0=299,792,458*0 Yet, spatially speaking they are separated by millions of miles.
    The interconnectedness suggested by Bell's Theorem now has some form. This is required so that superluminal communication can take place. It can now be argued that the phase correlated twin photons in EPR can be considered not to be separated in time and therefore logically in some way not be separated in distance.
    The next point to be made is about the mass of the photon. Current thinking is that the photons mass is very small or perhaps massless. Once again though the Special Relativity equations state that mass increases to infinity when accelerated to the speed of light. The mass of the photon may also be much greater than we think. We can detect very little mass here in our immense macro world.
    We are not sure how small the photon really is if we take the present value of a blue photon with a Wavelength of 450nm we will have 2.76 ev of Energy and a calculated mass of 4.9201463754957630510059303811417e-36 Grams. The question I have is at what distance away from the center of the photon is the measurement being made. By the Inverse Square law F=1/r2 the main forces of Gravity Electrostatic an Magnetic all weaken as the field moves away from the center. If we move toward the center the field will increase in strength. How small is a photon? Its center and actual size could be for example 1.412 e-250 meters. The gravitational force at that distance will be immense. Since a photon is traveling at the speed of light the Lorentz contraction formula implies the size of the photon should be at zero or very close to zero.
    So if we use the inverse of the distance square law and begin calculating for new values as we get closer to the origin of the photon we will discover that the value for the mass will go up dramatically. Once again, this suggests that the photon is really and ultra small singularity. If this is true then we have established a method through which phase correlated photons can communicate instantaneously, via a wormhole.
    To summarize, we have particles that are phase correlated which means that any change to one will have a strong effect on the other. All matter in the Universe according to TSR is immersed in the solid construct of space. The photons have a direct link to each other via time and gravitational force. Any changes that occur with regard to spin polarization etc., are channeled through the wormhole like interconnection.
    They are essentially ultra small interconnected singularities. All matter and energy share this feature. The entire Universe is interconnected in this way. (Please see the article on Cosmology and SR Theory on this website for more information about this topic.) Therefore any change in orientation of photon A will be immediately applied to photon B. This will happen via a wormhole like interconnection within the medium of the solid spatial ether. The degree of effect that changing photon A has on Photon B is 100%. This is so because they are phase correlated. In SR Theory all matter and energy are connected in the Universe but the degree of the effect they have on each other is miniscule with non-phase correlated matter.
    At this point in the discussion locality and non-locality should be discussed. If you are unfamiliar with the term locality and what it means I will provide a brief simple definition.
    For more information I suggest reading about Bell's Theorem and check out this link for definitions of Locality. Basically, locality in physics means that force applied to an object that directly touches that object has an immediate effect on the object. For example a cue stick striking a cue ball is an example of direct cause and effect.
    On the other hand non-locality means that by some un-known mechanism an action on a object at one location immediately has an effect on another object at a far distant remote location. It should be noted that this phenomena can only be noticed for phase correlated sub atomic objects such as in the previous example of the twin photons. I believe that in actuality when speaking about the sub-atomic realm all particle interactions possess only local behavior.
    Subatomic behavior appears to be non local only because of our lack of understanding. Everything is connected.
    In summation when speaking about sub-atomic particle interactions, reality, especially where EPR is concerned, the superluminal interaction is mitigated by an interaction that is composed of a Local component (time is zero, because of the Lorentz addition of velocities transformation: therefore distance is zero gravitationally speaking via the wormhole superluminal interconnection). Even though their representational geometries are spatially separated by great distances an action at location A can immediately effect an object at a great distance away at Location B.


    This logical argument if true means that the mathematics of both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are insufficient to explain this phenomenon. Recognizing this I therefore ask the world at large for help in solving the riddle. This theory is a logical and physical Reality Model and therefore includes only a small amount of mathematics necessary to prove the theory. If you have understood what you have read in this article and have the interest and the proper background. You can become a co-author by contributing to this theory by placing the proper set of equations necessary to describe the above stated phenomena. This is one of several Requests for Equations that appear on this website. If you have knowledge of the needed equations please go to the contacts page and leave your contact information you will be contacted by email confirming your submission.
    Contacts Page



    If you can't understand it, at least try to try, Billy...


    Everybody else, you can also see the site-map for other SR articles,
    and the encylopedia article also.




    Greetings,

    HeebieJeebies
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •