Planes, branes and automobiles.

the truth about free energy

(taken from http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_benny_cr_080517_suppression_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?

Continuing from
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.

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.

Continuing from
Planes, branes and automobiles.

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.




From the entire article at
Suppression Suppressed. Paranoia, conspiracy theories and the truth about free energy: Planes, branes and automobiles.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Suppression_Suppressed

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

For a deeper look with extensive wiki information, into: Why Super-relativity?
With videos, links and a current status-> visit Physcom
http://physcom.awardspace.com/

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

You're right it is a much more interesting essay than Babcat's whingeing that the fitties (or even the uglies) don't fancy him.

I'll keep an eye out for any published paper.


Thanks

I'm glad, jwk_13, that you agree with me.

Please read the postulates and the entire, fitting, theory of Mr. Fiorentino, first,
before continuing,
at http://www.superrelativity.org/html/sitemap.html

It unites the 'scalar field', and all the forces, including gravity, with Einstein's Relativity.

To clear up any misunderstandings I have a little appendix for afterwards.

---SPOILER---














This is an attempt to clarify the new 'EM medium'

Fields, waves and particles. And dimensions.

(in Super Relativity (5D))


A field is a situation where a particle would exhibit signs of an external force
(Classical Electromechanics)

A wave is a deformation that propagates through a medium.
(Electromagnetic radiation also travels through a medium, with the help of photons)

A particle is only a flat wave.
(a particle is also a wave, but only a flat wave)
(QM)

A particle is only a scalar field.
(a particle is also a field, but only a scalar field.)
(from QM,mathmatics : \psi(\vec{r}) )

(In the other 4 dimensions a particle is not a field; this may be the reason why 4D scalar doesn't work)

This same scalar field exists in a vacuum.
(time passes in a vacuum, but there is some 'dark' energy in a vacuum, too)

This is the only (1) real scalar field, i.e. the fifth dimension. (the EM medium)
( 4th dimension= time ; 5th dimension=energy )

This dimension is solid, not moving and twisted
(Toroidal curvature)

Electromagnetic radiation is photonic movement that propagates through the EM medium
(the explanation why a photon has wave-particle duality)

From VTK forum
http://vtk.ugent.be/forums/viewtopic.php?p=623062#623062

(re-edited for Big Oil Rep)

Looks like the usual bullshit dressed up with techno-drivel and specious arguments.

It may seem like that upon a first glance. This one does however deserve a lot of extra attention, because it is the only one physically and metaphysically possible in a local realist way. The inventor does have some characteristics of the old Einstein.

1) he invented a new dimension

2) he made a new quantification of light

3) he has great talent with making working models

To specify, his toroidal shape to the curvature of space and time, is the only explanation in the world for how simple tornado's can have so much power.

Directory:Tornado in a Can
From PESWiki
Frank Polifka's Windhexe machine

Tornado in a Can - pulverizes garbage down to micrometer powder; demonstrates an "overunity" phenomenon (amount of energy expended does not equate to the amount of pulverizing power exhibited)

Inventor Frank Polifka calls his Windhexe machine "Tornado in a Can". It safely harnesses the enormous power of a funnel cloud in a small mechanical canister. The efficiency with which it can pulverize a wide array of items defies conventional physics and invites a new model to be constructed to explain how vortex energy operates

What is it?
Video: < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mg7uu373To >
"Whatever you put in the Windhexe — shoes, rocks, sludge, concrete, industrial waste — comes out the bottom as a superfine powder. It’s a clean way to dispose of almost anything safely and cheaply, because there are virtually no polluting emissions. Industrial scientists say its uses could be limited only by the imagination.
"An upside-down cone just 8 feet tall, with no moving parts, it swiftly (and loudly) reduces pretty much anything to a powder of particles roughly a micron across — about 0.00004 of an inch, or one one-hundredth the width of a human hair."
"The Windhexe generates so little heat that you can safely catch the resulting powder in the palm of your hand as it streams out the bottom." (MSNBC ( < http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4723367/ > ); May 19, 2004)

Greetz,

HBJB

>he invented a new dimension

How do you do that? Is he God?

