Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

"Vortex Based Mathematics by Marko Rodin"

page: 204
39
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by Mary Rose
 


To highlight the error in logic. If dark matter set our physical matter in place with its density, then these clusters wouldn't escape.


Do you have a calculation ready to prove your point?

I won't hold my breath.


'Point' being the key word in reference to image. A better question is... What is your theory? I've clearly stated mine which accounts for the cluster pass-through. It also provides a better explanation of black holes as inversion points rather than what you'd copy and paste off wikipedia. Not to confuse you with Arb.

I've full court pressed you a couple of times. You were all talk until the game confounded the mainstream, and then you retired to warm the bench.




posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Speaking of clusters... Makes you wonder what else has been missed:

Galaxy Cluster Hidden in Plain View


www.sciencedaily.com...

Original Thread



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Hopefully this guy got something ...we'll have to wait and see with an open mind.


The YouTuber is Skycollection. There's an article about him on pesn.com: "The Many Exotic Coils of SkyCollection":


Jorge Rebolledo C. of Mexico is the founder of the organization SkyCollection, and seeks to use compressed starship coils based on Rodin math for energy applications. He has built many prototype systems that appear to produce very interesting effects, and may eventually lead to overunity energy production.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
A better question is... What is your theory?


Bravo.

A central conflict on this thread. The appeals to safe, established, (censored) authority vs. the open, creative, self-directed thinkers.



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
'Point' being the key word in reference to image. A better question is... What is your theory? I've clearly stated mine which accounts for the cluster pass-through.


This is what a physicist said in the quoted source:

"No single theory explains the different behavior of dark matter in those two collisions. We need more examples."


And I respect that. There is a lot of mysterious stuff going on and you need data to explain it. There are rare and hard to reproduce events all over, in physics research, and what scientists do collect more data and revise theories to see how it all may fit together. Of course there is a shortcut, where some pompous fool does a little hand waving, provides no math and proudly declares that his "theory" is superior to all others. Bleh.


I've full court pressed you a couple of times. You were all talk until the game confounded the mainstream, and then you retired to warm the bench.


Yeah, I know you like to congratulate yourself, indulge!



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by edmc^2
Hopefully this guy got something ...we'll have to wait and see with an open mind.


The YouTuber is Skycollection. There's an article about him on pesn.com: "The Many Exotic Coils of SkyCollection":


Jorge Rebolledo C. of Mexico is the founder of the organization SkyCollection, and seeks to use compressed starship coils based on Rodin math for energy applications. He has built many prototype systems that appear to produce very interesting effects, and may eventually lead to overunity energy production.


Quite fascinating the things he came out with. Hopefully it will lead to something useful.

One thing though that I think is a mistake / a misnomer - calling the Rodin Coil a OverUnity device or FreeEnergy device. They should stop using these terminologies because it is not - as it needs power in order for it to work.

This imho in addition to the amazing claims made by Mr. Rodin is what's causing people not to have an open mind.

But to me it's a Hybrid Coil with unique properties not found on any existing coils and it's these unique properties that we need to fully understand in order for it to be useful.

tc



posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
One thing though that I think is a mistake / a misnomer - calling the Rodin Coil a OverUnity device or FreeEnergy device. They should stop using these terminologies because it is not - as it needs power in order for it to work.


So you are saying that Rodin is full of it? In fact, Mary seconds what Rodin is saying, in that the coil sucks in aether on one end and exudes energy from the other. What do you think of that? Mary also mentioned that there are two counter-rotating streams of aether inside the coil. What's your take on that powerful stream of aether?


But to me it's a Hybrid Coil with unique properties not found on any existing coils


I'm curious about what you call "unique". You or I can manufacture a coil in the shape of a Moroccan lamp (I love those) and its magnetic field will be unique compared to, say, a humble solenoid. Is that what you meant? Or do you mean that the coil functions in a way inexplicable by the science of electromagnetism?



