It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


For those interested in Free Energy, does Otis T. Carr's Free Energy Principle comply with Physics?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 30 2009 @ 07:26 PM
does anyone know of any plans for one of these that the average joe could look at and build?

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:08 PM

Originally posted by ahnggk
The big question is, if anyone knows the formula or can calculate.

How much RPM is needed for a 1ft diameter disc to trigger the effects??

I think I have come across this theory already, and mentioned something about 100,000 RPM... That is ridiculously impractical, but I want to be sure..

Tesla : The Lost Inventions by George Trinkau

Tesla wrote of an antigravity motor in 1900.
A disk would have a screen to block gravity so gravity powers
the disk and also states how the gravity screen would levitate
a vehicle.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by Johnmike

JohnMike videos can help those like yourself, because you haven't read any books.

[edit on 31-5-2009 by RussianScientists]

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 08:28 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

i don't remember asking this, but did you read that entire RexResearch page? and have you watched/read that Ralph Ring interview?

i mean, i'm not majoring in particle physics or quantum mechanics or anything, but what they talk about really makes a lot of sense. i love science, and have always been more partial to science than other subjects, so i'm no dummy.

also, if this means anything, my college Physics professor was a former rocket scientist for NASA - i just wish i had known about this stuff back then, or else i would have thoroughly asked him about it!

i wonder if this'll help you: the "attractive inertial mass", in this case, is the Earth itself...

"Any vehicle accelerated to an axis rotation relative to its attractive inertial mass, immediately becomes activated by free-space-energy and acts as an independent force..."

in other words:
"any object, spun on its axis relative to the earth's spin, becomes activated by free energy"

let's say we were on an asteroid, and wanted to make this craft... if the asteroid has a magnetic field, and an orbital spin, then all we'd have to do is relatively scale that spin down, and match the equivalent of that spin for the craft - once the scalar rotation (relative to the spin of the asteroid) is reached, supposedly the object will become it's own force, independent of the gravity of the asteroid, and begin to lift...

it also helps to know that all gravity is, is atmospheric pressure (in Earth's case - 14.7lbs/sq. in.), and all you need to have gravity, is some sort of atmosphere - i believe John Lear talks about this some...

moreover, it helps further to understand that everything spins naturally, as is the way of the universe - be it charged particles, to the water flushing down your toilet, to even solar systems revolving around galaxies, there is a natural spin for all matter!

whether i'm completely wrong or not about this "pseudo-science" as you call it, don't you want to know if it's true?? i mean, wouldn't you really wanna know if free energy exists?! it might help to accept the information for what it is, and apply or test it, instead of bashing the scientist (or the messenger) who discovered it, calling him crazy - i'm sure Nikola Tesla knows what that feels like, and that label certainly doesn't help Otis T. Carr, who was one of Tesla's students...

read all of the RexResearch page, and please let me know what you think!

the best way i can put it, is that it just makes sense...

science should be simple, because nature isn't complicated!

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:27 PM
reply to post by RussianScientists

Since you couldn't be bothered to post anything constructive, I respectfully suggest that you adopt a more passive stance when the adults are speaking.

reply to post by adrenochrome

I can't reply to everything and I couldn't read the whole thing -- could you suggest particular excerpts?

Originally posted by adrenochrome
it also helps to know that all gravity is, is atmospheric pressure (in Earth's case - 14.7lbs/sq. in.), and all you need to have gravity, is some sort of atmosphere - i believe John Lear talks about this some...

This is wrong. Completely wrong. Absolutely, unconditionally wrong. Gravity is a force between two bodies due to mass. Period. If this were the case, gravity in a vacuum would not exist, and a feather would in fact weigh less than a stone of the same mass. Gravity is simply a mass between two forces, unrelated in any way to atmospheric pressure.

Originally posted by adrenochrome
let's say we were on an asteroid, and wanted to make this craft... if the asteroid has a magnetic field, and an orbital spin, then all we'd have to do is relatively scale that spin down, and match the equivalent of that spin for the craft - once the scalar rotation (relative to the spin of the asteroid) is reached, supposedly the object will become it's own force, independent of the gravity of the asteroid, and begin to lift...