It's all a matter of clever folding.

Your are actually really funny , Evolvealready, and probably not so far from the truth.

"Make a 5th dimension" DIY:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariance_mechanics

You have to use mathmatical 'Lorentz' transformations on existing laws, while incorporating, your laws on the speed of light, (unanswered c in e=mc²), which are invariant, hence invariance mechanics

To specify, his toroidal shape to the curvature of space and time, is the only explanation in the world for how simple tornado's can have so much power.

Last time I checked there was nothing about tornados (be it their 'power' or anything else) that conflicted with physics as we know it. Modelling their behaviour does not even require relativity or quantium mechanics either.

I'm not saying there aren't any explanations for tornados. Most aspects can be explained by thermodynamics and centrifugal forces.
But this does not give you a clue where centrifugal forces actually come from...

(There is however a problem with the thermodynamics. There is a measured over-unity as it seen with Polifka's Windhexe machine. It just has too much crushing power for a 20W tornado ;)

So I'm saying now, centrifugal forces exist because of the toroidal shape of the electromagnetic, mechanistical, dimension.

In fact, there is a whole, somewhat controversial technology, called vortex technology, based on just the quirkyness of tornados/vortices.

So that's for the shape.
If you want to see 5D in action, just watch the nuclear transmuation ;)
or the Joe Cell
or Kanzius' salt water firing video.
perhaps the magnacoaster
and Dean Kamen's 'the vapor compression distiller'
or the Steorn Orb (edit: still not operational)


With just one dimension, it accounts for all the over-unity phenomena over the entire world.

Greetz,

HBJB

>If you want to see 5D in action, just watch the Steorn Orb ;)

We did last July. Not impressed.

[quote]
It may seem like that upon a first glance.
[/quote]
OK, I'll have a second glance....yep, still bullshit.

[quote]
1) he invented a new dimension
[/quote]

"Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds."

-Albert Einstein


"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

-Albert Einstein


"The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, "hmm.... that's funny...."

-Isaac Asimov


And especially for 'Big Oil Rep':

"I still don't give a fuck"

-Marshall Mathers

[quote]
If you want to see 5D in action, just watch the Steorn Orb ;)
[/quote]
Doesn't exist.

[quote]
or the Joe Cell
[/quote]
Doesn't work.

[quote]
or Kanzius' salt water firing video.
[/quote]
Is very underunity.

[quote]
With just one dimension, it accounts for all the over-unity phenomena over the entire world.
[/quote]
It's like saying you have a theory that explains all the invisible pink unicorns in the world.

e=mc²

Planck's fine structure constant has not been fully explained because of the lacking description of the speed of light.

This paper will come out by the end of the year

you may check the letters

http://physcom.awardspace.com/letterswith.html

http://physcom.awardspace.com/letterswith2.html

and for
A meta-theoretical analysis on combining particle physics with real world phenomena
with a lot of really to-the-point videos and links, see
http://physcom.awardspace.com

stop posting this shite

sorry, am I supressing you?

Big Oil Rep:

If you want to see 5D in action, just watch the Steorn Orb ;)

Doesn't exist.

If there is no point at all for a Steorn Orb, than what are you doing at a steorn orb forum?

or the Joe Cell

Doesn't work.

Are you just wanting to pick a fight or are you deliberately sabotaging truth and science by not only making statements that are lacking every research, but also by making statements that are entirely false by itself.
But I've got an antidote for people like you;

The mobile bubbler:

DIY Joe Cell

Making a basic Joe Cell from spare parts: 0$

(5D water electrolyser)
(non-conducting diamagnetic metal tubes, in a circular shape, and using water as a resistor)

Step-by-step video instructions,
on how to build a joe cell in a matter of minutes, with proof-of-concept '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



Actual science:
http://www.TheJoeCell.com
http://www.Joecelldevices.com
The Yahoo Joe Cell Tech Group

Don't want to assemble? Try an auction site like e-bay. Search for "joe cell"
and see how many people are already satisfied with theirs.

or Kanzius' salt water firing video.