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





So you are saying that Rodin is full of it?


Nope. I said "amazing claims" just like Tesla during his time. You're the who's saying "Rodin is full of it", not me.


In fact, Mary seconds what Rodin is saying, in that the coil sucks in aether on one end and exudes energy from the other. What do you think of that?


Maybe it does maybe it doesn't - who knows? Do you know it doesn't? If you do good for you.

Meh - I don't know. I'm more interested in the magnetic field it creates.


Mary also mentioned that there are two counter-rotating streams of aether inside the coil. What's your take on that powerful stream of aether?


Maybe it does maybe it doesn't but according to some people they think and believe it does.

Meh - based on the experiments that I've seen conducted by folks - it appears to exhibit counter-rotating streams of magnetic field.




I'm curious about what you call "unique". You or I can manufacture a coil in the shape of a Moroccan lamp (I love those) and its magnetic field will be unique compared to, say, a humble solenoid. Is that what you meant?


it appears to exhibit counter-rotating streams of magnetic field.

As for your Moroccan lamp - without a good wiring pattern like the Rodin's, it'll probably gonna bomb as the magnetic it will generate will be uniquely garbage, unusable. Maybe that's the reason why there's no Moroccan lamp coil - but good luck building it.




Or do you mean that the coil functions in a way inexplicable by the science of electromagnetism?


I don't know about inexplicable but maybe this guy in the YT vid below has an idea what's goin' on.



tc



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
I don't know about inexplicable but maybe this guy in the YT vid below has an idea what's goin' on.


The description:


Uploaded by syberraith on Dec 10, 2009

This part wraps up my commentary on the Rodin Coil. It presents my ideas and issues about what may be happening in the vortex of the coil.

Omissions: I forgot to mention that I call this a Pseudo Einstein-Rosen Bridge because both ends are in the same universe.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
One thing though that I think is a mistake / a misnomer - calling the Rodin Coil a OverUnity device or FreeEnergy device. They should stop using these terminologies because it is not - as it needs power in order for it to work.


I'm not sure you're right about that.

Read this from Col. Tom Bearden's website and tell me what you think. This is from his glossary:


OVERUNITY COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE

More energy out or work out of a system than the operator or experimenter must himself or herself furnish and input.

An open thermodynamic system far from thermodynamic system is permitted to achieve such an overunity performance, so any overunity electrodynamic system must be such. Well-known nonelectromagnetic examples are solar cells, heat pumps, windmills, sails on sailboats, waterwheels for powering watermills, a gliding bird in thermal updrafts, etc. A well-known electromagnetic example is the common solar cell. The common household heat pump has a theoretical COP limit of 8.22, and well-designed units usually achieve some 4.0 or so, so long as the ambient environment does not change too drastically from the design limits. As the environment changes and cools down appreciably, however, most home heat pumps lose efficiency and have to switch onto heating strips, which have a COP » 1.0.

Contrary to prevailing belief, it is certainly possible to have EM systems which are also open thermodynamic systems, far from equilibrium, and freely receiving excess energy (asymmetrically regauging a potential) from an external source, to wit, their violent virtual flux exchange between the vacuum and the system. All EM system are already open systems in the virtual particle flux exchange with vacuum; that is already well-known in particle physics, even though the 130-year-old classical electrodynamics does not even include the vacuum-mass exchange. The only question, then, is how to establish an asymmetry in that vacuum-mass flux exchange. Here again, every electrical charge and every dipole is already just such a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux, as has been known in particle physics for four decades! It takes on the average about 50 years, however, for vital discoveries in one discipline to "cross fertilize" into another discipline. At any rate, the symmetry of every electric power system, in the vacuum flux, is already broken in its source dipole. This rigorously means that, if we simply avoid doing something we are doing in our power systems to restore symmetry as a matter of course, it is possible to utilize the free broken symmetry of the source dipole to provide an overunity EM system.

