Post by pwm2 on Jan 8, 2015 16:20:27 GMT
I would like to adress the term 'dark energy', and in fact all forms of energy.
Since the scientists have calcuated (based on the big bang theory etc) that 95% of the matter in space that should be there but isn't, the theory quickly changed from being 'missing matter' to 'missing energy'.....
Since according to Einstein, the one is transferable to the other, it's not that surprising. What is surprising is that no-one in 'respected circles' had thought of that. Now they are re-embracing the (dare i say it aloud) aether theory to explain some of the things that have been discovered.
Now they call it higgs-boson theory 
So to make it easier for the nay-sayers debunkers & general troll population i will make it easy. For a start, the old war-cry of 'thermodynamics' just doesnt wash.
That law seems to be still intact, for energy is never created or destroyed, it always has a source (where it comes from) and it always has a sink, or where it goes to. Energy merely transforms from one form to another, in the extreme case of nuclear fusion / fission, mass is directly converted into energy.
This is of course, a 2-way deal, and therefore excesses in energy levels at a certain point in (7D?) space leads to the spontaneous creation of particles.
In fact, it may be even simpler than that, the particles are merely entering or exiting our dimension, and nothing is being created or destroyed anywhere, it's all just vibration after all, which is what Tesla said, and which the latest theories like string theory tend to support. By giving each new theory a new name, they can claim it as being actually their idea, rather than that of a man who died over 70 years ago, which of course no-one will admit to.
Here are some posts i made on another site, in relation to just one phenomenon, that of 'electrical charge';
If you think electric charge, i.e. static electricity, is the most simple thing in the world, you are in for a shock 
)
First of all, let's see what Wiki has to say:
OK, We know that much, but how is this force transferred?....
I'm having trouble with this line already...
This is patently wrong, the + and - charges are NOT equal, and if you go into the math, they compare it to the surface area of an electron.
That's rather difficult, because the electron is more of a cloud...
We'll see...
Notice the words 'symmetry' and 'guaging'.
This comes from Lorentz's 'symmetrical reguaging' that was further mangled by Oliver Heaviside.
Basically, this means they threw out all those bothersome bits until Left=Right in the equations.
All nice & neat, except they threw out the stuff that mattered!
An asymmetrical field is responsible for 'generation of electricity', and is the source of scalar waves.
An asymmetrical field is responsible for electrogravity
2 charged particles, having opposite spin, will pass right through each other, disregarding quantum dynamics and GR for the joke it is.
"The charges in static electricity from rubbing materials together are typically a few microcoulombs."
"The amount of charge that travels through a lightning bolt is typically around 15 C, although large bolts can be up to 350 C."
"The amount of charge that travels through a typical alkaline AA battery is about 5 kC = 5000 C = 1400 mAh. After that charge has flowed, the battery must be discarded or recharged."
So when i witness 20 metres of coaxial cable, where the copper core was vapourised completely into gas, but the plastic sheath remained intact, it used just 1/14 of the charge of an AA cell........?
That copper was not just melted, it was GONE!
Now this is closer to the truth, i have vapourised wires of 4mm squared, normally good for 30 amps or so, using less than 2 amps.....but not using 'conventional' electricity, i used RESONANCE, and something called 'charge coupling'.
"According to Coulomb's Law, two point charges of +1 C, placed one meter apart, would experience a repulsive force of 9×109 N, a force roughly equal to the weight of 920,000 metric tons of mass on the surface of the Earth."
Well, let's see how far i can crank up that Tesla coil... 8)
No-one really knows how much charge the earth has, estimates are between 12Mv and 6Gv, this 'elevated charge' has an enourmous amount of energy, and could indeed be used to 'push or pull' against, harvested etc.
CHARGE vs ELECTRON
The conventional explanation is that the Electron carries a Charge.
I think it's the other way round, the charge carries the electron, using energy in the process.
The charge moves at the speed of light, or maybe much faster (that's for another thread) and it carries the electrons along with it.
Now here's the clincher: You don't need the electrons!
Charge is an entity in itself, it may even be a dimension (scientifically, i treat it as such, according to Dimensional Analysis, a very powerful engineering tool).
Now we have Bearden's concept of 'massless charge' in action.
Being without mass, it has unrestricted speed.
Being without mass, it can 'choose' to interact with mass, or not, as the case may be.
Being without mass, it is not affected by magnetic fields.
But what about gravity?
Is there a connection between the two, and if so, can we prove it?
And if we can prove it, what then?
In light of this issue, i have undertaken to repeat the experiments of T.T. Brown and others, to try to get to the bottom of this....and i have already proven this concept with asymmetrical charge, it works. Overunity.