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't make any sense. Where's the lift coming from? If you take the frame of reference as the asteroid, there must be a force pointing away from the surface of the asteroid for this to happen.

And, less importantly:

Originally posted by adrenochrome
whether i'm completely wrong or not about this "pseudo-science" as you call it, don't you want to know if it's true?? i mean, wouldn't you really wanna know if free energy exists?! it might help to accept the information for what it is, and apply or test it, instead of bashing the scientist (or the messenger) who discovered it, calling him crazy - i'm sure Nikola Tesla knows what that feels like, and that label certainly doesn't help Otis T. Carr, who was one of Tesla's students...

It doesn't matter what I want to be true. It's what is true. Carr was a fraud and a con artist and a criminal who invented these claims for personal gain. And even if he wasn't, then every one of his claims is subject to the same scientific scrutiny as those of anyone else...and they just don't hold up. They don't make any scientific sense at all. Free energy is great, new energy is great, but making ridiculous claims without knowing what you're talking about is simply the work of deception, and it makes it even harder to pick out those who are, in fact, on to something.

Tesla was a brilliant man with brilliant ideas, who revolutionized modern engineering through his inventions. Carr, sadly, was not, at least from what sources of his "work" remain. I suggest that you find something else to look for if you want to be infatuated, such as a real scientist.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:22 AM

Originally posted by Johnmike

Originally posted by adrenochrome
it also helps to know that all gravity is, is atmospheric pressure (in Earth's case - 14.7lbs/sq. in.), and all you need to have gravity, is some sort of atmosphere - i believe John Lear talks about this some...

This is wrong. Completely wrong. Absolutely, unconditionally wrong. Gravity is a force between two bodies due to mass. Period. If this were the case, gravity in a vacuum would not exist, and a feather would in fact weigh less than a stone of the same mass. Gravity is simply a mass between two forces, unrelated in any way to atmospheric pressure.

wow, that's what i get for sleeping 2 hours and then working 9!

i totally worded that wrong!!

what i meant to say is, without gravity, there is no atmosphere, though that doesn't have much to do with the OP now that i think about it...

in the RexResearch article, O.T.C. mentions how in order to provide gravity in his pressurized cabin in his craft, he needs to set it to Earth's atmospheric pressure - this is what confused me a bit... as far as he describes, all you need to create gravity in an independent system (his craft), when outside of the gravitational pull of an object (planet) in a vacuum, is a pressure similar to Earth's within a sealed cabin

OTC: Very simply, we can fall at a very slow velocity of 100 feet/minute or less and we can set it down as gently as a feather because we have joined part of the operation of our craft to universal systems. This is a relative velocity craft and the minute it reaches the relative velocity of the attractive inertial mass, it becomes weightless as regards this inertial attraction. Individually, it is not weightless; it has the same weight as before, but when it reaches the relative location it becomes an independent system just as a planet is an independent system.

LJ: Is there any gravitational pull at this point, sir?

OTC: None whatsoever. They will have the same feeling of pressure or weight that they have right now because we will maintain as far as possible the atmospheric pressure of the earth at sea level inside the craft.

LJ: I am under the impression that the only reason I'm able to sit in this chair is because of gravitational pull.

OTC: We have around 14 lb/square inch pressure within our atmosphere. We have been able to be sealed off away from such a condition and then artificially with atmospheric pressure the pressure in the cabin is maintained. We have it very well in submarines. The same may be used in our craft.

LJ: In other words, under sea where a submarine may be there is no gravitational pull; is that what you're saying?

OTC: There is gravitational pull at all times, but we are speaking about the atmosphere of the occupants inside a sealed unit.

LJ: Is that necessary to keep the occupants in the position they desire?

OTC: Absolutely, because in a vacuum they are at the mercy of any velocity.

LJ: What would happen, sir, if there were some kind of instrument that you could turn on and eliminate the gravitational pull that was in this room?

OTC: You would in a sense become very buoyant and this is not in itself a novelty but it certainly does not have any disastrous effect on humanity.

LJ: Would I remain in this position?

OTC: You could, but any movement would move you out of it.

LJ: Would objects remain in position?

