RUSSIAN ASTROLOGER SUES NASA, TRIES TO STOP DEEP IMPACT MISS

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » RUSSIAN ASTROLOGER SUES NASA, TRIES TO STOP DEEP IMPACT MISS

Page 22 of 24 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24 Next

Author

Message

George Dishman

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 11:50 am

Guest

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y98de.40036$r53.4769@attbi_s21...

Quote:

It is losing energy in the form of
gravitational radiation and will eventually
decay, but even if it didn't, that isn't
the normal meaning of perpetual motion.

Quote:

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

Nonsense, I can draw circles of many different
radii.

Quote:

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

No, that's a torus.

Quote:

That indicates unity is a ring at rest.
Over-unity would be the simple act of spinning the ring transforming it's
mass into kinetic energy.

Spinning a ring doesn't change its mass into
energy, the energy you added in the act of
making it spin is added to its existing rest
mass. The total mass/energy remains the same
before and after.

"Over-unity" in the sense of perpetual motion
means getting out more energy than you put in,
like starting with a half-charged battery and
using it to spin the ring, then connecting
the ring to a generator and using it to fully
charge the battery. That's what is believed
to be impossible.

Quote:

The confusion here is that the phrase "Perpetual
motion" carries with it the concept that you can
have something that will move forever even if
you extract power from it. Simple orbital motion
isn't considered a perpetual motion machine
though you would think it should from the words.

Perpetual motion in the sense of a perpetual
motion machine does not exist in nature.

Quote:

God doesn't join in the kook votes (that I am
aware of anyway) so it looks like you will be
judged only by those who read your ideas.

George

Art Deco

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 12:13 pm

Guest

ring_theory <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52a58$kji$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dr%ce.39498$NU4.15916@attbi_s22...

Yea! do I get the kook of the century award??

Present your idea for perpetual motion. When
people point out why it won't work, you can
be judged on how you react. Anyone can make
a mistake in an analysis, only kooks cling
to the idea once the error has been exposed.

George

I'm not explaining perpetual motion there is no need. All one has to do is
look at the solar system. Know that it's been in existance for billions of
years. What's not perpetual about that?

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle. The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring. That indicates unity is a ring at rest.
Over-unity would be the simple act of spinning the ring transforming it's
mass into kinetic energy.

However the error is in mans perception of such things. Perpetual motion
supposidly cannot exist and will bring a plithera of mis-percieved reasons
as to why it cannot exist. But it exists in nature. To accurately point out
why it won't work would be denying that it occures in nature.

I can be judged? I think you better leave that to god as man's infinite
stupidity will allways hinder the final judgement. Anyone with a valid
thesis is going to cling to what they know as fact. That makes them an
automatic kook if their works go against the "norm" of physics.

Excellent campaign speech, ring_toss.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/alexa/socks.html>
<http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/kazoo/kazoo.html>

ring_theory

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 6:52 pm

Guest

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d534mr$tqs$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

Quote:

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y98de.40036$r53.4769@attbi_s21...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52a58$kji$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dr%ce.39498$NU4.15916@attbi_s22...

Yea! do I get the kook of the century award??

Present your idea for perpetual motion. When
people point out why it won't work, you can
be judged on how you react. Anyone can make
a mistake in an analysis, only kooks cling
to the idea once the error has been exposed.

I'm not explaining perpetual motion there is no need. All one has to do
is
look at the solar system. Know that it's been in existance for billions
of
years. What's not perpetual about that?

It is losing energy in the form of
gravitational radiation and will eventually
decay, but even if it didn't, that isn't
the normal meaning of perpetual motion.

It's as perpetual as it gets in nature.What's the "normal" meaning of
perpetual motion if there is such a thing?

Quote:

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

Nonsense, I can draw circles of many different
radii.

the most important one you will draw is "0". It's not the result it is the
mechanism.

Quote:

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

No, that's a torus.

The differences are?

Quote:

I didn't say change. A stationary mass is energy at rest.
The simple act of motivating it transforms it to kinetic energy,
thermodynamics simply won't allow any variance.
Conservation is a given with energy

Quote:

"Over-unity" in the sense of perpetual motion
means getting out more energy than you put in,
like starting with a half-charged battery and
using it to spin the ring, then connecting
the ring to a generator and using it to fully
charge the battery. That's what is believed
to be impossible.

