Where does the energy come from

[Verpies]

Who are they?

Poets.

Attributes: Does not have a smell, can't be seen with the naked eye, or any other way, does not weigh anything, and your scientist know about it, but, are afraid to say so.

Photons?  Neutrinos?
Muons? Electrons ...nah these don't fit because they have mass and so they weigh something on Earth.

...can't be seen with the naked eye, or any other way...

So its existence is unfalsifiable in principle.

[NickZ]

Poets.
Photons?  Neutrinos?
Muons? Electrons ...nah these don't fit because they have mass and so they weigh something on Earth.
So its existence is unfalsifiable in principle.

   These mentioned things above are the effects of this unseen cause. They are the material "something" that are created by your "nothing". Funny how you can't get that through your head, and continue spewing nonsense as fact.
Perhaps you'd like to take a picture of electricity and show us what it looks like, and measure it, with out any circuit.
That nothing is the cause and reason of the something. So, unless you change your mind about the nothing, nothing is what will become of your free energy closed system tests and devices. Only distractions and wastes of time will come therefrom.

   So, now we have another denier back, F6, to tell us how well he likes material science. And that all else is heresy.
Planet of the Apes...

   NickZ

[Verpies]

These mentioned things above are the effects of this unseen cause.
They are the material "something" that are created by your "nothing".

So there is "something" out of which photons, neutrinos, muons, electrons are composed of.
What about protons and neutrons, are they composed of it, too ?

Funny how you can't get that through your head, and continue spewing nonsense as fact.

Your claws are out - quite unnecessarily. Calm down.
In my last message to you I was not "spewing" anything.  I barely made any statements in that message (the only one was about electrons/muons weighing something on Earth).
The remainder of my post was composed of questions.

Perhaps you'd like to take a picture of electricity and show us what it looks like, and measure it, with out any circuit.

[stivep]

...

[NickZ]

Poets.
Photons?  Neutrinos?
Muons? Electrons ...nah these don't fit because they have mass and so they weigh something on Earth.
So its existence is unfalsifiable in principle.

   Ok, not my principal, I don't own it.
   Yes, everything that we can see, and everything that we can't see, has a source and cause.
I look for the cause of causes, not the effects. The cause is the vortex energies creating something material from non material sources, as the aether. Any way, you know about all that but just want to discredit the idea by calling me a pendejo, so be it.

   NickZ

[NickZ]

So there is "something" out of which photons, neutrinos, muons, electrons are composed of.
What about protons and neutrons, are they composed of it, too ?
Your claws are out - quite unnecessarily. Calm down.
In my last message to you I was not "spewing" anything.  I barely made any statements in that message (the only one was about electrons/muons weighing something on Earth).
The remainder of my post was composed of questions.

   That picture looks like HV streamers being emmited. Not electricity but sparks or streamers. That is the visible effect, not the cause, only what is visible to the Camera. Or is it the new Apple logo?

   You might ask about what is the cause of lightning, What creates it? Millions of watts of free power.
  What drives the hurricanes, earth quakes, tidal waves and the up and downs of the tides, etc ...
Could it not be these cosmic sources, mentioned, interacting with our Earth?

   NickZ

[Verpies]

You might ask about what is the cause of lightning, What creates it? Millions of watts of free power.
What drives the hurricanes, earth quakes, tidal waves and the up and downs of the tides, etc ...
Could it not be these cosmic sources, mentioned, interacting with our Earth?

No, the heat in the atmosphere is mostly caused by the sun and that is the source of energy for the water evaporation, winds, waves, charge separation and thunderstorms. The sun gets its energy from fusing hydrogen. Hydrogen is matter.

Tides are synchronized with the position of the moon and sun by their gravity.  Moon is matter, too.
The tectonic plates are affected by the tidal forces, too ...and by magma convection. Magma heat is the latent heat remaining from planet's formation and also from fission of the heavy elements in Earth's core. Earth is matter, too.

No need to invoke cosmic forces or spirits for the above.

If you want to do that you should be asking how do the 4 fundamental forces arise and what are photons and electrons made of,  ...and protons, neutrons, quarks ...or just matter collectively.

These would be the questions that most scientists will not be able to answer - not winds, thunderstorms, waves and quakes.