OTC: Until they were brought into any movement. Any movement would make them buoyant themselves.

LJ: I have a lead pencil; if I hold it in the air and release my fingers it would fall because of gravitational pull. If we had this other condition which you so aptly described a moment ago, if I released my fingers would the pencil remain in midair?

OTC: This is true; it would stay there.

LJ: I believe what you're saying is that you'd be creating an artificial gravitational field within the body of the spacecraft and yet there would not be any gravity on the outside?

OTC: Exactly correct.

LJ: And this is done by the battery which I attempted to describe, spinning around and producing its own gravitational influence?

OTC: Yes, this is the beginning of an answer to your question: we have capacitor plates and electromagnets as a part of this system. Now, this is counter-rotating; the electromagnets rotate in one direction, and the batteries rotate in another. The capacitor plates rotate in conjunction with the battery so that we have a clockwise and counterclockwise rotation. Now the third system is the cabin that maintains the crew. This does not rotate; it is fixed due to the fact that the two bodies are rotating clockwise and counterclockwise. Therefore the system causes the craft to escape from the gravity pull. The craft itself due to this system still has internal gravity because it still has the same weight that it had in the beginning.

maybe i misunderstood him there, but that's what i got from it... all i can say, is read the article so we can be on the proverbial same page!

basically though, we're still not exactly sure what gravity is and how exactly it works, other than that larger objects seem to retain more gravity - we're still studying what gravity is...

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:44 AM
reply to post by adrenochrome

I won't hold it against you, no worries. I've heard some pretty wild explanations for gravity though!

I read the excerpt you posted and still have no clue how he says he's creating an upward force, I'll reread it tomorrow (I've been trying to sleep and failed, so I got up to check my e-mail just now). Gravity is an elusive thing though, quantum gravity remains a big problem in quantum physics. It is perfectly well established that it's a property of mass, though, and is inversely proportional to the square of distance.

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

you wanna hear something weird??

last night before i went to bed, i was looking at gravity, quantum mechanics, and physics, right? well, i shut the pc down, get into bed with my wife, and then i get back up to turn the TV off.

my wife sometimes likes the TV on, to put her to sleep, and just as i was about to turn it off, she said leave it on for a while.

well this show "In Plain Sight" was on, and the episode was called "One Night Stan". well there was only a few minutes left of the episode, and as soon as i lay down, i hear something like this from the main character on the show:

"i once dated a quantum physicist. i tried asking him to explain how gravity works - not what it is - but how it truly works; some time between entree and dessert he called me a 'Bitch' and stormed out..."

i'm like, did i just hear that right?!!

so i rewound it on my DVR, and sure enough something close, and even more elaborate, than those words were said...

seriously, look up that episode, if you can find it!

...that's how my life works, though - this isn't uncommon for me...

EDIT: i'm not surprised that i posted this at 1:11pm either

[edit on 1-6-2009 by adrenochrome]

posted on Jun, 1 2009 @ 01:52 PM
ok, i just watched the tail end of that episode, and here's what she says:

i once dated a man who taught quantum physics.

i learned two things that night - the first being, if you ask a quantum physicist to explain how gravity works - not what it is, not how it behaves, but how it works - he will first talk himself in circles, then, wind up crying, and finally, some time between entree and dessert, call you a "bitch " and leave.

this is said within the last 3.5 minutes left in that episode (Season 2, Episode 6 "One Night Stan")

you can imagine my jaw dropping when i heard this, because i was looking at quantum gravity again on wikipedia right before i shut down my pc and brushed my teeth...

i sat in bed, then, thinking my wife was asleep, i got back up to turn the TV off, but she said to leave it on for a bit. then, the second i lay down and close my eyes, i hear this.

keep in mind, that that last few hours before bed last night, i was researching all descriptions of gravity, quantum mechanics, and quantum physics...

i can't tell you how many times i'll be thinking something, and then i'll hear it or see it on TV. this instance, though, was one of the better examples!

ok now, back to the thread!

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 08:12 AM
reply to post by Johnmike

Johnmike help out making discoveries on this subject.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by RussianScientists]

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

The problem you are having is you are "married" to the laws of physics because of what you have been taught. What they haven't taught you is they are theory, much of which is just speculation. The evidence that does support those theories is rarely conclusive.