Watch this space.
)First of all, let's see what Wiki has to say:
Electric charge is a physical property of matter that causes it to experience a force when near other electrically-charged matter. Electric charge comes in two types, called positive and negative. Two positively-charged substances, or objects, experience a mutual repulsive force, as do two negatively charged objects. Positively-charged objects and negatively-charged objects experience an attractive force. Although in electrical engineering it is also common to use the ampere-hour (Ah), the SI unit of electric charge is the coulomb (C). The study of how charged substances interact is classical electrodynamics, which is accurate insofar as quantum effects can be ignored.
OK, We know that much, but how is this force transferred?....
The electric charge is a fundamental conserved property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interaction. Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields. The interaction between a moving charge and an electromagnetic field is the source of the electromagnetic force, which is one of the four fundamental forces (See also: magnetic field).
I'm having trouble with this line already...
Twentieth-century experiments demonstrated that electric charge is quantized; that is, it comes in multiples of individual small units called the elementary charge, e, approximately equal to 1.602×10-19 coulombs (except for particles called quarks, which have charges that are multiples of ?e). The proton has a charge of e, and the electron has a charge of -e. The study of charged particles, and how their interactions are mediated by photons, is quantum electrodynamics.
This is patently wrong, the + and - charges are NOT equal, and if you go into the math, they compare it to the surface area of an electron.
That's rather difficult, because the electron is more of a cloud...
More abstractly, a charge is any generator of a continuous symmetry of the physical system under study. When a physical system has a symmetry of some sort, Noether's theorem implies the existence of a conserved current. The thing that "flows" in the current is the "charge", the charge is the generator of the (local) symmetry group. This charge is sometimes called the Noether charge.
Thus, for example, the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. The conserved current is the electric current.
In the case of local, dynamical symmetries, associated with every charge is a gauge field; when quantized, the gauge field becomes a gauge boson. The charges of the theory "radiate" the gauge field. Thus, for example, the gauge field of electromagnetism is the electromagnetic field; and the gauge boson is the photon.
Sometimes, the word "charge" is used as a synonym for "generator" in referring to the generator of the symmetry. More precisely, when the symmetry group is a Lie group, then the charges are understood to correspond to the root system of the Lie group; the discreteness of the root system accounting for the quantization of the charge.
Thus, for example, the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. The conserved current is the electric current.
In the case of local, dynamical symmetries, associated with every charge is a gauge field; when quantized, the gauge field becomes a gauge boson. The charges of the theory "radiate" the gauge field. Thus, for example, the gauge field of electromagnetism is the electromagnetic field; and the gauge boson is the photon.
Sometimes, the word "charge" is used as a synonym for "generator" in referring to the generator of the symmetry. More precisely, when the symmetry group is a Lie group, then the charges are understood to correspond to the root system of the Lie group; the discreteness of the root system accounting for the quantization of the charge.
We'll see...
Notice the words 'symmetry' and 'guaging'.
This comes from Lorentz's 'symmetrical reguaging' that was further mangled by Oliver Heaviside.
Basically, this means they threw out all those bothersome bits until Left=Right in the equations.
All nice & neat, except they threw out the stuff that mattered!
An asymmetrical field is responsible for 'generation of electricity', and is the source of scalar waves.
An asymmetrical field is responsible for electrogravity
2 charged particles, having opposite spin, will pass right through each other, disregarding quantum dynamics and GR for the joke it is.
"The charges in static electricity from rubbing materials together are typically a few microcoulombs."
"The amount of charge that travels through a lightning bolt is typically around 15 C, although large bolts can be up to 350 C."
"The amount of charge that travels through a typical alkaline AA battery is about 5 kC = 5000 C = 1400 mAh. After that charge has flowed, the battery must be discarded or recharged."
So when i witness 20 metres of coaxial cable, where the copper core was vapourised completely into gas, but the plastic sheath remained intact, it used just 1/14 of the charge of an AA cell........?
That copper was not just melted, it was GONE!
Now this is closer to the truth, i have vapourised wires of 4mm squared, normally good for 30 amps or so, using less than 2 amps.....but not using 'conventional' electricity, i used RESONANCE, and something called 'charge coupling'.
"According to Coulomb's Law, two point charges of +1 C, placed one meter apart, would experience a repulsive force of 9×109 N, a force roughly equal to the weight of 920,000 metric tons of mass on the surface of the Earth."