How about flywheel energy doesn't that classify as as a storage device?
So happens that Induction coils fit nicely around a ring. that's not
impossible. Inventing is problem solving, what you invent is defined by the
problem your solving. The problem was, How to drive multiple flux fields
through several induction coils indefinitely. Problem solved, has been for
years.

Quote:

There is a vast difference between what occures in nature and what can be
done in a controlled environment with the right mechanism.
Truth is it hasn't been explored before now. Maxwell might have discovered
it had his works continued. but the materials to do it with might not have
been available to him to make even a crude prototype.

Quote:

Perpetual motion in the sense of a perpetual
motion machine does not exist in nature.

The very atoms in everything around you move perpetually. some slower than
others.

Quote:

Reading something and fully understanding it are two different things.

Ring

Art Deco

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 7:26 pm

Guest

ring_theory <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d534mr$tqs$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y98de.40036$r53.4769@attbi_s21...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52a58$kji$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dr%ce.39498$NU4.15916@attbi_s22...

Yea! do I get the kook of the century award??

Present your idea for perpetual motion. When
people point out why it won't work, you can
be judged on how you react. Anyone can make
a mistake in an analysis, only kooks cling
to the idea once the error has been exposed.

I'm not explaining perpetual motion there is no need. All one has to do
is
look at the solar system. Know that it's been in existance for billions
of
years. What's not perpetual about that?

It is losing energy in the form of
gravitational radiation and will eventually
decay, but even if it didn't, that isn't
the normal meaning of perpetual motion.

It's as perpetual as it gets in nature.What's the "normal" meaning of
perpetual motion if there is such a thing?

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

Nonsense, I can draw circles of many different
radii.

the most important one you will draw is "0". It's not the result it is the
mechanism.

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

No, that's a torus.

The differences are?

That indicates unity is a ring at rest.
Over-unity would be the simple act of spinning the ring transforming
it's
mass into kinetic energy.

Spinning a ring doesn't change its mass into
energy, the energy you added in the act of
making it spin is added to its existing rest
mass. The total mass/energy remains the same
before and after.

I didn't say change. A stationary mass is energy at rest.
The simple act of motivating it transforms it to kinetic energy,
thermodynamics simply won't allow any variance.
Conservation is a given with energy

"Over-unity" in the sense of perpetual motion
means getting out more energy than you put in,
like starting with a half-charged battery and
using it to spin the ring, then connecting
the ring to a generator and using it to fully
charge the battery. That's what is believed
to be impossible.

How about flywheel energy doesn't that classify as as a storage device?
So happens that Induction coils fit nicely around a ring. that's not
impossible. Inventing is problem solving, what you invent is defined by the
problem your solving. The problem was, How to drive multiple flux fields
through several induction coils indefinitely. Problem solved, has been for
years.

Kooks have been making coils and flywheels in vain attempts to overcome
thermodynamics for a looooooooooong time. Move to the end of the line.

Quote:

However the error is in mans perception of such things. Perpetual motion
supposidly cannot exist and will bring a plithera of mis-percieved
reasons
as to why it cannot exist. But it exists in nature. To accurately point
out
why it won't work would be denying that it occures in nature.

The confusion here is that the phrase "Perpetual
motion" carries with it the concept that you can
have something that will move forever even if
you extract power from it. Simple orbital motion
isn't considered a perpetual motion machine
though you would think it should from the words.

There is a vast difference between what occures in nature and what can be
done in a controlled environment with the right mechanism.
Truth is it hasn't been explored before now. Maxwell might have discovered
it had his works continued. but the materials to do it with might not have
been available to him to make even a crude prototype.

Stop reading Richard CEEE Hoagland and Michael Bara, they are
pseudoscientific crackpots.

Quote:

Perpetual motion in the sense of a perpetual
motion machine does not exist in nature.

The very atoms in everything around you move perpetually. some slower than
others.

I can be judged? I think you better leave that to god as man's infinite
stupidity will allways hinder the final judgement. Anyone with a valid
thesis is going to cling to what they know as fact. That makes them an
automatic kook if their works go against the "norm" of physics.

God doesn't join in the kook votes (that I am
aware of anyway) so it looks like you will be
judged only by those who read your ideas.

Reading something and fully understanding it are two different things.

Ring

Word salad does not a perpetual motion machine make, ring_toss.