Just because you don't understand or never heard the terms being used does not mean they are invalid. many times terms are coined by the inventor himself because he is developing phenomenans that have never been done before, therefore the design, actions of the system etc. have never been defined.

Here is a little perspective for you. Aristotle(?I think) theorized a 10lb. rock would fall faster than a 1lb. rock. For 2000 years this was accepted as scientific fact. It wasn't until Galileo actually performed the experiment that the truth was known.

[edit on 2-6-2009 by mhc_70]

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by RussianScientists

easy now!

don't get your posts censored too!

it's ok, as far as i know, he's just trying to be the skeptic/devil's advocate, and i consider it a challenge to prove him wrong, especially if i think that O.T.C. is right!

personally, i'm still not sure, but i'm trying my best to figure it out - i'm not gonna rule it out just yet, because the man had a lot to say, and he wasn't incredibly specific!

reply to post by Johnmike

as for them generating lift, well, Ralph Ring's interview deals with that...

as far as i understand, once the free energy is activated, it doesn't automatically rise (which is what i thought the first time i read this) - it just sits idle, so to speak, and is ready for you to tell it where to go (i'm assuming this now, bare with me)

the reason i think this, is because in Ring's interview, he mentions how they (possibly?) used alien technology to enable movement in the craft, in such that it's not just controls, but instead you use your mind to move it:

Ralph: And so we got onboard and what it was there onboard was just like a small crystal ball in the center. (It wasn't actually in the center. It was off center a little bit.) And it had a... I think it was a laser; I don't know. But there was a white light coming up from the bottom of it, shining up through it. And it just beautifully broke the color spectrum from infrared, red-red, orange-orange, yellow-yellow, all the way around 360 degrees. Anywhere you wanted to go, any degree you wanted to go in, the color spectrum was there. I thought, "Boy. That's beautiful!" And we'd been briefed on it but until I saw it I didn't realize what was going on.

And he said, "OK. Just relax. We're gonna go to an area that symbolizes..." (He used to use symbols a lot. I mean, he'd say, you know, "Talking is useless. You have to use higher-than-talking symbols to reach the mind.")

Voss: Thinking in pictures.

Ralph: In pictures. Right. In fact, off the subject for a minute, when I used to read a lot one of my greatest people was Kahlil Gibran. He wrote the book, The Prophet, and in there one of his sayings was, "Half of what I say to you is meaningless, but it's necessary so that the other half may reach you."

And I thought, "Oh, now I get it. You have to come from the soul or the heart or it's no good. It's just goin' around in circles."

Kerry: Was there something about choosing the blue spectrum in order to...

Ralph: Aquamarine. We were in touch. I don't know if we had walkie-talkies, but I remember that we were in touch, and he said, "OK. We're going to aquamarine. That's over there. [gestures right] Hang on, boys, let's go." So we set there. I'm just doing this from memory...

Voss: So you're all collectively focusing the same collective thought, to feed this energy into a center focal point which is the ball.

Ralph: Right. And this ball, then, started just closing down [with hands demonstrates a sphere getting smaller] and focusing on aquamarine. The whole thing became aquamarine. "My god, how did he do that?" He told us later that we were a part of doing it because we were focused on it. I thought, "Oh, oh, oh, this is great!"

Voss: Like a biofeedback mechanism is synergistic.

Ralph: Yeah! So we got focused on it and then I was waiting for the thing to move now. And nothing seemed to happen.
And then Carr said, "OK, boys, get out of the craft and see what's goin' on."
"Didn't it work, or what happened?"
He said, "Come on. Get out of the craft."

We got out and we were down range 10 miles where this aquamarine area was.

Voss: I'm guessing that this whole process, you're talking about probably a few minutes.

