Here are quotes from Aaron from the following posting:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10138-dollard-reward-2.html#post172294 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/10138-dollard-reward-2.html#post172294)
QuoteBut in reference to the ball and the refrigerator, both demonstrate more
measurable joules of work done compared to the measurable joules of work
put into it. That is more out than in and is "overunity" even though
overunity is an oxymoron but it is understood what is meant by the term.
You obviously aren't going to run your house on a bouncing ball but it
displays the nature of a system where there is complete dissipation on
each cycle with NEW potential coming into the system to do more work
over and over on each bounce. The total joules of work done when added
up on all bounces is roughly 8 times the joules in work done to lift it to
the 1 meter height. Lifting a weight to a certain height is real work, it is
measurable and a silly little ball shows there is no such thing as
conservation of energy as none of the energy displayed is going through
any changes from one form to another. And demonstrates that a belief
of "storing potential" is a delusion. And demonstrates the belief
that you get out of it what you put in is also a delusion. The potential
that is used for each successive bounce is completely new potential and
is not the same as what was used to lift it. That is free energy from
"gravitational potential" by whatever definition you want to give it and is
more work performed that we had to put into it.
QuoteSo both a bouncing ball and a refrigerator are OU.
What I'm hearing from you is you can see the ball IS showing 800% more
work done but you don't see it as being useful. Fair enough - and I agree
with you. It proves a point though that there is more work being done that
was put into it. If anyone can see why a bouncing ball is OU, then they
understand the nature of what needs to be compared in a system that is
open to environmental input.
I don't think that Aaron is a member here but I hope the administrators would let him join if he wants to.
It's critical that we resolve the bouncing ball enigma once and for all!
MileHigh
Looks like Aaron has deluded himself. I doubt if he ever heard of damping coefficients, and wouldn't recognize a critically damped system if he met up with one.
By his reasoning every LC resonant circuit is OU, since it will display the same time vs. amplitude decay as the bouncing ball, depending on internal losses, unless energy is supplied per cycle to overcome the losses in order to maintain a steady state oscillation.
It will never bounce higher than it's initial drop height, and I'm sure if he did the math, he'd see that the sum total energy dissipated in all the bounces (and air frictional losses), until the system settles to zero, exactly equals the input energy.
But lets see what Aaron and MH have to say.
@Ion
They may have been smokin a little more non-dissipating potential during the holiday season than is advisable because that thread has entered the realm of the truely strange and bizarre. I can't remember the last time I have seen such butchery of the english language and the definition of terms by everyone involved.
I hope this is not an indication of things to come in the new year or we may be in for a bumpy ride.
Regards
AC
Aaron, Rosemary, and the countless others on those two other forums are in much the same class; despite their claims to the contrary, they haven't a clue what they are talking about.
Aaron would never show up for a debate outside of his total control.
Obviously no has played with supers balls in a concrete tunnel. One could get killed. (4) 12 year old boys, 1 concrete tunnel, 4 superballs, alot of testosterone comprising 2 teams of 2 idots at each end. Throw all the balls at once and try not to be the recipient of a strike.
Whoa... Could put an eye out.
"But in reference to the ball and the refrigerator, both demonstrate more measurable joules of work done compared to the measurable joules of work put into it."
The best way to avoid time wasting with such people as the author of this sentence, comes from Euclid:
"What has been affirmed without proof can also be denied without proof."
I'm sure that superballs have been the projectile in some accidents. The are very efficient at bouncing. That said, they still don't bounce higher than the height from which they are dropped.
I can confirm that fact was the result of a high school experiment (I don't think they had been invented when I was in grade school).
Maybe, they have been improved since then?
As for Aaron and his crew, I don't think we should pick on someone so obviously infirm C.C
Dead cats and bouncing balls!
This is part of a great series of clips from the University of Nottingham. Food for the noggin!
@All
I understand the criticism in my last post was a little harsh so here is another perspective ----.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"The only real valuable thing is intuition."
"Anyone who has never made a mistake has never tried anything new."