--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler

<http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/alexa/socks.html>
<http://www.petitmorte.net/cujo/kazoo/kazoo.html>

Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey B

Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 8:21 pm

Guest

On Sun, 01 May 2005 19:26:16 -0600, Art Deco <art_deco@127.0.0.1>
wrote in alt.fan.art-bell in message
<010520051926168221%art_deco@127.0.0.1>:

Quote:

ring_theory <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote:

I can be judged? I think you better leave that to god as man's infinite
stupidity will allways hinder the final judgement. Anyone with a valid
thesis is going to cling to what they know as fact. That makes them an
automatic kook if their works go against the "norm" of physics.

God doesn't join in the kook votes (that I am
aware of anyway) so it looks like you will be
judged only by those who read your ideas.

Reading something and fully understanding it are two different things.

Ring

Word salad does not a perpetual motion machine make, ring_toss.

I'm not so sure. He seems to have an indefinite supply of it.
--
V.G.

"i would blame them it they went on a holy jhiad and killed off all the infidels, would you?"
- AssLexa's "200+" alien-implanted IQ jumps the rails and crashes into a grade school, killing all inside.

Change pobox dot alaska to gci.

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

George Dishman

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:06 am

Guest

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

Quote:

As I said below, it is usually taken to mean
something that will move indefinitely even if
energy is extracted without being replaced,
i.e. a machine that violates conservation of
energy. It is a misnomer.

Quote:

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

Nonsense, I can draw circles of many different
radii.

the most important one you will draw is "0". It's not the result it is the
mechanism.

It remains that the radius is not
constrained to have the value "1".

Quote:

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

No, that's a torus.

The differences are?

A circle is a line is of zero width so
has zero volume and therefore cannot be
a physical entity:

x^2 + y^2 = r^2

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html

The torus has a volume so can be physical:

(R - sqrt(x^2 + y^2) )^2 + z^2 = r^2

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html

Quote:

You said "transforming". I don't see the difference.

Quote:

A stationary mass is energy at rest.
The simple act of motivating it transforms it to kinetic energy,

No it doesn't, kinetic energy is the amount by
which the total energy of the spinning ring
_exceeds_ the energy it had at rest.

Quote:

thermodynamics simply won't allow any variance.
Conservation is a given with energy

Agreed. In fact if you believe that then you
probably aren't a kook, you just weren't aware
of the baggage that the term "perpetual motion"
carries.

Quote:

Certainly.

Quote:

So happens that Induction coils fit nicely around a ring. that's not
impossible.

Not at all, it is a form of generator.

Quote:

Inventing is problem solving, what you invent is defined by the
problem your solving. The problem was, How to drive multiple flux fields
through several induction coils indefinitely. Problem solved, has been for
years.

The problem in terms of "perpetual motion" is how
to extract electrical energy without slowing the
flywheel or replacing the energy. If "Conservation
is a given with energy" then it is impossible.

Quote:

However the error is in mans perception of such things. Perpetual
motion
supposidly cannot exist and will bring a plithera of mis-percieved
reasons
as to why it cannot exist. But it exists in nature. To accurately
point
out
why it won't work would be denying that it occures in nature.

The confusion here is that the phrase "Perpetual
motion" carries with it the concept that you can
have something that will move forever even if
you extract power from it. Simple orbital motion
isn't considered a perpetual motion machine
though you would think it should from the words.

There is a vast difference between what occures in nature and what can be
done in a controlled environment with the right mechanism.
Truth is it hasn't been explored before now. Maxwell might have discovered
it had his works continued. but the materials to do it with might not have
been available to him to make even a crude prototype.

http://www.powerpulse.net/powerpulse/archive/aa_031901c1.stm

Quote:

Perpetual motion in the sense of a perpetual
motion machine does not exist in nature.

The very atoms in everything around you move perpetually. some slower than
others.

"in the sense of a perpetual motion machine"

Quote:

I agree. Read my words again, this time
paying particular attention to the
difference between the "perpetual motion"
that you describe and a "perpetual motion
machine" that provides more energy out than
you put in, or an "over unity" efficiency.

George

Jim Phillips

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:33 am

Guest

On Sun, 1 May 2005, ring_theory wrote:

Quote:

The fact that Tempel 1's orbit has changed drastically in just the
last 150 years. You remember Tempel 1, your perfect model of perpetual
motion?