Ralph: Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'll get to the timing in a minute.
So he said, "All right. Pick up rocks. Put 'em in your pocket. Take some grass or whatever you can find. Some tumbleweed. Whatever you can find and get acquainted with where you're at. Because when you get back you're not gonna remember any of this."
That was the gist of the whole thing. So we did, and we got back on board and then [makes sound of fast movement] we were back.
And we got out of the craft, went in to debriefing, and said, "Well, what happened? It didn't work, did it?"
"You don't think it worked? Check your pockets."
And so we checked our pockets. And here's these dang rocks. I had grass stains, I had everything. I said, "Oh my god."

Voss: But you didn't have memory of this?

Ralph: No memory. No memory at all. I remembered later, being there and picking up the rocks. It was just like...

Voss: Like it was a dream or something.

Ralph: Like it was a dream. Exactly. You advance your imagination to a point and then you'd forget about it.
And so I thought, "This is the most incredible experience I've ever had."
And he said, "No, no, it's simple. Your brain is there to operate your body. You're in a vessel here. It's an illusionary vessel that people don't realize because we're creating it in microseconds. From one second to the other these shutters are opening and shutting, creating all this reality you see around you, but it doesn't really exist. It's all spirit. It's all energy, but we're creating it."
And he was blowing us away.
But he said, "Your brain has a capacity limit. It goes to a certain point of its responsibility and unless it's in touch with the Mind, unless it consents to be in touch with the Mind..."

actually, it's better if you watch the video interview, because i find it nicer to see his body language and to read his movements and expressions, in order to tell if he's lying, acting, or just plain telling the truth. ...i'm very good at reading body language...

even though i posted his video already on the last page, here it is again:

Google Video Link

please watch the entire thing, or at least read the transcript, and somehow find the time to read the whole RexResearch page, so we can properly discuss this!

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 01:16 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

also, does this help??

Did the craft fly? "Fly is not the right word. It traversed distance. It seemed to take no time. I was with two other engineers when we piloted the 45' craft about ten miles. I thought it hadn't moved – I thought it had failed. I was completely astonished when we realized that we had returned with samples of rocks and plants from our destination. It was a dramatic success. It was more like a kind of teleportation.

"What's more, time was distorted somehow. We felt we were in the craft about fifteen or twenty minutes. We were told afterwards that we'd been carefully timed as having been in the craft no longer than three or four minutes. I still have no complete idea how it worked. We just built it exactly according to Carr's instructions. Everything had to be perfect... it all had to be just so, or it he said it would not work: a kind of symbiotic state between man and machine.

"The Utron was the key to it all. Carr said it accumulated energy because of its shape, and focused it, and also responded to our conscious intentions. When we operated the machine, we didn't work any controls. We went into a kind of meditative state and all three of us focused our intentions on the effect we wanted to achieve. It sounds ridiculous, I know. But that's what we did, and that's what worked. Carr had tapped into some principle which is not understood, in which consciousness melds with engineering to create an effect. You can't write that into equations. I have no idea how he knew it would work. But it did.


"I've heard that the aliens use the same principle to operate their craft. Their physics seems to work in harness with their consciousness. The craft amplifies the power of their minds. Their craft won't operate without the pilots. I've heard that's why we can't operate their craft – or, at any rate, we can't operate them the way they do. We're just not adept enough mentally and spiritually. So there are two secrets to making the saucers work. One is the advanced engineering, and the other is the mental and spiritual ability. We may have duplicated some of the first, but we may be a long way from the second yet."


--"You must always work with Mother Nature. Force is never necessary. The laws of the physical universe are really very simple."
Ralph Ring, interviewed by Kerry Cassidy, August 2006

-- "You are assuming that ET crafts are made with our technology... Many years ago, we made that same mistake and it took us several years to correct the mistake and start fresh from the drawing board. Their technology is nothing similar to ours... We started from scratch and learned their principles of dynamics, physics, etc... The ET craft was manufactured using ET technology. This craft was built many years before we developed flight. They used a different physics principle that we still don't fully understand... I've worked on this project for 12 years and I sometimes call myself dumb because I try to compare the craft with our technology. Doing that is dumb, as all who have worked on the craft over the years have come to understand."
Los Alamos National Laboratories physicist, quoted in Exempt from Disclosure, by Robert Collins