"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
Albert Einstein
I remember when I started reading Einstein's original works, not the watered down condensed version most people read and I found it odd that Einstein was a rebel. As well if we read the quotes above Einstein would seem to be mocking everyone here because the underlying theme found in his work and thoughts was that a fool will blindly accept anything without question. That is a person can be well educated and knowledgeable, have an intimate understanding of science and technology but is still a fool if they never question any and or all of it. This is why people like Einstein defined the science of the 20th century and won Nobel's and the people who blindly believed everything they were told accomplished little if nothing.
LOL, this reminds me of a comment made by MH when he called me an Anarchist and it struck me as odd that I was not offended by it in any way in fact I took it as a compliment. I had to think about this for quite some time until it made sense and I found it related to the people who have influenced my thoughts. You see if anyone bothered to read the original works of Amphere, Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Steinmetz, Einstein etc... there is this underlying theme of rebellion because most all of the greatest minds we know of thought most of their peers and 99% of the population suffered from some form of delusion. They wondered why people would simply accept everything they were told when it seemed obvious that what they were told was flawed and based on assumptions. Now the odd part of this little story is that I imagine most everyone here is thinking --- well that was then and this is now and things have changed but have they changed?. If we believe everything we have been told and never question it then I would submit that nothing has changed because it was never about the science it was about evolution and the process of discovery. Discovery is not rehashing the same old BS and calling it something new which seems to be the underlying theme of the present day, it is a great marketing scheme and gives the appearance of progress however it has very little substance.
Here is the problem, if something is really "new", if something is truely a new discovery which holds more truth than that before it then something must have been untrue to some extent. However this implies someone must have been wrong and we know as a fact that science cannot be wrong because it is based on logic and undeniable proof. So here we have a problem, if science, logic and undeniable proof are infallible as some suggest then how can they ever be wrong? Logically if science cannot be wrong then nothing can be more right and no progress or discovery can occur. Now just how in the hell can an undeniable truth based on infallible logic be wrong when we know as a fact it must have been because something new has replaced it?. One has to wonder who we should believe when so many speak of infallible logic and the undeniable truth based on undeniable proof which is continually being proven wrong, it does not give me a great deal of faith that anyone has any real credibility when considering the facts of the matter. It would also suggest that they do not understand the english language nor the terminology because an "undeniable fact" or an "undenialble truth" cannot change --- EVER, for all eternity it must remain as it is or it should be obvious that it not undeniable. What many call the undeniable truth and the facts seems more like the "flavor of the week" in my opinion.
@Poynt99
QuoteAaron, Rosemary, and the countless others on those two other forums are in much the same class; despite their claims to the contrary, they haven't a clue what they are talking about.
Do you know what the really weird part of all this is?, the best case scenario here is that they are right and we are wrong. They succeed and make all of us look stupid and in the process a new age of free energy evolves which saves the planet from the insanity currently taking place, I hope they are right. It kind of put's a new perspective on this when one considers that many of Einstein's peers most likely told him "you haven't a clue what you are talking about", do any of us --- really?
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.12.27, 17:28:13
@Poynt99
Do you know what the really weird part of all this is?, the best case scenario here is that they are right and we are wrong.
What is the point of fantasizing?
Hope doesn't enter into the equation when it is quite clear (and been proven) most are wrong about their assertions.
.99
@All
I just thought of a good question along the lines of my last post.
All the experts here and most everywhere have told everyone for years that nothing can exceed the speed of light, that is "nothing" can ever exceed the speed of light, it is improbable, impossible, it just cannot happen and to think otherwise is crazy. Then quantum entanglement proved that information can travel thousands of times faster than the speed of light and neutrino's exceed this threshhold as well --- these are only the things we know about and there may be more.
Now the question here is why should I believe anything the experts or the critics have to say considering the fact that they have lied to me and you regarding to the speed of light?. Should I believe this is just an isolated case where they have lied to everyone but they are basically correct about everything else as some would seem to suggest?, You see it's hard to believe anything a person has to say once they have lied to everyone because they lack honesty and credibility. It's hard to believe a person when they state something is an undeniable fact and criticize everyone who suggests otherwise and then we find out that what they were calling an undeniable fact was BS.
Who is one to believe when the most credible person's we know cannot be trusted?
