# A Question

 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previousnext »
 Pages: [
 Author Topic: A Question  (Read 1321 times)
davidGlobal Moderator

Karma: 2

Offline

Posts: 363

 A Question « on: August 22, 2006, 09:46:51 PM »

I was cruising some other forums that were talking about the fluxite apparatus and some people said, oh another perpetual motion devise, its BS………….don’t waste your time.

So, some people think the free energy crew are less than balanced…..they’re entitled to their opinions.

But here are a few questions to ask the science establishment……………..if you have a mass of hydrogen and an equal mass of oxygen, which of the two has the higher (underlying) ratio of energy per unit of mass?

Does anyone know what the ratio of energy per unit of mass is for a single hydrogen atom?

Does anyone know what the ratio of energy per unit of mass is for a single oxygen atom?

What is the proportional rate of the energy decrease, in relation to the ratio of energy per unit of mass, as a mass of hydrogen is increased simply by adding more hydrogen atoms?

You may be told that a mass of hydrogen and an equal mass of oxygen have the same ratio of energy per unit of mass, but this is not the correct answer.

If this were the correct answer, the only real difference between one element and another would be the mass of the particular elements individual atoms, which for some folks makes perfect sense.  It’s common sense they might say.

But when you change the mass of an element simply by placing it in motion, would the relative motion not cause the properties of the element to change, whereby it would become a different element?

For example, does a lead bullet fired from a gun change into a bismuth bullet and then back to a lead bullet once it comes to rest, as the mass of the bullet increases with velocity while the underlying ratio of energy per unit of mass decreases?

The stability of an atomic element is dependent on the ratio of energy per unit of mass being sufficient to maintain a stable field structure.  If this were not the case atomic elements would not remain stable.

Take element 115 for example; the ratio of energy per unit of mass is so low relative to the field in which it exists on our planet that it only lasts a fraction of a second before decaying into a lighter state.

If it were simply a question of energy being proportional to mass element 115 should have sufficient energy to maintain a stable field structure, but this is not the case.

Something to think about……………every atom represents a perpetual energy devise, just as the earth, moon and sun represent perpetual energy devices, where the underlying ratio of energy per unit of mass is continuously increasing at a rate of acceleration remaining relative to the system of reference.

The accepted concept of energy and mass allows for an economy based on supply and demand, which maintains the slave/master relationship, whereby the few control the affairs of the many.

 « Last Edit: August 22, 2006, 10:06:21 PM by david » Logged

Karma: 0

Offline

Posts: 59

 Re: A Question « Reply #1 on: September 04, 2006, 11:24:45 AM »

Quote from: david on August 22, 2006, 09:46:51 PM

But when you change the mass of an element simply by placing it in motion, would the relative motion not cause the properties of the element to change, whereby it would become a different element?

I think that’s an important consideration, as ice has a higher ratio of energy per unit of mass than liquid water.

So the state that the element is would matter to answer.

 Logged

Insert witty comment here.

davidGlobal Moderator

Karma: 2

Offline

Posts: 363

 Re: A Question « Reply #2 on: September 06, 2006, 06:09:28 PM »

Here I go answering my own question…..

The reduced energy of a moving body, such as a bullet would weaken the dynamic structure of the lead bullet, but would not change it to another element.

At high rates of speed or any rate of speed, the underlying energy potential of the moving mass is less than when in a stationary state, within the limitations of an upper linear speed limit, the speed of light.

Accelerating motion and decelerating motion affect inverse responses, a decelerating mass gains energy and an accelerating mass loses energy, in relation to an underlying force of energy.

It has been experimentally shown that at high velocities some elements temporarily change, but as soon as the velocity is decreased they revert back to their original state.

 « Last Edit: October 31, 2006, 12:21:04 AM by david » Logged

Karma: 2

Offline

Posts: 154

 Re: A Question « Reply #3 on: October 31, 2006, 06:39:36 AM »

"every atom represents a perpetual energy device"

And that’s not easy to just say, yeah, right!

David, you’ve expressed an axiom that proves we can do what we’re trying do.  It’s already in nature if we could just grab hold.

Also, nice to know there are now seven documented scientists who have or are willing to prove free energy in a court of law.  http://www.opensourceenergy.com/_layouts/apps/dp/index.asp?vID=128K.wmv  With huge money opposition.  But within the oil structure we will have allies who know they are stuck defending a wonderful but outlived kind of magic.  The new magic will not be combustion, rocket, or even bungy elastic.