- "The pilots... knew they were going very fast, but it was so fast that they saw things stand still in time... At first our pilots could not interface with the craft. The Alien Life Form corrected the problem with three fingers on the globe panel. Then the wave formed and the craft began to cooperate and generate lift..."
James Jesus Angleton (CIA), quoted in Exempt from Disclosure, by Robert Collins

-- "The vehicle was simply an extension of their own bodies because it was tied into their neurological systems…"
Col. Philip J. Corso, The Day After Roswell

i know, i know, this can't be proven, but it might account for some of the "unknowns"

i don't wanna turn this thread into something that tries to prove the existence of aliens... i guess i can't say anything to get one to believe, except that you'd have to be pretty darn ignorant and arrogant to think that we're the only life in the universe, especially with around 400 billion stars in our own galaxy, and with at least 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe... we can't be alone...

...and then there's the thousands of UFO sightings every year...

actually, for the sake of this thread, let's assume that they do exist, whether you believe it or not, just to see if the technology alone can work in and of itself

[edit on 2-6-2009 by adrenochrome]

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by mhc_70

Mhc_70 you are the "Man" or the "Woman"; since I'm not sure which gender that you are. You are absolutely correct in your thinking, and I've never seen someone state the facts in so short of a context.

Many people that invent or discover stuff create new names for the stuff that pertains to their discoveries. Without people doing actual experiments to prove scientists right or wrong in their theories, then lots of people just believe in something that isn't true.

An A+ for you my friend, and a star!

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 07:02 PM
reply to post by adrenochrome

Thanks for the "easy now" adrenochrome, I needed that! A star for you my friend!

posted on Jun, 2 2009 @ 09:10 PM
Thanks RussianScientists!

To the OP: No physists with a degree is going to come on here a give an biased opinion, but thats my opinion.

Finding reason that it would work would contradict everthing their five-figure education taught them. The only way to really know is to experiment.

Inertial propulsion is fairly simple to develop...

In both of these systems, the inertial force is a by-product that occurs when a mass orbiting its own axis is also placed in orbit of the whole system. No matter how much thrust you generate, the same force is required to spin the ball or mechanical gears. The amount of inertial force is directly proportianate to the speed and wieght of the mass orbiting its own axis and the axis of the whole system.

Place either of these in the center of a gyroscope, that is mounted on the ring orbiting the craft, add say 15 more and, with a fast enough computer, it would give inertial thrust 360 deg. and 3 dimensionally. The direction of thrust could also be pointed in the direction of the orbiting ring to provide a constant force keeping it spinning. Any number of systems could be used to generate electricty from the orbiting ring in order to provide power for the whole system. We have inertial thrust and a endless supply of power.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by mhc_70

can you explain in layman's terms how these work exactly?

other than that, i did happen to find some videos...

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by adrenochrome

Some of the vidoes you posted I could not explain without experimenting them myself. Seeing it on video and seeing it person can be compared to seeing a fence at 100' on a sunny as oposed to a white out blizzard.

So lets look at the first one I posted again..

Whats happening is radial momentum is being transferred to the track of the system when the ball reaches the 3 o'clock position. At 3:00 the ball is contacting the rails near its outer most diameter. At 9:00 the ball is contacting the rails near its smallest diameter, which means the ball must spin much faster to travel x distance, because the diameter that is contacting the rails is much smaller. As the ball goes from 9:00 to 6:00 the track begins to narrow and the ball speeds up due to increased radial dimension that is contacting the rails. A 6" ball will roll x inches in one revolution, a 12" ball will roll twice as far. The points the ball is contacting the rails is the key. What cahanges here is the speed the ball spins in one orbit of the system. From 9:00 to 3:00 the radial dimension is increased so the speed is increased and the force against the track is also increased. from 3:00 to 9:00 the radial dimension is decreased so the ball slows down and radial momentum is transferred back to the ball.

You can take an identical system, except the rails the ball contacts are parallel causing no inertial force and both systems will require the same amount amount of input to spin the ball. The inertial force is a by-product(probably better term for it) of the forces of nature.

posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 10:00 PM
Still won't cause linear translation. You can make it oscillate a bit though, like a lop-sided centrifuge or horizontal washing machine. That's basically the limit of what you can do with this.