I think this may relate to what I consider an expert or professional, a real expert states --- "as far as we know nothing can exceed the speed of light" while the fanatical expert states --- "nothing can exceed the speed of light". You see one understands the limits of knowledge and understanding while the other treats knowledge as a form of religion which should not be questioned and has no limits.
I should point out that I have no issue with real experts nor science but I find it hard to understand how some people can be so extreme or fanatical in their views and have no conception of it. Why would they think this is normal when it is obviously not normal to go around criticizing everyone and calling them stupid or delusional because they do not understand something which in fact is not even true. One word --- Fubar
Regards
AC
@Poynt99
QuoteWhat is the point of fantasizing?
"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
As you may know Einstein won a Nobel --- just sayin
QuoteHope doesn't enter into the equation when it is quite clear (and been proven) most are wrong about their assertions
If there is no hope then why bother?, I believe hope is that thing which keeps us going after we have failed a thousand times until we succeed despite the fact that logic is telling us to just give up, as well just because some were thought to be wrong about their assertions does not mean all of them are nor does it mean this must always be the case. There is always the possibility that they may be right and we just do not know it yet, who is to say?.
Regards
AC
Hope is just a delusional enigma for the ingrained.
When I read that Eugene Podklinov measured a transmission of 26 times SOL. I was wowed. Not that I had learned something but that somebody else actually labeled an effect that ws so obvious in my mind.
In other words:
When the box people measure their box it is their box not mine and I have a facet of a rebel. That is why when rebels speak I listen. They are always saying 'Get out of the box. Contents: Stupid'.
Welcome to the Outland...
From EF:
QuoteOriginally Posted by exnihiloest:
For the ball, where can we find the demonstration?
Posted response from Aaron:
Just put 25 cents into those little toy machines and get a rubber
bouncy ball. Lift it to a meter and drop it on a hard floor and record
all of the results.
So Aaron is apparently running away. He can't put any substance behind his claim that a bouncing ball is over unity. He can really talk the talk but don't be surprised if he does not say anything more in this case.
AC:
That was your usual rant against science. In fact, you are well aware that science is not inflexible and does change over time. Beyond that, for me personally I never use an all-encompassing definition for "over unity" that takes in solar energy and the whole gamut. That just waters down the discussion and makes it meaningless. Is a clock that gets its energy from a bellows that expands and contracts with changes in air pressure an over unity device? I assume that you would say yes and I would say no. I don't even want to talk about devices like that. The same thing for the "open system" vs. "closed system" argument. Ditto for the "pie in the sky/we don't know everything" argument about "unknown sources of energy" possibly powering devices or putting pink elephants in the sky on every second Tuesday. Doesn't it make sense when you are talking about alleged over unity to not talk about natural sources of energy that everybody knows are out there?
Moving on, my feeling is that the forums are running out of steam. They are just filled with recycled ideas that are just being churned and rechurned again. The threads are getting stale. It's more fun when something interesting happens along like Steorn or Mylow. Just my opinion.
It's a shame that you can "get away" with claiming that a bouncing ball is a manifestation of over unity. The Peter Davey sonic water boiler thread is another shame. Just about every person in that thread is convinced that they are onto something but there is no credible data to support that conclusion. And there is lot of "pink elephant" talk going on and everybody just accepts it like a bunch of free energy sheeple.
That was my usual rant! lol
So Aaron, I want to build a bouncing ball power plant, can you help me? I figure a giant "bounce room" covered with piezoelectric transducers can generate enough electricity to lift the balls back up to the drop-off point and export electrical power at the same time. Is this correct?
MileHigh
Also, that stupid heat pump argument, here is a good rebut:
You have a large room separated into two halves. Connecting the two halves of the room you have a track and on the track you have a motorized cart. A small 6-volt motorcycle battery is used to power the cart.
At the start of the experiment the left half of the room is bare and the motorized cart is in the right half of the room. There is a big insulated bucket full of molten metal sitting on the motorized cart.
You walk over to the cart and you flip a switch and the 6-volt battery powers the motorized cart. The cart carrying the bucket full of molten metal moves from the right side of the room to the left side of the room and then stops.
It took only a small amount of energy in the 6-volt battery to accomplish this task.
Is this an over unity system?
MileHigh
Milehigh can you answer a personal question,are you an atheist.