To call it magic is probably a dis service for getting it going but the fact is, too many scientists in control  percieve free energy and gravity control as something fringe, outside their expertise and therefore not worth the persute.  So our allies are those who question.

Everything you know is wrong, was the title of a Firesign Theatre album/cd.

Good luck, Steven Greer’s Disclosure Project

every atom represents a perpetual energy device.

Seems to make sense to Kevin, David and maybe me.  Actually, both Steve and I are ‘show me’ people.  MAKE ME UNDERSTAND.

The first thing that swinged me to David’s theory was when he said, when you burn a log you don’t gain energy, you lose energy.

Later my brain went, Doing! and I realized he was right.  The expending of energy is what we do.  We don’t actually create energy.  It all gets used up and at a fraction of the energy input.  Which means, we are always tapping the planet for energy.

If you suck the inside out of an apple you get the idea of what we’re doing to our Earth.

 Logged
davidGlobal Moderator

Karma: 2

Offline

Posts: 363

 Re: A Question « Reply #4 on: November 04, 2006, 10:31:51 AM »

It’s interesting to note that the specific gravity of water is different than that of ice.

Ice has a slightly lower gravity reading than the liquid state of the water, so is an ice cube a POP?

Simply lowering the temperature of the water increases it’s underlying energy which in turn effects the field of each water molecule.  This field effect causes the ice to be lighter than it was in a liquid state.

Give water enough energy and it will turn to ice which floats in water, give it more energy and it will float in air.

Let’s look at what Jim is saying about burning wood……………..we extract no energy from the process, but increase the ratio of resistance to energy.  The final outcome is that we have lowered the energy of the earth without extracting any useable energy, which is not the smartest of things to do.

If we could extract energy from burning wood it would not warm us or cook our food, but would in fact lower the temperature even further.

Heat is an effect of resistance and the greater the resistance the higher the temperature.

It is critical to the future of our planet, if it is to have a future, that we come to terms on the issue of energy and resistance.  It is of importance that we know the difference between the two and realize that an increase in resistance does not correspond to a proportional increase in energy……….an increase in resistance effects a decrease in energy.

 Logged
Paul M

Karma: 0

Offline

Posts: 13

 Re: A Question « Reply #5 on: November 04, 2006, 03:45:49 PM »

David

An ice cube may or may not be a POP.

You state that water, given enough energy, would float in air.

Clouds are liquid water, and they float in the air.

Science tells us that clouds are held up by "updrafts" but this would appear to be

patent nonesense.

In a very severe hurricane, there are millions of tons of water in the air, at a time when,

paradoxically, the barometer proves that the air is actually far lighter than normal.

Could you please explain these observations in terms of your knowledge of energy and

resistance

 Logged
cropredy

Karma: 0

Offline

Posts: 176

 Re: A Question « Reply #6 on: November 04, 2006, 12:23:32 PM »

http://www.varchive.org

immanuel velikovsky.search for cosmos

Another question for david, which seems to be stuck in my head, is the sun gaseous, or am I right in thinking that is rubbish, and actually its very very solid?

Kevin

 Logged
cropredy

Karma: 0

Offline

Posts: 176

 Re: A Question « Reply #7 on: November 04, 2006, 02:02:54 PM »

David,

Really spooky?

, I had not read your blog leading to Velikovsky, i just did now, I picked him up from another forum, and recognised what he had said, spooky?

Kevin

 Logged
davidGlobal Moderator

Karma: 2

Offline

Posts: 363

 Re: A Question « Reply #8 on: November 05, 2006, 08:47:18 AM »

Paul

Undoubtedly warm air rises and up drafts do carry water skyward, but that is only part of the story.

Before water rises into the air it first has to evaporate, so we are talking about water in a gaseous state.

The condition of the air determines how much water will rise and form clouds and eventually fall as rain, snow or hail.

It is the relationship of the water molecules with the surrounding air which is key to this process, as the water molecules must have more or a higher underlying energy potential than the surrounding air to rise.  Therefore the temperature of the water relative to the air is important.  The water despite being in a gaseous state is colder than the surrounding air.

The carbon dioxide content of the air is important, as the higher the co2 content the easier it is for the water molecules to rise skyward because co2 has less energy than h2o, so in a highly carbonized atmosphere you are going to get a lot more clouds.

Clouds are not simply held up by up-drafts, which describes a mechanical process, as the ratio of energy per unit of mass is the determining factor.