Is very underunity.

Underunity, but a proof of the connected 5 dimensions, where electromagnetic radiation has the power to disassociate molecules/magnecules

With just one dimension, it accounts for all the over-unity phenomena over the entire world.

It's like saying you have a theory that explains all the invisible pink unicorns in the world.

Over-unity cannot exist in thermodynamical law.
Unicorns are also mythological creatures.
Over-unity is a myth.
Super Relativity is the answer

Big Oil Rep:stop posting this shite

sorry, am I supressing you?[/quote

Hey Rep, go swim in an oilspill, and leave the people here, looking for information on the world, alone! No one needs you or your hate-mongering and defamation.
Try to come up with some sense, if you ever decide to reply again.

Who's supressed now, bitch?

Underunity, but a proof of the connected 5 dimensions, where electromagnetic radiation has the power to disassociate molecules/magnecules

There is nothing in a so called 'Joe Cell' that needs more than late 19'th century physics and chemistry to explain, let alone additional dimensions.

A Joe Cell does 'work', but only in the same way that any electrolysis works. There is nothing different in substance between a joe cell and a simple electrolysis of water in a jam jar with two ordinary electrodes connected to a battery.


I cannot understand why you need a fifth dimension to explain the dissociation of molecules by electromagnetic radiation. Such phenomenon is very basic physics. When one knows even a little physiscs it actually becomes obvious that electromagnetic radiation "has the power to disassociate molecules". You don;t need more than the ordinary 4 dimensions for that.

I'm not saying that there aren't other dimensions. However if there are then the evidence for them certainly does not lie in the power of tornadoes or the dissociation of molecules by electromagnetic radiation.

>If there is no point at all for a Steorn Orb, than what are you doing at a steorn orb forum?

You putz, it is not there is no point to the Steorn Orbo it is just that it does not exist. Show me one and prove me wrong.

I fear you might be right with your description of EM, it could possibly be explained in 4D.

But the Kanzius ray, however, is still special in that it uses a frequency, especially, to do what it does.

Let's say the jury is still out on that one...

If you are saying there's nothing weird with vortex technology
i can gladly refer you to two different websites:
http://www.frank.germano.com///viktorschauberger.htm

and

http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Vortex_Technologies

Nevermind how far-fetching, these phenomena still do take place in the real world, you know...

Knuckles O'Toole:>If there is no point at all for a Steorn Orb, than what are you doing at a steorn orb forum?

You putz, it is not there is no point to the Steorn Orbo it is just that it does not exist. Show me one and prove me wrong.

Yes, you believe there is a point.

But I wonder does ole' big oil ref believe it is even remotely possible?
By the way he seems to cut corners I have to conclude he doesn't.

Just to make sure:
We have not, and after hearing this, wouldn't include the Steorn Orb at
the 'real world phenomena' analysis page

http://physcom.awardspace.com

This does mean that 5D still isn't,
but would, and had to be, the basis for any 'orb' operating

There are however lots of people tinkering and it is possible that some people do hold a patent for a 5D off-the-grid magnetic accumulator,
like this sky news video (AU.): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efCelx7qe_M

I do not know the build of the Steorn 'Orb' but I'm sure, looking at the toroidal dimension, any magnetic blades have to be turning in a circular motion.
Does the Orb have moving magnetic parts?

Gahhh!
It's like Gaby has found a new translating bot or something...

HBJB, you are waayy over your head, on this forum. You might find some suckers, er, believers over on that other guy's website, you know the one...

A Joe Cell does 'work', but only in the same way that any electrolysis works. There is nothing different in substance between a joe cell and a simple electrolysis of water in a jam jar with two ordinary electrodes connected to a battery.