Quote:

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

I think you have that backward.

Quote:

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

The *circumference* of a circle is a ring; the radius is a spoke.

Quote:

That indicates unity is a ring at rest.

No, unity is one.

Quote:

Over-unity would be the simple act of spinning the ring transforming it's
mass into kinetic energy.

What does "Over-unity" mean?

Quote:

What is *your* definition of "perpetual motion"?

snip

--
Jim Phillips, jay pee aitch eye el el eye pee at bee see pee ell dot net
"Moms and dads these days are like the Democratic party: lame, spineless
and not holding up their end of the equation. And kids are like the
Republicans: drunk with power and out of control." -- Bill Maher

George Dishman

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:53 am

Guest

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

Quote:

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d534mr$tqs$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

... but even if it didn't, that isn't
the normal meaning of perpetual motion.

It's as perpetual as it gets in nature.What's the "normal" meaning of
perpetual motion if there is such a thing?

http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

chosp

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:38 pm

Guest

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C6Xce.39117$r53.10889@attbi_s21...

Quote:

As far as the mechanism to achieve it. I could explain it but you wouldn't
believe it as the very function of the device involves all that you have
been taught to hate or disbelieve.

You have no idea what I've been taught to hate or disbelieve.
If you were honest you would admit this now.
Your assertion of your ability to explain this is not credible
unless you actually do it.

..> Perpetual motion, unity/over-unity,

Quote:

free-energy, and anti-gravity all in one device.

Put up or shut up.

ring_theory

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 2:31 pm

Guest

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d54trc$emj$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

Quote:

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hRede.34190$WI3.32206@attbi_s71...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d534mr$tqs$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y98de.40036$r53.4769@attbi_s21...

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52a58$kji$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dr%ce.39498$NU4.15916@attbi_s22...

Yea! do I get the kook of the century award??

Present your idea for perpetual motion. When
people point out why it won't work, you can
be judged on how you react. Anyone can make
a mistake in an analysis, only kooks cling
to the idea once the error has been exposed.

I'm not explaining perpetual motion there is no need. All one has to
do
is
look at the solar system. Know that it's been in existance for
billions
of
years. What's not perpetual about that?

It is losing energy in the form of
gravitational radiation and will eventually
decay, but even if it didn't, that isn't
the normal meaning of perpetual motion.

It's as perpetual as it gets in nature.What's the "normal" meaning of
perpetual motion if there is such a thing?

As I said below, it is usually taken to mean
something that will move indefinitely even if
energy is extracted without being replaced,
i.e. a machine that violates conservation of
energy. It is a misnomer.

This is the problem terminology. Perpetual is defined as "occurring
continually : indefinitely long-continued".Your definition is more of
free-energy than PM. getting more out than put in.

Quote:

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

Nonsense, I can draw circles of many different
radii.

the most important one you will draw is "0". It's not the result it is
the
mechanism.

It remains that the radius is not
constrained to have the value "1".

Sadly that's the way it is. True unity is 0 or rather
0.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 for infinity.
It's an intiger that has difficulties in mathematics so it has been rounded
to 1. That's the problem man has difficulties understanding something so we
change it to something we can understand and explain mathematically. In
physics (in the naturally occurring events) it isn't rounded off it is what
it is and that's it.

Quote:

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

No, that's a torus.

The differences are?

A circle is a line is of zero width so
has zero volume and therefore cannot be
a physical entity:

x^2 + y^2 = r^2

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Circle.html

The torus has a volume so can be physical:

(R - sqrt(x^2 + y^2) )^2 + z^2 = r^2

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Torus.html

We're nitpicking terminology here. by definition "circle" is defined as
ring, which is a torus.

So which is wrong mathematics explanation or centuries old definitions?

Quote:

That indicates unity is a ring at rest.
Over-unity would be the simple act of spinning the ring transforming
it's
mass into kinetic energy.

Spinning a ring doesn't change its mass into
energy, the energy you added in the act of
making it spin is added to its existing rest
mass. The total mass/energy remains the same
before and after.

I didn't say change.

You said "transforming". I don't see the difference.