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by Johnmike

i believe the key component, the unknown, in this case, has to do with the Utron device onboard the craft...

it didn't make much since the first time i read it myself, but O.T.C. has apparently figured out...

Otis Carr claimed to have discovered what he called the "Utron", a "molecular shell" that houses the atoms. The cohesion of molecular shells is brought about by inertial systems in the gravity field, manifesting in the two poles of natural magnetism and electromagnetism. He claimed that by "hatching" the atomic egg, particularly of paramagnetic and diamagnetic elements (especially bismuth), atomic energy could be released gently.

This [the Utron] is a dimensional product. It was designed with the dimensions of space itself. We say it is truly the geometric form of space, because it is completely round and completely square. It has been proven in scientific laboratories that the very smallest unit of mass matter ever photographed in the electron microscope are square in shape... We have applied this principle into an electrified system, which is the power core of our space vehicle. Now what makes this unique and novel from a battery is the fact that this is a piece of moving machinery that rotates. Our average storage battery is an inanimate object set in an inertial spot and then the electromotive force is conducted by wires from this battery to animate some object.

The equation is brought about by the shape of our Utron electrical accumulator; this is the name given to our central power system. In our operation of working models and in checking out experiments, we had to find the formula that fir the reason for the action and reaction we were getting. So in exploring nature and studying the great inspirational work of the Dr. Einstein on relativity, we came upon this formula of linear correlation. And when we study linear correlation in geometric form we have to have a starting point and this is the point. And from there it explains through the cross and through the circle. And the only mathematical way we can express it is in the symbolism of zero X or 0X, and this formula brings us to that. We claim that this is the true unified field theory in physical practice.

All energy comes from these two cones [Utron]. This in vernacular is a battery. The big novelty is that we have put a battery in motion. We have designed it within the accepted knowledge of total dimensions of space-matter and we have activated it electrochemically [electrolyte in the hollow center] and used the force through chemical activation to activate the entire craft, after which we have motion as the feature of this accumulator.

Colton: "Utron" is a coined word, a word Mr Carr put together: the letter "U" and "tron", U meaning the direction or shape of motion as applied and used and equated in this accumulator or battery we described -- U is the plane, the geometrical figure that is the portrait of the wave, you might say. The letter U as described on paper, the two-dimensional, is a portrait on paper of the wave or the wave motion with the cut field, with the straight line, the pressure energy in the Utron accelerator.

OTC: To me there's no such thing as a completed curve; you only go half way, just like you only go half way into the woods, then you're coming out. This is the same. A bisection of a total sphere is its exact curve and one half of it is primarily U-shaped. Because in magnets there are always two poles and one normal way to show them is in a U-shape, but if it's in a bar magnet, there are still two poles and the shape is still the same. We can only put a rope one half way around the tree and it's coming back the other way, and this is true in all wave motion. Now, if you extend this into velocity, this is the pattern in the sine wave and definitely the electromagnetic wave.

Q: Of what value is the term "completely round and completely square" apart from its obvious redundancy.

Colton: It is Carr's definition of the geometry or the basic space form or the basic form of all matter large or small relatively as we describe it. It is the definition of the terminal motions of universal energies in what we call space.

"In any universal system, these motions and directions manifest their finite totality in what we call space, and describe their total form in what we call straight lines and curves, the geometry of which is expressed in a finite form whose dimensions are a constant correlation of the directions and motions. We have equated the shape of this universal space and translated it into physical form which we have called the Utron Electrical Accumulator, which expresses the linear correlation of space motions and directions in a form that is therefore completely round and completely square.

"In its linear proportions the Utron Electrical Accumulator is the union of straight lines brought together in and from all directions, and in its correlation of and with curved lines it expands from a point to the circumference of its equator and contracts from that equator to a point, always being a correlation of complete curves. The aim of these linear correlative dimensions is three points, the exact center point of which is +0 and -0, the exact peripheral points of which are +X and -X.

The space ship designer then mathematically points out his theory:

-0 / +0 = 0

-X / +X = X

0 + X = 0X

watcha think 'bout them apples?

confused yet?!

[edit on 5-6-2009 by adrenochrome]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in