Nope, no powering electrodes connected.
(You should really watch DIY joe cell for yourself, first)
(http://www.steorn.com/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=60773&page=1#Item_19)

As we have seen (Kanzius) the electromagnetic dimension (EM), can disassociate molecules with a field.
Here the scalar field is disassociating OH and H20 by means of circular, repeated, diamagnetic tubes.

And, yes ,it is out. And, yes, you can buy one.
And, yes, you can build one. And yes, you can use the specific joe cell design to improve electrolysis effiency in any fuel cell.
And, yes, it's crazy but it works.

>I have not, and after hearing this, won't include the Steorn Orb at
the 'real world phenomena' analysis page

Gee, then what are YOU doing here?

Hi alsetalokin,

I do see you as quite a celebrity. Do you believe your motor only speeds up with the inherent power of the magnets?

I maybe over my head as a physicist, but i'm not over my head as a metatheorist and as a communication scientist. I do have a degree in defining and seperating sciences,
in this case seperating physics and metaphysics.

I'm a tesla fan myself, and you know there are no tachyons, or any other free energy particle or wave.
So it must be a field.
Otherwise what the hell was Tesla thinking when he built Wardenclyffe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wardenclyffe

>I maybe over my head as a physicist, but i'm not over my head as a metatheorist

No shit.

>I do have a degree in defining and seperating sciences,
in this case seperating physics and metaphysics.

You have also done a fine job of separating from reality.

Knuckles O'Toole:>I have not, and after hearing this, won't include the Steorn Orb at
the 'real world phenomena' analysis page

Gee, then what are YOU doing here?

I've come to check how far you people here got, explaining the 'free energy' mess

I cannot feature the Steorn orb as a succesful invention, cuz it still isn't succesful.
This doesn't mean I can't feature the steorn 'forum' itself, with all the talent included here.

I see I do come with a new bag of goodies, as not much people have caught up yet to super-relativity. I try to shine some light on this subject for a willing audience.
as in:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/link.php?id=59398,

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Superrelativity

and
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_benny_cr_080517_suppression_suppress.htm


There have already been physicists and quantumphysicists trying to falsify 'SR' but with no luck. It has already gotten 5000 views on a university forum in Belgium
It stands after years still unfalsified.

Knuckles O'Toole:>I do have a degree in defining and seperating sciences,
in this case seperating physics and metaphysics.

You have also done a fine job of separating from reality.

Have you just called me a nut?

So you can, for my part, keep chugging along in life thinking over-unity is just mental patient's drable, or either thinking Thermodynamics is faulty, or either thinking this is all a big conspiracy.

I prefer to believe in science, saying Einstein was right, in rejecting a non-local theory.
I believe, as a matter of fact , he was smart enough to conceptually fabricate a view on the smallest of the world's particles,
I also believe that guy when he said the photon had undiscovered characteristics.

whatever non-local theory throws at me, I'll still believe Einstein
you can say I'm crazy that way

But I'd rather have a multi-model view on reality, than living in the mass hysteria of 'only non-local theory is possible"

Greetz,

HBJB

PS.
Has anybody visited http://www.superrelativity.org/html/ yet?
I do see it as a undiscovered holy grail of science. You should first check everything out and not just listen to my babblings about it

In any event, I may not be the one able to make a perfect dichotomy between SR and QED/QM, but my second post is only to try and make sense of it all.
You are welcome to help and correct it in function of Mr. Fiorentino's
SR Theory

"I'm a tesla fan myself, and you know there are no tachyons, or any other free energy particle or wave."

Tesla fan says it all....another bullshit slinger.

nova:"I'm a tesla fan myself, and you know there are no tachyons, or any other free energy particle or wave."

Tesla fan says it all....another bullshit slinger.

Thank you for your kind words and your great conceptual thoughts.
I wasn't a Tesla fan , until I found superrelativity, around the 29th of march.
Since then I am amazed at the 'truthiness' of the movie 'The Prestige'
hence, i'm a tesla fan, where i was not one before

[quote]
seperating sciences,
in this case seperating physics and metaphysics
[/quote]
Metaphysics isn't a science, it's a branch of philosophy.