Well, let's see how far i can crank up that Tesla coil... 8)
No-one really knows how much charge the earth has, estimates are between 12Mv and 6Gv, this 'elevated charge' has an enourmous amount of energy, and could indeed be used to 'push or pull' against, harvested etc.
CHARGE vs ELECTRON
The conventional explanation is that the Electron carries a Charge.
I think it's the other way round, the charge carries the electron, using energy in the process.
The charge moves at the speed of light, or maybe much faster (that's for another thread) and it carries the electrons along with it.
Now here's the clincher: You don't need the electrons!
Charge is an entity in itself, it may even be a dimension (scientifically, i treat it as such, according to Dimensional Analysis, a very powerful engineering tool).
Now we have Bearden's concept of 'massless charge' in action.
Being without mass, it has unrestricted speed.
Being without mass, it can 'choose' to interact with mass, or not, as the case may be.
Being without mass, it is not affected by magnetic fields.
But what about gravity?
Is there a connection between the two, and if so, can we prove it?
And if we can prove it, what then?
In light of this issue, i have undertaken to repeat the experiments of T.T. Brown and others, to try to get to the bottom of this....and i have already proven this concept with asymmetrical charge, it works. Overunity.
Watch this space.
And another post;
Thanks Bill, i see you've been thinking deep thoughts again 
and i must say i agree with all of it. On the energy-of-an-electron problem, i think they can 'store' a lot more than people think 
Apply enough voltage, & they will become sub-particles i guess, this being the same as the LHC only we just need a big tesla coil instead of a 27km tunnel
I was reading stuff....
From studying Ampere's law, we find yet another 'problem';
The existence of monopoles is more or less common knoweledge these days ... if Dirac predicted it, then it has a good chance of being right!
This is what happens when you start with a flawed hypotheses......
I'm beginning to think that Heaviside & Lorentz were paid to 'adjust' Maxwell's original work, since no-one could have made a blunder that big.
However, it didn't go entirely unchallenged, & they reluctantly agreed to keep the 'Poynting vector', although they claimed this had no part in EM energy interactions.
and i must say i agree with all of it. On the energy-of-an-electron problem, i think they can 'store' a lot more than people think 
Apply enough voltage, & they will become sub-particles i guess, this being the same as the LHC only we just need a big tesla coil instead of a 27km tunnel
I was reading stuff....
From studying Ampere's law, we find yet another 'problem';
The existence of monopoles is more or less common knoweledge these days
... if Dirac predicted it, then it has a good chance of being right!This is what happens when you start with a flawed hypotheses......
I'm beginning to think that Heaviside & Lorentz were paid to 'adjust' Maxwell's original work, since no-one could have made a blunder that big.
However, it didn't go entirely unchallenged, & they reluctantly agreed to keep the 'Poynting vector', although they claimed this had no part in EM energy interactions.
Wiki;
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynting%27s_theorem
While conservation of energy and the Lorentz force law can derive the general form of the theorem, Maxwell's equations are additionally required to derive the expression for the Poynting vector and hence complete the statement.
This is just part of the story, but a very significant one
Now, being unable to account for 95% of all the matter in the universe is the same as being unable to account for 95% of the energy, and after more than 20 years of arguing, scientists are beginning to admit that there is a vast sea of limitless energy all around us, and just because we can't detect it with our primitive instruments, does not mean it is not there!
One of my experiments ws a very simple design, based on stuff i read on Keeleynet & other sites, i call it the Cap Circuit because it works by charging & discharging capacitors in a certain way.
with less than 120mW input, it managed to generate about 1.2 watts, or slightly less than five times the input (!)
That's all very nice, but you can't do much with 1.2 watts, and for the last 10 years i have been refining this to the point where it should run a house. I say should, because there are some big problems associated with this system, namely stability.
One of my bigger circuits was supposed to run at 300 watts, during some extreme testing, i managed to destroy several of these things, in one of them it fried some very thick wires, and destroyed components which had a kilowatt rating. The energy input never went above 24 watts.
Now this isn't even breaking any fundamentals of physics, we are merely using the same electrons but more efficiently. What interested me further was that many other electrical OU machines apparently also had the same ratio, which is about 1:4.85 i call it the overunity ratio, LOL
We have now reached the point where i am helping others to build & beta-test this & other ideas, and i have a really good feeling that this year we will see it happen, we have members all over the world who will also get the chance to build these things!
My next post on energy may be about water and how little we know of this truly magical substance, for example it can be used as a fuel or catalyst in about 6 different ways, ranging from a simple stove to a portable nuclear fusion reactor, and even as a transport medium that will enable interstellar travel.
So who needs oil?
[/p][/p]
