(I just want to say up front, that all of my responces below are given,
or asked in the spirit of utmost respect for you; and, in a sincere
desire to learn and explore the true nature of the topics at hand. If we
don't fully understand the forces that we are trying to tap into, then
how can we be certain that they won't harm us in some way? I'm sure that
Marie Curie would love to have known, that the stuff she was playing
with was killing her.)
SWB
-----------------------------------------------
> >
> Hi SWB
>
> Why do we have to question the fact that the thoughtforce of creation is a
> continuing process which energises everything full time in every possible
> frequency.
If by "thoughtfource", you mean that there is an intelligence behind
creation, then I agree. As for merely questioning whether creation
itself has ceased, or is continuing; then I do have an opinion about
that too. But, until I have the necessary information to prove that
opinion to your satisfaction intellectually, then I obviously cannot
defend my current position of faith. On the other hand. your position is
equally lacking in emperical evidence. (Right now, neither one of us can
'prove' our positions on that point). We cannot obtain those facts
unless we fully explore the possibilities, that either of us might be
right. The Scientific Method is the foundational essence of that
exploration. This is one topic where science and faith can speak on
mutual ground, once the facts are uncovered.
Whether the Aether exists or not, I really don't think that flow to or
from it, is really going to be found to be the cause of overunity. With
the current evidence before me, I must conclude that entropy is the very
reason, that overunity may be possible! Tapping into the natural flow of
'existing' energy from a higher state to a lower state on the molecular
level, is all it will require. And, the Aether will NOT be found playing
a direct causal part, in realizing the goal.
> Just because we have eyes that observe light, does not mean there is nothing
> else. You cannot see air and you breathe it all the time and accept the fact that
> it is there. Every photon is stimulated by the frequency needed to exist.
> Why is is necessary to theorise in every possible configuration to prove
> something which is there for all to experience. (Not to see !!)
If I had made some sort of comment that the Aeather did not exist, this
statement might make a some sence to me.
Thankfully, I can measure the temperature, and volume of the air in my
lungs, and I know enough about the composition of that air, to know that
I ought not try to breath the air in a burning building. I can also rest
assured, that someone was curious enough to calculate the specs, and
design a wing that gives lift to the aircraft I have flown; and, to know
that there is a specific speed needed to keep that plane in the air!. I
am also very grateful that someone was curious enough to test his
theories, to even discover that there are photons; (let alone 'many
types' of photons); and, that there are quite a number of them that I
need to stay away from. And, that some of them allow me to watch my TV,
tuned to a specific frequency.
As for "Why it is necessary to theorise" - see all my statements above,
and below.
In my last post, I gave very good examples, and asked intellectually
honest questions. Is it really too much to ask, that I get
intellectually honest answers?
> We make use of metals because we have learned that we can melt them and
> shape them to our will. We do the same with every possible element found on this > earth and also to our and the environments detriment. Collectively, if we carry
> on the way we are, we won't have mother earth much longer, the oceans are dying
> already and with that our oxygen supply will be cut off. Whoever caused creation > should know that I am a non religious person in the known sense of the word
> because our treatment of the object of our veneration is in our mind a valid
> excuse to rape murder an pillage to our hearts content and that includes the
> forces of nature.
>
> We want free energy to curb those that stand in the way of individual freedom.
> We have given away this freedom because of our inhirit lazyness to be
> responsible for our own welfare. We also have bastardised our individual social
> responsibility toward our young by relying on a so called government who through > it's appointed agencies milk that cow for all it is worth.!!
You get no argument from me about how radically different our current
'global ideoligical energy paradigm' is, from the way it would be 'IF'
utopia was a reality. But, It is not! And, I hold out 'NO hope' that it
ever will exist, under the rule of mere men. But, that is really a topic
for another forum.
And, just for the record; I am not among those, who you seem to lump
together, in some sort of religious mush, who have raped and pillaged
for their God. We don't even want to go there; here, or in any other
forum!
As long as we are being intellectually honest, why do you believe that
our corrupt Government WOULD sit still for a threat to it's financtial
power base? Why would they NOT do everything it takes, to put down any
grass roots uprising, of us common folk; who are trying to employ any
technology that would threaten to dethrone the financial giants, who
really pull the strings? What is to stop them from just turning off the
utilities to the manufacturing facilities till the threat is past?
Why does just asking these questions make me a defeatist in your eyes;
rather than the realist I believe myself to be?
(What I find so fascinating about a classical debate with folks of the
New Age mindset, is that we share so much in the superficial verbal
descriptions of what we believe; BUT, a deeper evaluation, uncovers the
fact, that we are really 'polar opposites', on almost every foundational
belief. Ask me in private for an intellectually honest exploration of
our differences here, if you are interested.)
> With regards to your question, there is polarised flow in a magnetic field
> which is self sustaining and can be tapped. The Testika machine does this
> but not in a way we normally see as necessary to create a current.
Here too, in order to be convinced of your argument, I must demand the
emperical proof. For the sake of the argument, I am willing to stipulate
to the court, that the above testimony 'might' be true. So, what is your
exculpatory evidence, to substantiate that testimony? The mere existance
of something called the Testika machine? The court cannot accept hearsay
evidence. Even if those folks who hold this technology have actually
disclosed the working principles to you; you must now present those
principles to the court, or be held in contempt. Unless you are one of
the people who developed, AND/OR built that device, how can the court be
sure of anything you say?