You haven't even separated them, you've pointlessly conflated them.

"Metatheorist" is just more bullshit.

You are sooooo way over your head.

Most of what is written about Tesla is all bullshit.

[quote]
Since then I am amazed at the 'truthiness' of the movie 'The Prestige'
hence, i'm a tesla fan, where i was not one before
[/quote]
The Prestige was a good flim until they brought some kind of sorcerer who they called Tesla. The ending was just awful - spoilt the flim for me.

You do realise that it was completely fictional don't you? The depiction of Tesla had nothing to do with reality. You appear to have trouble separating fiction and truth.

Yes I see you are all really trying to investigate all the postulates, stated on
http://www.superrelativity.org/html/

Somehow all the nay-sayers are just bitching and moaning about me.
But saying nothing about SR itself

As to your questions, I am a big movie-goer and I am able to distinguish between fiction(=what Bush says) and reality(=what Obama says).
I know the movie is fiction.
There was however, once a person called Nikola Tesla, and he was smarter than you and me. He has many patents to his name. Let's make it a rule: you can only call Tesla a bullshit slinger if you have an equal or better amount of patents to your name. Or an equal or better amount of useful brain cells. Whichever comes first.

Especially to Nova 'n Big Oil:

You have bitched long enough about me.
Now try to bring some arguments on the table about Super Relativity itself,
and why it can or cannot be correct. I expect you as, the know-it-alls, and pottymouths that you are to come with some concrete, scientific, arguments, and not with top-of-your-head innuendo

Big Oil Rep:

seperating sciences,
in this case seperating physics and metaphysics

Metaphysics isn't a science, it's a branch of philosophy.

You haven't even separated them, you've pointlessly conflated them.

There is no end to the possibility of inaccuracy of a metaphysical theory.
But now you've cut into your own flesh, Rep, because there is also
no end to the possibility of accuracy of a metaphysical theory

As the introductory article about the locality issue states:
"one cannot make such a conclusive metaphysical claim with mere physical experiments. (Duhem P.,"The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory.")

So who in the end can make a metaphysical claim? Certainly not physics.
So you, at first, have to use logic and reason, from beginning to end , or you will never have a complete physical theory (TOE)

[quote]Yes I see you are all really trying to investigate all the postulates, stated on
http://www.superrelativity.org/html/
[/quote]
That is one badly designed website. It's got some daft java thing that makes it impossible to use.

[quote]
There was however, once a person called Nikola Tesla, and he was smarter than you and me. He has many patents to his name. Let's make it a rule: you can only call Tesla a bullshit slinger
[/quote]
You're the bullshit slinger and you are in no position to make rules.

[quote]
There is no end to the possibility of inaccuracy of a metaphysical theory.
But now you've cut into your own flesh, Rep, because there is also
no end to the possibility of accuracy of a metaphysical theory
[/quote]
I'm starting to think you are some kind of bot. This is astoundingly meaningless.

nova:"I'm a tesla fan myself, and you know there are no tachyons, or any other free energy particle or wave."

Tesla fan says it all....another bullshit slinger.

Oh do shut up Nova, you're such a second rate sceptic. If you have nothing to add please say nothing at all.

heebiejeebies:

You have bitched long enough about me.
Now try to bring some arguments on the table about Super Relativity itself,
and why it can or cannot be correct. I expect you as, the know-it-alls, and pottymouths that you are to come with some concrete, scientific, arguments, and not with top-of-your-head innuendo

I've a better idea, why dont people like you stop your lips flapping and start showing!?

Big Oil Rep:

Since then I am amazed at the 'truthiness' of the movie 'The Prestige'
hence, i'm a tesla fan, where i was not one before

The Prestige was a good flim until they brought some kind of sorcerer who they called Tesla. The ending was just awful - spoilt the flim for me.