In 1996 I showed that such overunity EM systems are permitted and prescribed by Maxwell's theory, prior to the arbitrary imposition of symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell equations (i.e., the Lorentz condition). Violation of the Lorentz condition (by asymmetrical self-regauging) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an overunity EM device. An asymmetric regauging will certainly give us excess free energy in the system, and an excess force to use that energy in translating against a load impedance to do work, if we design the system properly to do just that.

To achieve overunity, in a circuit one must prevent the (presently universal) re-imposition of the Lorentz condition by the use of one-half the excess received energy to drive the return electrons from the load back through the back emf of the source, killing the gate and restoring symmetry, the Lorentz condition, and equilibrium between vacuum flux and system. All our present EM systems are specifically designed to drive those electrons back through the back emf and thus restore symmetry, deliberately asymmetrically self-regauging a second time and deliberately restoring the Lorentz condition, along with deliberately killing the source dipole's asymmetry in the vacuum flux exchange.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

I forgot to mention that I call this a Pseudo Einstein-Rosen Bridge because both ends are in the same universe.


The Einstein-Rosen Bridge has been mentioned before:

From page 54:


Originally posted by beebs
I am describing the functional, cohere state of nature as a vibrating wave structure of space. The point like object is like an extremely dense wave center in cymatics, and perhaps bends space time to a certain extent in order to 'ripple' out giving us the structure we see. There can only be speculation on this point, which would have to be further investigated. I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out to be, or appear like, what we would call a Einstein-Rosen bridge or wormhole. Whether or not we understand enough about what a wormhole is or may be, is another discussion.


From page 161:


Originally posted by Mary Rose
On page 150, I posted an article by Bill Ramsay, “Rodin Coil Design,” that appeared in Nexus magazine in 1996.

I see on vortex.com there is posted a 6 page .pdf of a memorandum that was written by a physicist by the name of Oscar K.H. Hsu about Bill Ramsay’s work on the Rodin coil, and about Hsu’s interest in Rodin’s work. It can be found under "Outbound Correspondence (1998) Oscar Hsu and Bill Ramsay, Oscar Hsu - Memorandum 7-23-98 Proposal #2 Free Energy":


. . . In Aerodynamics: Point Energy Creation Physics © 1997 by Marko Rodin, Marko explains that the Toroid Map describes a black hole turning into a white hole. In fact as I believe, that description my be very good. Marko's Toroid Map seems to bear a good resemblance to the spacetime curvature induced in a single Euclidean space by the presence of a rotating black hole/white hole pair as described by general relativity (GR). ii That is the subject of my extract paper, "Rodin's Toroid Map as an Einstein-Rosen Bridge" with the additional caveat that the Einstein-Rosen Bridge carry the additional modification in being terminated at the center into a rotating singularity.

The reasons why I make that comparison are based on similarity. Marko Rodin used expanding and contracting tiles for his number coordinates that is similar to the expanding and contracting spacetme metric (distance between two coordinates) that Einstein used to construct his geometrical model of general relativity. General relativity is itself an inherently geometrical description of gravity, and some of Bill Ramsay's results with Rodin-Ramsay coils indicate a polarization of gravity with the use of Rodin Geometrics. The comparison is irresistible. . . .


Is this a valid description of the Einstein-Rosen Bridge? It's from library.thinkquest.org:


The Einstein-Rosen Bridge



The relativistic description of black holes requires wormholes at their centers. These wormholes, called Einstein-Rosen bridges after Einstein and his collaborator Nathan Rosen, seem to connect the center of a black hole with a mirror universe on the "other side" of spacetime. At first, the bridge was considered a mathematical oddity, but nothing more. It was essential for the internal consistency of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's equations, which was the first relativistic solution involving black holes. However, the wormhole could not be traversed because the center of a black hole is a singularity, a point of infinite spacetime curvature, where the gravity would also be infinite and all matter would be crushed to its most fundamental constituents. Additionally, travel through the wormhole would require motion faster than the speed of light, a physical impossibility. For these reasons, Einstein-Rosen bridges were quickly forgotten despite other later solutions that included them. They were assumed to be mathematical oddities that had no bearing on physical reality.