A good way to demonstrate this is to boil a kettle.  You have steam rising, but as soon as the steam hits cooler air it stops rising and falls.  If it encounters a cool surface in the kitchen, like a window pane it will form liquid water on the cool glass because the glass is colder than the steam.

The bottom line is a differential in energy between the water molecules and the air, in relation to an underlying force of energy.

 Logged
davidGlobal Moderator

Karma: 2

Offline

Posts: 363

 Re: A Question « Reply #9 on: November 05, 2006, 09:28:51 AM »

Kevin

You ask if the sun is gaseous?

In part the sun is gaseous, but whether there is any solid portion to the sun is something I cannot answer at this time.

But, the sun is not a nuclear reactor, in relation to a fusion reactor.  The sun is electrically charged and the dynamics of the sun are similar to those of the earth or moon, meaning they function in a similar manner.

I would suggest that the core of the sun is extremely cold and that the sun is like a giant super-conductor.

Velikovsky contributed much, but he did not understand the matter of an underlying force of energy, so he assumes energy from the planets is contributed to the sun, but what is contributed is not energy but resistance.  There is an exchange of resistance between the sun and the planets, which is a two way street.

But, the sun has the higher resistance radiating out toward the planets and beyond into deep space.

This is why I say the factor of non-uniformity increases toward the sun, whereby there is a noticeable distortion of the field close to the sun’s surface, which we have interpreted to mean that light is bent close to the surface of the sun.  However, the light is not bent in the manner we think it is, as this would require the linear bending of space and light.  The apparent bending of light is simply due to a non-uniform differential focused toward the sun, as we view the sun from the earth.

It is important to note that the warming of the earth corresponds to a differential between the energy of the sun and the energy of the earth.  Global warming has nothing, or very very very little, to do with human industry and everything to do with a difference in energy existing between the sun and the earth.

Not only is the earth warming, but so are our neighboring planets, such as Jupiter and Mars etc.

Global warming is the greatest opportunity the greens have ever had to further their cause and they are making hay while the sun shines.

Now, don’t get me wrong here as I am all for clean air and I am disgusted by pollution, but lets not get lost in the forest because we are running scared.  The green house effect is a great story and yes there is going to be more cloud, but the cause of the increased co2 in the atmosphere is due to an increase in the temperature of the biosphere which is due to an increase in the sun’s energy relative to an increase in the earth’s energy.  The sun’s energy is increasing faster, much faster, than that of the earth.

If there is a destabilizing effect on the solar system it is the sun which generates the effect, not human industry.

The solar cycle repeats it’s self over and over again, which is what Velikovsky is talking about, but does not address directly.

Remember that the energy of the sun is accelerating as a unified field of frequency, just as the energy of all systems accelerates, but because the sun is getting close to a very high level of energy relative to the energy of the planets the difference between the energy of the sun and the energy of the planets is reaching an extreme.

Therefore, at different times and under different conditions the orbits of the different planets become unstable.  It is at this point that individual planets will be shifted from their existing orbit and re-situated in a new orbit, closer to or further from the sun.

This does not mean that all the planets shift at once, but only those or that particular one which has become unstable in relation to the solar field system.

Velikovsky’s work has had considerable influence on my thinking over the years and I have reread some of his books many times, including Worlds in Collision, Worlds in Upheaval, Velikovsky Reconsidered and Ages in Chaos.

 « Last Edit: November 05, 2006, 09:36:50 AM by david » Logged
cropredy

Karma: 0

Offline

Posts: 176

 Re: A Question « Reply #10 on: November 06, 2006, 06:42:39 AM »

David,

You say the sun is a super conductor, so what is a super conducter material?

Gold is.

The lines that are from the sun, especially the alignments at its extremities , are East/west and a few degrees either side of.

Most of the ancient religious buildings are aligned to these lines, and at the dead centre they often have a sort of enclosed chamber or little cupboard, they keep such as the wine etc in them?

If the signals emitt from a substance, or are deflected through a substance, is it feasable that the substance would re-dposit on a reciever, as in the electrical plating process?

If so, monatomic white powder gold will be found in those little cupboards?

In the long barrows , they nearly always found gold lozenges, fixed onto wood ( think)

The lozenges were at the back of the pottery bowls kept in the centre back spot of the barrow.

The pyramids will be exactly the same, recievers of signals, concentrate and raise the potential of the subtle signals to acquire your desired outcome.

Kevin

 Logged
davidGlobal Moderator

Karma: 2

Offline

Posts: 363

 Re: A Question « Reply #11 on: November 07, 2006, 01:59:13 AM »