You do realise that it was completely fictional don't you? The depiction of Tesla had nothing to do with reality. You appear to have trouble separating fiction and truth.

I thought The Prestige was a great film. But then i like most fairy tales.

>But I'd rather have a multi-model view on reality, than living in the mass hysteria of 'only non-local theory is possible"

Multi model view? You mean one reality isn't good enough or complex enough or recondite enough? And "the mass hysteria of only non-local theory," is probably one of the Wooiest pieces of Woo I ever heard. As Mary Yugo once said of another poster, this is word salad with a bad dressing.

>I thought The Prestige was a great film. But then i like most fairy tales.

I originally had it as an audio CD and not withstanding the Tesla deus ex machina, the writing style is pretty much perfection. It is weird the movie came out at the same time as "the Illusionist," which I thought was a better movie.

RunningBare:

heebiejeebies:

You have bitched long enough about me.
Now try to bring some arguments on the table about Super Relativity itself,
and why it can or cannot be correct. I expect you as, the know-it-alls, and pottymouths that you are to come with some concrete, scientific, arguments, and not with top-of-your-head innuendo

I've a better idea, why dont people like you stop your lips flapping and start showing!?

I'm sorry runningbare, this is only for the mud-slingers
I'm happy to discuss this with any first-rate critic

Knuckles O'Toole:>But I'd rather have a multi-model view on reality, than living in the mass hysteria of 'only non-local theory is possible"

Multi model view? You mean one reality isn't good enough or complex enough or recondite enough? And "t
he mass hysteria of only non-local theory," is probably one of the Wooiest pieces of Woo I ever heard. As Mary Yugo once said of another poster, this is word salad with a bad dressing.

Is 'woo' even a word? Do you mean music without an opus number? Nevermind.

You cannot go and say against any hypothesis :
"this is word salad with a bad dressing."
without reading the entire thesis

For an opus number, visit
Local realism and the crucial experiment
http://bendov.info/eng/crucial.htm

I'm signing off for a while. I hope that I atleast have sparked some smart people's interest.

Look just because you cloak yourself in all manner of scientific jargon does not make you a scientist. It makes you a Woo-Woo wannabe. Just look at this thread title. One piece of fiction explaining another.

Tesla was a nutslinger.

But he also invented the modern AC powerinfrastructure with transformers and high-voltage transmission lines. This makes him the immortal hero of the power engineers. In honor of this earlier work we silently ignore his delusions and scams of later years.

[quote]In honor of this earlier work we silently ignore his delusions and scams of later years.[/quote]I don't know anything about Tesla but are you sure? I mean wasn't he just suggesting ideas and isn't it all the incompetent woowoos since who have perverted those innocent musings? Like I say, I don't know-- was he really a crank and scammer as well the inventor of practical AC?

[quote][cite] jwk_13:[/cite][quote][cite] nova:[/cite]"I'm a tesla fan myself, and you know there are no tachyons, or any other free energy particle or wave."

Tesla fan says it all....another bullshit slinger.[/quote]

Oh do shut up Nova, you're such a second rate sceptic. If you have nothing to add please say nothing at all.[/quote]

It's hard to control myself when I see someone post that they are inspired or a fan of Tesla because to date all the people that have said this have been 100% freakin losers.
Tesla was smart but not that smart when you look at what he really did. He had a pile of useless patents. Most of the patents were paid for by his investors who lost all of their investmentss. There are many people who lhave contributed much more.

[quote][cite] Bricks:[/cite]Tesla was a nutslinger.

But he also invented the modern AC powerinfrastructure with transformers and high-voltage transmission lines. This makes him the immortal hero of the power engineers. In honor of this earlier work we silently ignore his delusions and scams of later years.[/quote]

Tesla did not invent ac. Faraday invented the ac motor more than half a century before Tesla developed the induction motor, and I am not convinced that this was his invention because of all the credit Tesla took for other people's accomplishments.