In 1963, Roy Kerr devised the famous Kerr solution to Einstein's equations, a more realistic description of black holes than the original Schwarzschild solution. Kerr assumed the star that would form the black hole to be rotating and found that it would not eventually collapse to a point, but rather to a ring. When approaching the ride from the side, gravity and spacetime curvature are both still infinite, so matter is again inevitably destroyed. However, traveling through the ring would result in large but finite gravity. An object that does so and avoids being crushed by the still-formidable gravity can enter the Einstein-Rosen bridge and gain access to the mirror universe.



edit on 03/08/12 by Mary Rose because: Fix link



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





So you are saying that Rodin is full of it?


Nope. I said "amazing claims" just like Tesla during his time. You're the who's saying "Rodin is full of it", not me.


Oh, I definitely said that, but what I meant was that you noted how overunity claims cast well deserved doubts on the whole thing. Right?




In fact, Mary seconds what Rodin is saying, in that the coil sucks in aether on one end and exudes energy from the other. What do you think of that?


Maybe it does maybe it doesn't - who knows? Do you know it doesn't? If you do good for you.


Well since even Mary admitted there is no evidence that the coil actually works, and that there is no evidence to suggest however slightly that there is anything consumed or expelled by the coil, it's only fair to say that we all know that nothing of the sort is happening.


Maybe it does maybe it doesn't but according to some people they think and believe it does.


I see, it's a matter of faith. Can't argue with a religion, can we?


As for your Moroccan lamp - without a good wiring pattern like the Rodin's, it'll probably gonna bomb as the magnetic it will generate will be uniquely garbage, unusable.


In what way is wiring pattern suggested by Rodin superior to the Moroccan lamp? You see, the Moroccan design is based on ancient geometry and old wisdom that is long lost. If you look at the proportions, you may find interesting ratios and scaling. So to me, it looks like that the Moroccan design is much, much better. If you claim the opposite, please be clear about what exactly you hope to achieve with the magnetic field generated by Rodin's coil. Seriously.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Oh, I definitely said that, but what I meant was that you noted how overunity claims cast well deserved doubts on the whole thing. Right?


Right. Laws of nature (at least here on earth) prevents anyone from doing that. In outer space, then it's a different story.




it's only fair to say that we all know that nothing of the sort is happening.


I guess i could add - until the "fat lady sings", besides this is still a new technology with very limited understanding of what it can really do.




I see, it's a matter of faith. Can't argue with a religion, can we?


Well there are many things that are based on faith, question is whether it's based reality even though it's not beheld.

In the case of the Rodin Coil - it's already demonstrated that it produces large amounts of magnetic field but due to the lack real interest and real study / analysis many take it on faith that someday they'll find a way to harness its potential. Who knows they might stumble unto something.

As for the religious part of it - I'm not familiar with the Baha'i faith if that's what you're referring to.




the Moroccan design is based on ancient geometry and old wisdom that is long lost. If you look at the proportions, you may find interesting ratios and scaling. So to me, it looks like that the Moroccan design is much, much better.


Is this based on (religious) faith or facts?

Maybe you need t get in touch with Marko Rodin and let him know "that the Moroccan design is much, much better." cuz, I sure don't know what you're talking about.

Care to enlighten us with fine "points" of Moroccan Lamp Coil design?

tc



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Oh, I definitely said that, but what I meant was that you noted how overunity claims cast well deserved doubts on the whole thing. Right?


Right. Laws of nature (at least here on earth) prevents anyone from doing that. In outer space, then it's a different story.


Wait, laws of nature are different on Earth and in outer space? Really? There are separate "natures"?

Also, Rodin promised unlimited energy and end to all decease on planet Earth. Unlimited energy implies "overunity", does it not?