A stationary mass is energy at rest.
The simple act of motivating it transforms it to kinetic energy,

No it doesn't, kinetic energy is the amount by
which the total energy of the spinning ring
_exceeds_ the energy it had at rest.

a 1/4 oz ring spinning at say 30,000 rpms, I would think exceeds the rest
mass.

Quote:

thermodynamics simply won't allow any variance.
Conservation is a given with energy

Agreed. In fact if you believe that then you
probably aren't a kook, you just weren't aware
of the baggage that the term "perpetual motion"
carries.

"Over-unity" in the sense of perpetual motion
means getting out more energy than you put in,
like starting with a half-charged battery and
using it to spin the ring, then connecting
the ring to a generator and using it to fully
charge the battery. That's what is believed
to be impossible.

How about flywheel energy doesn't that classify as as a storage device?

Certainly.

So happens that Induction coils fit nicely around a ring. that's not
impossible.

Not at all, it is a form of generator.

Inventing is problem solving, what you invent is defined by the
problem your solving. The problem was, How to drive multiple flux
fields
through several induction coils indefinitely. Problem solved, has been
for
years.

The problem in terms of "perpetual motion" is how
to extract electrical energy without slowing the
flywheel or replacing the energy. If "Conservation
is a given with energy" then it is impossible.

Perpetual motion and free-energy are 2 different things.
What your referring to is free energy. The force your referring to is called
back EMF, it's very pronounced in common armiture motors.
The coils are not Ideal in the common armature, as they are around a ring.
The common armature has a few issues that excludes it from bieng used as a
PM/OU/FE/AG mechanism. Friction is a big one due to the fact that it
occupies it's axis it is commonly supported by it. Requiring bearings,
rotational and thrust. the means of spinning the common armature are
brushes. Be aware that there are brushless motors and they are superior to
the brush type, However they suffer the same inflictions of friction.

Quote:

However the error is in mans perception of such things. Perpetual
motion
supposidly cannot exist and will bring a plithera of mis-percieved
reasons
as to why it cannot exist. But it exists in nature. To accurately
point
out
why it won't work would be denying that it occures in nature.

The confusion here is that the phrase "Perpetual
motion" carries with it the concept that you can
have something that will move forever even if
you extract power from it. Simple orbital motion
isn't considered a perpetual motion machine
though you would think it should from the words.

There is a vast difference between what occures in nature and what can
be
done in a controlled environment with the right mechanism.
Truth is it hasn't been explored before now. Maxwell might have
discovered
it had his works continued. but the materials to do it with might not
have
been available to him to make even a crude prototype.

http://www.powerpulse.net/powerpulse/archive/aa_031901c1.stm

Page visited and info taken into concideration. However flywheel energy in
it's common form suffers the same inflictions as the common armature
*friction* rotational and thrust.

Quote:

Perpetual motion in the sense of a perpetual
motion machine does not exist in nature.

The very atoms in everything around you move perpetually. some slower
than
others.

"in the sense of a perpetual motion machine"

Yes. In the real sense of perpetual.

Quote:

I can be judged? I think you better leave that to god as man's
infinite
stupidity will allways hinder the final judgement. Anyone with a
valid
thesis is going to cling to what they know as fact. That makes them
an
automatic kook if their works go against the "norm" of physics.

God doesn't join in the kook votes (that I am
aware of anyway) so it looks like you will be
judged only by those who read your ideas.

Reading something and fully understanding it are two different things.

I agree. Read my words again, this time
paying particular attention to the
difference between the "perpetual motion"
that you describe and a "perpetual motion
machine" that provides more energy out than
you put in, or an "over unity" efficiency.

George

Step away from the equations Go to http://www.m-w.com/ and follow the
analogies related to your favorite terms in physics. I'm sure what you'll
get from it is a better understanding of those terms as well as related
issues. If your as intelligent as I feel you are you'll see a pattern
developing.

Ring

ring_theory

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:03 pm

Guest

"Jim Phillips" <jphillip@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.1050502062908.24887B-100000@mail...

Quote:

On Sun, 1 May 2005, ring_theory wrote:

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d52a58$kji$1@news.freedom2surf.net...

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Dr%ce.39498$NU4.15916@attbi_s22...

Yea! do I get the kook of the century award??

Present your idea for perpetual motion. When
people point out why it won't work, you can
be judged on how you react. Anyone can make
a mistake in an analysis, only kooks cling
to the idea once the error has been exposed.