[NickZ]

 There is a need to connect with cosmic fields, that is, unless you just love paying $300 per month for electricity.
  So, don't just repeat your book learning without questions.
Sun light does not come from the Sun, nor is it a nuclear furnace. It's all as false as your adored Big Bang theories.
The Aether can be tested, by what effect it causes. As the cause is not visible to us, but the effects are.
   Todays scientists have a lot to learn, or actually report, as they already know about these things, and much more.
But, are keeping us in the dark, on purpose.
  Free energy is all about tapping these cosmic fields. In case you don't know, or care. Stubborn is not my trait, but yours.
I am only stubborn about the real truth behind the purposeful lies.
      NickZ

[stivep]

....

[Chet K]

If I may ?
Few days ago had a chat with a very active builder researcher.
He had engaged with a few persons ( different persons unconnected in any way) the last decade who had results!

Results Which were terrifying, events which at first manifest plasmas and nonferrous
Materials becoming illuminated , they had feared for their lives .
There were photos of one experiment showing this,
The only thing which was mentioned, you have to figure out how to attract this energy
And then you have to figure out how to control it !

There was No vocabulary to explain any part of it .. scientific verbiage or "who do voodoo" etc etc....
Persons can muse or interpret these things in their own way ( lack of vocabulary)

Until such is found ( tapping into this runaway condition... heretofore unknown..
We just need to muse over how it might be done,...science has already taught us there is enough energy
In a cup of water to boil all the oceans...
As Verpies and others dabble in one assumed method for harvesting ..rerouting or repurposing the elements in materials so as to gain energy for other purposes?( the entire planet is full of such research facilities..

It's really not so cut and dry as some would like to think .
And honestly..
Most here have little interest in words towards no actual experiments..
Verpies ( and others) have charted a course to investigate..or experiment!
This is why we are here .
Offering words towards no method or path to experiment?

Where does that fit here ?
What are we supposed to do Nick ?

[whitelightningwizard]

If I may ?
Few days ago had a chat with a very active builder researcher.
He had engaged with a few persons ( different persons unconnected in any way) the last decade who had results!

Results Which were terrifying, events which at first manifest plasmas and nonferrous
Materials becoming illuminated , they had feared for their lives .
There were photos of one experiment showing this,
The only thing which was mentioned, you have to figure out how to attract this energy
And then you have to figure out how to control it !

There was No vocabulary to explain any part of it .. scientific verbiage or "who do voodoo" etc etc....
Persons can muse or interpret these things in their own way ( lack of vocabulary)

Until such is found ( tapping into this runaway condition... heretofore unknown..
We just need to muse over how it might be done,...science has already taught us there is enough energy
In a cup of water to boil all the oceans...
As Verpies and others dabble in one assumed method for harvesting ..rerouting or repurposing the elements in materials so as to gain energy for other purposes?( the entire planet is full of such research facilities..

It's really not so cut and dry as some would like to think .
And honestly..
Most here have little interest in words towards no actual experiments..
Verpies ( and others) have charted a course to investigate..or experiment!
This is why we are here .
Offering words towards no method or path to experiment?

Where does that fit here ?
What are we supposed to do Nick ?

hi Chet,

thank u for ur words.

u r right, we must attract these free charges from the environment. that is the how.
then control dissipation thru work load.

Don Smith showed us how, even Zilano showed, how to draw charges in against gravitational field keeping them equalized.

it really is very simple, its just ppl believe something 'supposedly impossible' must be complicated beyond understanding.

Like the Egg of Columbus!!!

Cheers,
wlw

[Smudge]

For me the best demonstration that an aether exists is the gyroscope precessing around its miniature eiffel tower, doing its balancing act without falling off.  We are taught that inertia is a property of a body to resist change of motion, an internal property that has nothing to do with the aether that surrounds it.  So this little spinning flywheel precessing around its tower conjures up (by inertia) a torque that holds it from falling off.  So another internal property creating internal torque.  It is readily explained by its changing angular momentum creating that torque.  Now do an experiment using a precessing chain saw.  OK the mass of the motor won't allow you to do the tower experiment but you can hold the chainsaw with its blade facing away from you and do two angular motions.  You can swivel your body around the vertical axis and you will feel the torque from the precessing blade as a turning force on your wrists.  You can also twist your wrists and feel the saw trying to rotate about the vertical axis.  If you could measure those two different forces you would find there is a difference because in the one case the moving mass along the blade does not change its high velocity direction, it merely translates slowly to a new position.  In the other case that significant quantity of moving mass does change velocity direction.  Your classical gyro formula don't apply, you have to delve further into where the forces apply themselves along the blade.  On thing is obvious to you, you can feel external forces on your body.  Sit yourself on a centrifuge and you will feel external forces.  INERTIA IS AN EXTERNAL FORCE.  And therefore the aether around us (even if it is so-called free space) must have some property that enables it to apply that force.  Why are we so brainwashed into thinking that a body has this "resisting change of motion" property when it's so obvious that it is an external force that we endure?     