I have read just about all that is available on that device. And, since
the the holders of that technology have sworn not to fully disclose;
then, for all WE know, THEY don't even know exactly 'how' or 'why' it
works, if indeed it does! All other evidence in public domain, upon
examination has been ruled as nothing more than speculation, from
uninvolved parties.
I admit. that it does indeed 'appear', that the Testika machine is
overunity; but unless it's principles are fully understood, the world
will never know if it could it be built less expensively, or safer, or
more effeciently with certain materials? (Or, even duplicated, in it's
present form, for that matter!) Why question? Why theorise? Are you
serious?
Therefore, I must repeat - How can we 'KNOW' that there is anything
flowing in a magnetic field? How do you build a high tech machine to
spec, if you cannot even define what the specs are? How do you define
those specs, to use that 'flow'. if you cannot quantify it? How, much is
enough? How much is TOO MUCH; and, what are the consequences, if you
exceed that limit?
The answer to these few questions are all I want to know!
Well actually...
I would like to know a few more things.
As you yourself, have pointed out, the world has gotten itself in a jam,
by not realizing, or admitting to themselves, the consequences, of their
current methods of energy production. But, you seem willing to embrace a
new method of energy production, the precepts of which, are totally
unknown. How responsible is that?
But, we have yet to see it proven viable for the masses; so, how much
weight does your argument actually hold?
I am merely trying to make an intellectual point here. Disaster of some
sort seems to be the norm for human beings, when dealing with fire. And,
'total annihilation' isn't totally out of the realm of probability,
given the topic at hand. Isn't the fear of potential misuse of that
technology one of the excuses they give for not disclosing?
> Although the force of creation gives rise to tremendously powerful effects,
> the actual expression of this force need not be powerful. The smallest
> repeated push to the heaviest pendulum will eventually give rise to
> tremendoes movement.
> Under normal living conditions, no heavy electrical currents are necessary
> and we are creating them not to live as nature intended but to force on
> nature a requirement for which it was never designed.
By what foundational political paradigm, have you formulated your
definition of the phrases: "Under normal living conditions...", and
...."for which it was designed." So, you do admit that there is a mind
behind the design? When did that mind impart to you, the nature of the
design? How did that happen? How do you know, what nature "intends"?
(Did 'nature intend' for anybody to drive a car?)
Do you own a car? Do you use it? Do you use public transportaion? If so,
there is a word for people with that sort of disparity between their
ideological theory; and the practical application they employ. High
currents ARE needed to smelt the iron, for the steel to build cars, and
buses, and trains.
> We have learned that a mechanical force can force normal gentle processes
> to speed up nature's design and thereby raise questions that can never be
> answered because we are working outside the design and the intent of the design.
I can't believe that you really meant to say this; or at least, not in
these words.
This too is fodder for a whole other discussion in another forum - But,
by what measuring stick, have you concluded that any question is
unanswerable about the 'design' of the universe? And, 'how' did you
manage to assign the correct 'intent' to whatever higher power you have
chosen to believe in? And, if you honestly, intellectually, and
intuitively, believe that you are working outside that higher power's
intent, then isn't that blaspheme? Is that what you really meant to
imply?
If you ARE working 'outside the design' (whatever 'that phrase' means to
you), and you boldly declare, that the very foundational pricipals, of
what you are constructing, are not understandable - (so, why bother
asking?); then, what rational person wouldn't justifiably comclude, that
you just aren't playing with all your marbles?
If there is no blueprint, and no way to even understand how, or when the
materials will ever get to you; 'how' can you 'decide' that you are up
to the task of building the building?
If there is no need to know what is right or wrong, or up or down, or
left or right, or too much or too little; then 'how' do you really
'know', that the direction of your present course, will take you where
you want to go ???
> We have among us people that are thinking with nature and not against it
> and thereby discovered processes able to create energy without poison!!
> Why not support them and join up in the quest for non destructive energy
> generation !!
> Ren
I disagree with the very nature of the first sentence directly above. To
reiterate the same point in a different wrapper: If those people really
are "THINKING with nature", then they have actually grasped onto a
'definable concept', which they are mentally dissecting, and processing,
and integrating into their limited human understanding. AND, by
definition, their 'thought processes' should eventually enable them to
explain it to any reasonably intelligent person, so that they can
understand it too! Otherwise, their "thinking" is just so much wasted
brain power.
In terms of whether or not I think overunity to be possible, "I
BELIEVEs, I BELIEVEs". It is just that, ignoring the need for total
understanding of the process; or, it's geo political ramifications,
should NOT be part of the quest!
In spite of what you may think, as a result of the nature of this
discussion - 'I really am among that group' who supports the quest. I
just want those about me, who are involved in it, to proceed in a
'reasonable' fashion. No one, more than I, would like to see a viable
O/U technology come to market. Believe it or not! Just because I have
serious doubts, that the government will ever let it happen; does not
mean I don't wish it would happen.
SWB
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------