George

I'm not explaining perpetual motion there is no need. All one has to do
is
look at the solar system. Know that it's been in existance for billions
of
years. What's not perpetual about that?

The fact that Tempel 1's orbit has changed drastically in just the
last 150 years. You remember Tempel 1, your perfect model of perpetual
motion?

Are you sure that it has changed? Not an error on the observers part?

Quote:

Unity is defined as the radius of a circle.

I think you have that backward.

Nope. "1 a : the quality or state of not being multiple : ONENESS b (1) : a
definite amount taken as one or for which 1 is made to stand in calculation
<in a table of natural sines the radius of the circle is regarded as unity>"

It's quite obvious by definition that 1 is a stand in calculation but in the
natural world with real events, the very essence of physics in a natural
state is absolute.

1 is manmade, 0 is true natural unity. Which brings me back to the intigers
that mathematics has difficulties dealing with like
0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999 for infinity. It's simply rounded to 1.

Quote:

The radius of a circle as a
physical intity is a ring.

The *circumference* of a circle is a ring; the radius is a spoke.

If you want to split it into thirds and concider each section as a spoke be
my guest. However your taking from it's intended form. It would no longer be
a ring.

Quote:

That indicates unity is a ring at rest.

No, unity is one.

Not in nature

Quote:

Over-unity would be the simple act of spinning the ring transforming
it's
mass into kinetic energy.

What does "Over-unity" mean?

Unity and then some.
It's really a pseudo term. Unity is not fully understood or research in
determining how to achieve unity to determine it's byproducts is not bieng
done. I've said this many times "we shouldn't concerne ourselfs with
over-unity till we achieve unity." Once unity is achieved in a mechanism
we'll find that overunity is simple.

Quote:

My definitions are the same as the dictionary.
"occurring continually : indefinitely long-continued"

Ring

ring_theory

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:30 pm

Guest

"chosp" <chosp@cox.net> wrote in message news:ukvde.479$tp.412@fed1read04...

Quote:

"ring_theory" <ring_theory@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:C6Xce.39117$r53.10889@attbi_s21...

As far as the mechanism to achieve it. I could explain it but you
wouldn't
believe it as the very function of the device involves all that you have
been taught to hate or disbelieve.

You have no idea what I've been taught to hate or disbelieve.
If you were honest you would admit this now.

Ok. I can't magically predict, That I know what you've been taught to hate
or disbelieve. But I have a general idea when perpetual motion, Over-unity,
free-energy, and anti-gravity are concerned.

Quote:

Your assertion of your ability to explain this is not credible
unless you actually do it.

I have actually did it. I don't seek credibility, The mechanism will give
it to me automatic.

Quote:

.> Perpetual motion, unity/over-unity,
free-energy, and anti-gravity all in one device.

Put up or shut up.

I'll "put up" when I feel man is ready, not a minute sooner.
I ain't shutting up either.

I'll shut up when either of 2 conditions exist. #1 I'm dead. #2 Someone can
show me that what I observe empirically, doesn't exist.

Ring

Mark Martin

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 4:48 pm

Guest

ring_theory wrote:

Quote:

I'll "put up" when I feel man is ready, not a minute sooner.

Fine. You'll be just a plain ol' liar until then. No one is
compelled to believe you in the absence of a demonstration.

-Mark Martin

ring_theory

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:04 pm

Guest

"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115074134.699562.324160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

ring_theory wrote:

I'll "put up" when I feel man is ready, not a minute sooner.

Fine. You'll be just a plain ol' liar until then. No one is
compelled to believe you in the absence of a demonstration.

-Mark Martin

Yea that would be a problem *IF* all I wanted was to prove i'm *not* a liar.

Ring

Mark Martin

Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:22 pm

Guest

ring_theory wrote:

Quote:

"Mark Martin" <qed100@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115074134.699562.324160@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

ring_theory wrote:

I'll "put up" when I feel man is ready, not a minute sooner.

Fine. You'll be just a plain ol' liar until then. No one is
compelled to believe you in the absence of a demonstration.

-Mark Martin

Yea that would be a problem *IF* all I wanted was to prove i'm *not*
a liar.

Certainly. But if you didn't care what people think, you wouldn't be
here telling them all about your fantastic accomplishment.

-Mark Martin

Page 22 of 24 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23, 24 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:37 am Science Forum Index