I guess i could add - until the "fat lady sings", besides this is still a new technology with very limited understanding of what it can really do.


That's a strange way of thinking. I may be an alien being who answers to Supreme Being Zmorrg, you have no idea whether this is true or not. But for you or I to entertain the idea that I am an alien (or the owners of ATS are agents from Zeta Reticuli) would not seem like a sane way to manage your thinking process.





In the case of the Rodin Coil - it's already demonstrated that it produces large amounts of magnetic field


How large? Is it larger than what can be produced by a solenoid with same length of wire and same current? Why are you making statements that are 100% arbitrary? I, Zmorrg, command you to answer, from my secret lair inside a neutron star.




the Moroccan design is based on ancient geometry and old wisdom that is long lost. If you look at the proportions, you may find interesting ratios and scaling. So to me, it looks like that the Moroccan design is much, much better.


Is this based on (religious) faith or facts?

Maybe you need t get in touch with Marko Rodin and let him know "that the Moroccan design is much, much better." cuz, I sure don't know what you're talking about.


That's not the only thing you don't know about.

Simply put, you have no basis to claim that Rodin's coil is better than my Moroccan coil. There is no evidence it is, just like there is no evidence that you are being hypnotized by Zmorrg.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by edmc^2
One thing though that I think is a mistake / a misnomer - calling the Rodin Coil a OverUnity device or FreeEnergy device. They should stop using these terminologies because it is not - as it needs power in order for it to work.


I'm not sure you're right about that.

Read this from Col. Tom Bearden's website and tell me what you think. This is from his glossary:


OVERUNITY COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE

More energy out or work out of a system than the operator or experimenter must himself or herself furnish and input.

An open thermodynamic system far from thermodynamic system is permitted to achieve such an overunity performance, so any overunity electrodynamic system must be such. Well-known nonelectromagnetic examples are solar cells, heat pumps, windmills, sails on sailboats, waterwheels for powering watermills, a gliding bird in thermal updrafts, etc. A well-known electromagnetic example is the common solar cell. The common household heat pump has a theoretical COP limit of 8.22, and well-designed units usually achieve some 4.0 or so, so long as the ambient environment does not change too drastically from the design limits. As the environment changes and cools down appreciably, however, most home heat pumps lose efficiency and have to switch onto heating strips, which have a COP » 1.0.

Contrary to prevailing belief, it is certainly possible to have EM systems which are also open thermodynamic systems, far from equilibrium, and freely receiving excess energy (asymmetrically regauging a potential) from an external source, to wit, their violent virtual flux exchange between the vacuum and the system. All EM system are already open systems in the virtual particle flux exchange with vacuum; that is already well-known in particle physics, even though the 130-year-old classical electrodynamics does not even include the vacuum-mass exchange. The only question, then, is how to establish an asymmetry in that vacuum-mass flux exchange. Here again, every electrical charge and every dipole is already just such a broken symmetry in the vacuum flux, as has been known in particle physics for four decades! It takes on the average about 50 years, however, for vital discoveries in one discipline to "cross fertilize" into another discipline. At any rate, the symmetry of every electric power system, in the vacuum flux, is already broken in its source dipole. This rigorously means that, if we simply avoid doing something we are doing in our power systems to restore symmetry as a matter of course, it is possible to utilize the free broken symmetry of the source dipole to provide an overunity EM system.

In 1996 I showed that such overunity EM systems are permitted and prescribed by Maxwell's theory, prior to the arbitrary imposition of symmetrical regauging of the Maxwell equations (i.e., the Lorentz condition). Violation of the Lorentz condition (by asymmetrical self-regauging) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for an overunity EM device. An asymmetric regauging will certainly give us excess free energy in the system, and an excess force to use that energy in translating against a load impedance to do work, if we design the system properly to do just that.