A close of friend of mine is an atheist a lot of how you present things and debate
is how he does,critical thinking is something he says people are missing,hes subjects of debate are,free energy and religion.
I wonder why so many believers want also to do science, when they have indeed just to pray for obtaining free energy.
;D
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.12.27, 19:15:47
@Poynt99"Imagination is more important than knowledge." -- Albert Einstein
If imagination was enough, the Odyssey from Homer would be science. Do you really believe in the existence of cyclops?
In science the imagination is needed only to elaborate hypotheses that have to be verified qualitatively and quantitatively by experiments, and mathematically formalized to avoid any logical mistake. Pure imagination is vain because it is unable to reject the not working ideas. Einstein spent years of work in building the general relativity from imaginated hypotheses. Imagination is easy for almost every one, including people unskilled in science, but the indispensable work that must follow is not.
Quote
If there is no hope then why bother?
...
There is hope. Hope doesn't mean believing in everything that can be imaginated. This kind of hope is superstition or religion. You mistook science matter. Science is hope in the human capacity to decrypt a common, sharable, understandable world, not an imaginary one whose the only reality would be the psychological process inside the head of only one.
Quote from: MileHigh on 2011.12.27, 17:24:57
Dead cats and bouncing balls!
This is part of a great series of clips from the University of Nottingham. Food for the noggin!
1) The energy to power the speaker is obviously much more than the final energy gain due to the increase of the potential energy of the balls: no overunity.
2) I guess it is a stochastic process where an initial weak unbalance of the number of balls in each side, increases with time due to a less bouncing effect on the side where the material is less hard, i.e. on the side where the number of balls is the greatest: the balls are bouncing less (and less vertically) on each other than on the container bottom.
No. No. Nooo....! Let's not spoil Christmas by inviting this dispicable, self-appointed 'know-it-all, spiritual leader' over here. .99 would have to disinfect the place afterwards!
I think we all know Mystic Murakami is a complete idiot or a deluded fool and - either way - a charlatan, simply out to relieve the weak-minded and gullible of some of their cash. Nothing to be learned or gained from following anything he or that other charlatan, Lindemann, has to say (unless of course science fiction is your thing).
QuoteAaron would never show up for a debate outside of his total control.
How very true, he wouldn't be able to delete posts that opposed his version of science, or ban anyone that challenged his 'imaginary' intellectual superiority - lol, you'd never get Murakami to play on a level playing field.
Merry Christmas :)
@milehigh
QuoteThat was your usual rant against science. In fact, you are well aware that science is not inflexible and does change over time. Beyond that, for me personally I never use an all-encompassing definition for "over unity" that takes in solar energy and the whole gamut. That just waters down the discussion and makes it meaningless. Is a clock that gets its energy from a bellows that expands and contracts with changes in air pressure an over unity device? I assume that you would say yes and I would say no. I don't even want to talk about devices like that. The same thing for the "open system" vs. "closed system" argument. Ditto for the "pie in the sky/we don't know everything" argument about "unknown sources of energy" possibly powering devices or putting pink elephants in the sky on every second Tuesday. Doesn't it make sense when you are talking about alleged over unity to not talk about natural sources of energy that everybody knows are out there?
I would not call it a rant against science, I love science, moreso a rant against people on both sides of the fence who make outrageous claims. For example how many times have we heard the phrase --- "nothing can exceed the speed of light" by everyone involved and now we know it is not true. I have no problem with science I have a problem with people, all people who state their opinions as undeniable fact as if it is beyond reproach.
This is why I love listening to real scientists because they never say --- "this is the way it is" --- EVER, they say "this is the way we think it is" or "the facts suggest this is happening" or "as far as we know this is true" etc..., I hope you can appreciate the difference. The greatest minds are always the first to admit nothing is set in stone and we still have a million questions for every supposed answer.
You know I agree with damn near everything you have said this year and we are on the same page however many times I do disagree with the way you say it. It leaves no room for doubt, it leaves us no options for improvement or progress or discovery which we need now more than ever.