Smudge

[Verpies]

Are you referring to this Eiffel Tower ?

[Verpies]

For me the best demonstration that an aether exists is the gyroscope precessing around its miniature eiffel tower, doing its balancing act without falling off.  We are taught that inertia is a property of a body to resist change of motion, an internal property that has nothing to do with the aether that surrounds it. 

Yes because if you put that gyro on a speeding jet plane, then that gyro is moving faster than the same gyro on the ground, but the aether is not.
So the speed of one gyro is faster than the other w.r.t. aether, yet they precess exactly the same way.

You'd better explain why aether opposes the acceleration/deceleration of material objects, but does not oppose their constant speed.

[Smudge]

Yes because if you put that gyro on a speeding jet plane, then that gyro is moving faster than the same gyro on the ground, but the aether is not.
So the speed of one gyro is faster than the other w.r.t. aether, yet they precess exactly the same way.

You'd better explain why aether opposes the acceleration/deceleration of material objects, but does not oppose their constant speed.

That involves understanding what mass is.  It is a property of the body that is geometric, like collision cross section where we are talking about collision with mass-less particles like neutrinos that travel at light velocity.  Then it is easy to show that within an aether that consists of an enormous density of these particles travelling in all directions inertia comes from the collisions causing the particles to be absorbed but then emitted again a short time later but emitted in the same relative direction they arrived at.  The aether particles have momentum hence there are forces from the momentum rate both at absorption and emission.  For matter moving at constant velocity the two forces are equal and opposite so no resultant force.  But if the matter velocity is changing with time the two forces are not equally and we observe inertia.  So mass is 2 properties of a body (cross section and delay time) multiplied by the aether properties (particle density and arrival direction distribution).

Smudge

[Verpies]

Effectively, you write that the absorption and re-emission of the postulated "aether particles" in a mass (e.g. protons, neutrons) happens in the same direction.
But in what reference system is that direction the same?   - the proton's or in some other reference system ?

Is the velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" the same ?
If "yes" then with respect to what is the velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" the same ?  - wrt to the proton or to some other reference system ?
If "no" then with respect to what is the difference in velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" measured ?  - wrt to the proton or to some other reference system ?

[NickZ]

 Deleted.

[NickZ]

  Aether particles...how about non particles...

   NickZ

[Verpies]

Deleted.

So press the blue "Remove" button at the bottom of your message and it will be deleted and will not take up space.

[Verpies]

Aether particles...how about non particles...

I did not propose that.
Personally, I would prefer "units of motion".

[picowatt]

...
Hydrogen is matter.
...

If you have a bar of gold that contains 0.0000000000004% lead, would you say that you have a bar made of "gold" or would you say that you have a bar made of "lead"?

PW

[Verpies]

Gold

[Smudge]

Effectively, you write that the absorption and re-emission of the postulated "aether particles" in a mass (e.g. protons, neutrons) happens in the same direction.
But in what reference system is that direction the same?   - the proton's or in some other reference system ?

Is the velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" the same ?
If "yes" then with respect to what is the velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" the same ?  - wrt to the proton or to some other reference system ?
If "no" then with respect to what is the difference in velocity of the absorbed and re-emitted "aether particles" measured ?  - wrt to the proton or to some other reference system ?

Clearly it has to be in the reference system of the proton, the proton has no access to another reference.  That is why I said relative velocity, it is relative to the frame in which the proton is at rest.  And in that system the velocity of the emitted particle is the same as as the velocity of the absorbed particle.

Smudge

[Verpies]

And in that system the velocity of the emitted particle is the same as as the velocity of the absorbed particle.

Does the proton recoil as it re-emits the "aether particle" ?

[whitelightningwizard]

hi

Sorry there are no protons centering atomic systems.

Erwin Muller photographed atoms under magnification using Field Ion Microscope and pictures clearly show:

PROOF the center of atom is vacuum or pure MIND (which is invisible)

MIND centers all matter just as a fulcrum centers its lever !!! without it no motion can occur !!

so we have no need for strong nuclear or weak nuclear forces to hold two or more 'positively charged' protons together against Coulomb's supposed law of likes repelling!!

Please ALL on here read Walter Russell's NEW concepts of the Universe and upgrade your thinking by 1000 years. 

Cheers,
wlw