To achieve overunity, in a circuit one must prevent the (presently universal) re-imposition of the Lorentz condition by the use of one-half the excess received energy to drive the return electrons from the load back through the back emf of the source, killing the gate and restoring symmetry, the Lorentz condition, and equilibrium between vacuum flux and system. All our present EM systems are specifically designed to drive those electrons back through the back emf and thus restore symmetry, deliberately asymmetrically self-regauging a second time and deliberately restoring the Lorentz condition, along with deliberately killing the source dipole's asymmetry in the vacuum flux exchange.



Thanks Mary Rose for the info, I'm familiar with this explanation but the key word (to all of these) as mentioned in the article imho is "equilibrium".

That's is, everything in "nature" settles to an "equilibrium" - it will always find its least resistance to "equilibrium" unless an outside force is acting upon it or against it.

But if one can continuously and effortlessly overcome this "equilibrium", then this person has achieve overunity.

Question is - is our knowledge that advanced to be able to achieve such "phenomena / miracle"? No.

(we can't even unite as one human race)

Tell you what though - if we can fully understand the Heisenberg Effect then we are that much closer to understanding the true nature of electricity and magnetism.

Unfortunately, there are so many things working against us - one of which is time and unexpected events beyond our control.

my 2cents

tc



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
www.phact.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink">Bearden Review

Full link here, ATS won't parse it right:


h++p://web.archive.org/web/20090208083132/ h++p://www.phact.org/e/z/beardenreview.htm


Replace + with t if you want to access the link.


Bearden began by asking me if I knew what Newton's Third Law was. I answered that I thought it was the 'action-reaction' law, which he agreed that it was. He then began saying that the present electromagnetics is flawed because it violates that Newtonian law. That we do detect transverse waves, but only in the electron gas of our antennnas and instrument probes. That 'not one of the equations attributed to Maxwell were actually written by him' etc., etc. Having read three of his books and all of his papers as downloaded from the BBS's, I'd heard these phrases many times before. I understood the phrases. Bearden knew who I was by now, and therefore didn't need to keep parroting them every time we talked. What I wanted to know was, how does the longitudinal propagation theory account for the known fact that EM waves are polarized one way or another, and so your receiving antenna's polarization (or, ORIENTATION) must match that of the transmitter for optimum reception.

That's all I wanted to know. I just wanted Bearden to explain polarization in terms of his longitudinal model. Evidently I pissed him off. He told me that I was just regurgitating what "they" had taught me in the standard electromagnetics courses. That I shouldn't believe them. That I should read and re-read his books to get straightened out on these points.

I felt he was evading my question. I was asking about polarization. If he didn't know the answer, or if he hadn't considered the question before, or even if he didn't feel like talking to me about it, he could have politely told me so. I would have accepted that. Everyone who has a theory is allowed to develop it. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Next, Tom Bearden was attempting to tell me that polarization itself was "a bunch of bull#"! Trying to get a word in edgewise, while trying to remain polite (after all, I was making the phone call, intruding on his time), I reminded him that his books didn't deal with polarization. He said he didn't have to, because it was all bull#. That I needed to think (emphasis his), and that if I were really paying attention to what he was saying, I would understand and wouldn't be asking these illogical questions!

Still hearing no attempt to answer my question about polarization, I tried to define what I meant by it. I tried to use the illustration of a TV station, whose antenna is usually horizontally polarized -- and thus your home TV antenna on your roof is also horizontally polarized. But Bearden doesn't let you finish most of your sentences. Instead, he is parroting more phrases such as you find throughout his books.

By this point, he was actually telling me that, sorry, but when a caller such as myself constantly repeats the same question over and over, or from a different angle, then he must get tough with the caller and tell him point blank that his questions are bull# questions. And that I was not going to get him to 'ADMIT' to there being such a thing as wave polarization, as if doing so was to 'surrender' to those people who hold to the transverse EM wave theory. God forbid!