To clarify the issue of OU, as I have always stated I do not believe in it and the concept of something magically appearing from nothing goes against everything I believe. However this is not to say energy could not magically appear from somewhere for reasons we do not yet understand. You see I do not believe in magic or something from nothing however I do believe there are things we do not fully understand hence good science is required to help us understand. Maybe an example may help such as Aaron's bouncing ball---
We know all about bouncing balls, why they bounce, how they bounce and there is no magic here in my opinion but that is not to say there can never be. You see the bouncing of a ball as we know it is completely dependent on a force we call gravity and this force is integral to the process. Logically there is only one question we need to ask here --- what is Gravity fundamentally?, not what it "does" normally in most cases I am asking what it " is " fundamentally?. Now if we do not know exactly what gravity is fundamentally then it is completely impossible to know how it must act in every case, not most cases, not the cases we know of, not the usual case --- I am speaking of every case in the universe for all eternity. In this way the force we call gravity becomes "uncertain" because 1) We have no idea what in the hell Gravity is fundamentally and 2)we have no idea how it must act or react in every case -- not most instances EVERY instance. In my opinion this is good science, good science does not call something an undeniable fact when most of what we call the facts are uncertain and until we know for a fact what Gravity is, what the Electric force is, what the Magnetic force is fundamentally and how they relate to everything else then we know nothing for certain about anything. Thus nobody can say a ball must always bounce in one way or another in every conceivable case because they do not know, if they did know then they would probably have to be an all knowing, all seeing god of some sort who understands everything and that is just silly.
I'm not saying Aaron is right about anything in fact I think he took a wrong turn somewhere, I'm saying good science understands the limitations of our knowledge and understanding.
Regards
AC
Incidentally, I 've very quickly warmed to 'LetsReplicate', over on the darkside. ;)
Must say that I'm getting intense gratification from that EF thread where naughty boy, Mystic Murakami, is getting his comeuppance by way of a well-deserved scientific spanking! Though I see MM's doing what he always does when he's out of his depth, backed into a corner and faced with a knowledgeable and intellectual superior - he's trying to save face by twisting the facts, and basically muddying the waters by talking a lot of utter bollocks.
Great tho' to see MM squirming in futile like a maggot on a hook. Of course the low-life charlatan that he is, MM will always have the last say as LR must be due for 'extermination' anytime now. But isn't it sad when a forum moderator has to resort to insults, insinuations, and downright appalling behaviour... what a very sad and sorry individual MM has become. :'(
Any chance we can copy the whole thread over here so I can gloat at leisure, and before MM deletes it?
Merry Christmas 'LetsReplicate', keep up the good work. O0
@exnihiloest
QuoteIf imagination was enough, the Odyssey from Homer would be science. Do you really believe in the existence of cyclops?
In science the imagination is needed only to elaborate hypotheses that have to be verified qualitatively and quantitatively by experiments, and mathematically formalized to avoid any logical mistake. Pure imagination is vain because it is unable to reject the not working ideas. Einstein spent years of work in building the general relativity from imaginated hypotheses. Imagination is easy for almost every one, including people unskilled in science, but the indispensable work that must follow is not.
Let's do a thought experiment, what if I gave you a pill and in the next instant you knew everything, you knew the answer to every question about everything in the universe. Now we could ask another question --- what good are you?, If science is the seeking of knowledge and understanding of the universe we live in then what good is it?. You see you can have all the knowledge and understanding in the world but if it has no application then it is pointless. We could have billions of people just like you who have the knowledge and understanding of everything but if none of you could "imagine" how this knowledge and understanding could be applied then it is pointless. What we would have is a bunch of smart people staring out the window because they have literally no idea what to do with all the wonderful knowledge and understanding they possess, this is where our imagination comes into play.
We could apply this thought to this thread, you could know and understand everything about how and why a ball bounces however if it serves no purpose and has no meaningful application then it is pointless, science is not a religion and it is not self-serving -- it serves humanity.
Hmm, could it be that we have just stumbled upon the single biggest problem we as humanity face?. It would seem to me that the smartest people who have access to the greatest amount of knowledge and understanding are busy watching the stars and smashing particles while those who can imagine unlimited applications to serve mankind have little or no access to the very thing they need to succeed. There is an old saying which may apply --- "give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish and he will never go hungry". However if our goal was to keep selling fish then it only makes sense that we should only teach a few how to catch them, ;).
Regards
AC
AC said:
QuoteTo clarify the issue of OU, as I have always stated I do not believe in it and the concept of something magically appearing from nothing goes against everything I believe. However this is not to say energy could not magically appear from somewhere for reasons we do not yet understand. You see I do not believe in magic or something from nothing however I do believe there are things we do not fully understand hence good science is required to help us understand. Maybe an example may help such as Aaron's bouncing ball---
If we watch the tube, mainstream science will have us believe it all came about from nothing, magically, in an instant.
This is the currently accepted belief system for some of the TV science "stars". (Stephen Hawking etc.)
It seems the currently accepted science does indeed believe in magic, and something from nothing.
Well if we can swallow that one, free energy and OU should be childs play. Maybe we need to study magic not science. LOL.
Cheappower2102:
I suppose that I would classify myself as an atheist. I don't really get involved in discussions about religion though. Just try to be a good person would be my thought. Like many people, I see a double-edged sword when it comes to religion, and many arguments against religion are quite compelling. By the same token religion can also be a force for good in the world. I was born into a household that was not really religious, but in theory I am Roman Catholic and was baptized and had my First Communion, etc.
AC:
In the truest sense one cannot disagree with your points. However, we really and truly don't need to ponder the true explanation for the existence of gravity to discuss a bouncing ball. For all practical intents and purposes we do understand gravity in the context of a bouncing ball and we know there that are never going to be any special conditions or circumstances that will change the dynamics of a bouncing ball, ever. Recently there was a great series on PBS Nova all about time and gravity and string theory and whether or not it's possible or conceivable that there are parallel universes and all of that very important and interesting stuff. It's called "The Elegant Universe" and it's hosted by Brian Greene. Fascinating stuff, I watched a few episodes.
It's just that there is no real connection between the "Big Questions" and the bouncing ball. Just like when somebody is trying to understand some circuit that they made with a pulsing coil, we don't have to consider "other energy sources that may be out there." It's all about rationalizing the scope of your analysis of something within the context of what you are trying to do. It makes me think about that laughable line that free energy experimenters that are beginner's to electronics use; "What you are seeing here is outside the realm of normal electrical theory." Aaron uses it himself.
So, Aaron claims that a bouncing ball is over unity. You "add up all of the bounces" and you are at about COP 8, according to Aaron.
So Aaron, any chance you will leave your EF cocoon and come here and debate your claim? You have been using it for years and you host a free energy forum.
MileHigh
QuoteSo, Aaron claims that a bouncing ball is over unity. You "add up all of the bounces" and you are at about COP 8, according to Aaron.
So Aaron, any chance you will leave your EF cocoon and come here and debate your claim? You have been using it for years and you host a free energy forum.
lol, you're wasting your time MH. EF is Murakami World where he makes up the rules as he sees fit, lord and master of his own little fantasy realm. No one can win an argument with this prize prick on EF, so he certainly won't come over here where the cards aren't stacked in his favour. I used to think Hartmann was bad, but Murakami is in a league of his own, and clearly has his own personal agenda...$$$$.
I'm aware that some of you may think I'm over-reacting, but when you consider that this charlatan - and that's exactly what he is - continually manipulates threads on his forum in order to profit, by getting the feeble-minded to buy into his psuedoscience clap-trap, while promoting his works of fiction, then I think my views are totally justifiable. The likes of this jumped-up, arrogant idiot are a bane to real science and a blot on science forums. He's a total and utter disgrace, doing a very real disservice to science - not to mention the impact he has on the uneducated individuals that naively take his pathetic scribblings as gospel.
Farra Day,
I don't think you are over reacting.
MH,
I found that PBS series excellent. The odd thing is that there are so many string theories that one may validate Aaron M.'s views.
I still wonder why quantum entanglement is not understood by the top dogs in science. When you see a closed string in your mind's eye you may be looking at a bubble. Well, maybe if you are one of Carl Sagan's Flatlanders.
I just figured why Aaron M. is the way he is. He is from an alternate universe in our multiverse.
Seems Rosemary, that you would do yourself a huge favour to restrain from commenting. Evidently, you didn't understand my comments about putting you and Aaron into the same category when it comes to science (and simple comprehension too).