Now I was beginning to wonder if this guy was paranoid. I thought of ufologist Jacques Vallee who would try and try to ask simple, polite but firm questions of people like Bill Cooper or Bob Lazar. When they would begin to squirm, he would press them just a little bit more. Not to be an S.O.B., just to cut through the fluff and get to see if there was really anything to the whole thing. Vallee recounts how he would sometimes be accused afterwards, of working for the CIA or some other "government" group hated by the UFO 'true believers'.

edit on 8-3-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You disagree with the statement about what overunity is?


OVERUNITY COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE

More energy out or work out of a system than the operator or experimenter must himself or herself furnish and input.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 





Wait, laws of nature are different on Earth and in outer space? Really? There are separate "natures"?


Nature is one but there are many laws governing nature - thus the laws of nature.

Like the gravity on earth is different in outer space - that's all I'm sayin.

"What goes up must come down" - I think that's how the lyrics go if you know what I mean.




Also, Rodin promised unlimited energy and end to all decease on planet Earth. Unlimited energy implies "overunity", does it not?


That's one of his amazing claim. Would be nice to have it but reality bites.




That's a strange way of thinking. I may be an alien being who answers to Supreme Being Zmorrg, you have no idea whether this is true or not. But for you or I to entertain the idea that I am an alien (or the owners of ATS are agents from Zeta Reticuli) would not seem like a sane way to manage your thinking process.


huh?
Alien beings?? All I said was new technology and you're saying Zmorrg, Zeta Reticuli??




How large? Is it larger than what can be produced by a solenoid with same length of wire and same current? Why are you making statements that are 100% arbitrary? I, Zmorrg, command you to answer, from my secret lair inside a neutron star.


large and strong enuff to hold / capture and spin a magnet in mid air - which no "solenoid with same length of wire and same current" can do unless you know of one.




That's not the only thing you don't know about. Simply put, you have no basis to claim that Rodin's coil is better than my Moroccan coil. There is no evidence it is, just like there is no evidence that you are being hypnotized by Zmorrg.


Well, build your Moroccan lamp coil first and let's make a comparison cuz the Rodin coil already exist.

k?

tc.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Nature is one but there are many laws governing nature - thus the laws of nature.

Like the gravity on earth is different in outer space - that's all I'm sayin.


How is gravity on earth different from gravity elsewhere?




Also, Rodin promised unlimited energy and end to all decease on planet Earth. Unlimited energy implies "overunity", does it not?


That's one of his amazing claim. Would be nice to have it but reality bites.


All I asked was whether you admit this claim is false. I'm not hearing a clear answer.



huh?
Alien beings?? All I said was new technology and you're saying Zmorrg, Zeta Reticuli??


I asked what you thought about aetheric flux, if I remember correctly. You said something to the effect that I don't know for sure that it does not exist. My point was that you don't know for sure if I'm an agent of Zmorrg or not.




large and strong enuff to hold / capture and spin a magnet in mid air - which no "solenoid with same length of wire and same current" can do unless you know of one.


I've seen copper rings shot up many meters up in the air by conventional magnets, and aluminum platforms weighing hundreds of pounds levitating in the field created by conventional magnets. Point is, unless you quantify what you are saying, that doesn't mean anything. Yup, a magnetic sphere is spun when next to a coil Yawn.
edit on 8-3-2012 by buddhasystem because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You disagree with the statement about what overunity is?


OVERUNITY COEFFICIENT OF PERFORMANCE

More energy out or work out of a system than the operator or experimenter must himself or herself furnish and input.




In that term sure, why not but in its purest term as in PMM - yes I disagree.

And like I said - equilibrium - unless you're able to continuously overcome it without so much effort put into it then the result is pure overunity - a self supporting machine.


And so far unless I missed it there's no device or machine that's ever 100% efficient - something is always lost to heat / fatigue. Even electrons as far as I'm aware of exhibits a near "unity" but not overunity.

just my 2c

tc





new topics




 
39
<< 201  202  203    205  206  207 >>

log in

join