You erroneously jumped to the conclusion (as you always do) that I stated you supported Aaron's ridiculous notion that a bouncing ball is OU. Not so. I was stating that you two are in the same category of self-professed subject matter experts, when in fact you both have no clue whatsoever regarding those subjects.
Your measurements are, and always have been WRONG. Your interpretations of those measurements are WRONG.
Face the facts Rosemary, your work will never get off the ground, because your work is completely flawed and you have no subject matter expertise to correct the problems.
.99
Poynt,
It is truly painful to have to point this out
but
your posting above is eerily similar to
those of Aaron Murakami when he is
attempting to slam challenging points
of view or those who oppose his claims.
While it is true that none of us like to be
criticized venomously, is it wise to fight
fire with fire? Do judgmental accusations
enhance one's credibility and reputation?
In the heat of anger we often speak too
quickly and say too much...
You're comparing apples and oranges. C.C
The difference which you've apparently over looked, is that most everything that comes out of Aaron's or Rosemary's mouth is nonsense.
It would seem that the "bouncing ball" has
been the subject of much scientific study:
Bouncing Ball Physics (http://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/bouncing-ball-physics.html)
Striking Results with Bouncing Ball (http://www.science.uva.nl/~heck/Research/art/BouncingBall.pdf) (PDF Download)
Your estimation of Aaron's credibility seems
sound. Rosemary, on the other hand, is far
more intriguing. I find her to be delightful and
with a well developed sense of humor.
But then, here in La-La Land we fondly appreciate
strangeness and intellectual quirkiness.
@Dumped
QuoteYour estimation of Aaron's credibility seems
sound. Rosemary, on the other hand, is far
more intriguing. I find her to be delightful and
with a well developed sense of humor.
I have a general rule that if what a person say's does not make me think then they have not really said anything at all, which is why I enjoy reading both Aaron and Rosemary's posts. I also think many of the critics should just post a picture torn from their textbooks and save us all some time because there is nothing I would call creative thought to be found in their posts. It is simply repeated from something they have memorized without fully considering and shows very little in the way of understanding in my opinion.
For instance one of Aaron's critics posted a page full of math then stated that the ball had potential energy stored in it, really?, potential energy stored in it?. Now if a person were to slowly tilt their head ninety degree's to the left we might see that in fact the ball has no mysterious potential energy in it nor did the ball fall anywhere because we are resting against a very large sphere we call Earth. On our left we have one large mass (the Earth) floating in outer space and on the right a small mass (the ball) also floating in outer space and there is nothing falling anywhere. So where is all this supposed potential energy?, if energy is the potential to do work (a force acting over a distance) then the force would be Gravity and the distance the space between the two objects. It would seem to me that the only reason this system has what we call potential energy relates to the fact that a field of force acting on the objects exists between them and if this distance was zero then there is no potential energy. Therefore the potential energy must relate to both physical objects, the field of force between them and the distance.
This is the one thing I think many people find hard to grasp, Reality, the actual reality of even the simplest things we see happening around us because were too immersed in it. It should also be noted that the field of force we call Gravity never actually produced a force on the ball nor the Earth persay, Gravity does not act on tangible object it acts on every part of them equally.
Regards
AC
Quote from: allcanadian on 2011.12.31, 09:33:32
@Dumped
I have a general rule that if what a person say's does not make me think then they have not really said anything at all, which is why I enjoy reading both Aaron and Rosemary's posts.
...
They also make me think: I analyse what they say, I compare with what is really observed and how the observation can be simply explained, and it becomes clear that what they say is gibberish about either conventional facts or no fact at all.
Rosemary,
QuoteNow. One of Poynty Point's preferred complaints against our own work is that it was all based on errors of measurement. IF this was the case - then this is what's needed. We must throw away our broad band oscilloscopes.
You may attempt to skew the argument with cunning redirection and clever prose all you wish, but the truth remains:
The
application of the oscilloscopes, and
interpretation of the acquired data in your tests is seriously flawed. Furthermore, one requires a good understanding of the circuit operation and the observed wave forms before one has the credibility to comment regarding the OU merits of the device. You've repeatedly made it obvious that you have neither.
.99