Why do I get the impression you are trolling for
responses....ok, here goes again. The question was
originally about aether??? and has now expanded to
pedantics and a refusal to even try a simple experiment that
would dispute 'what I have been taught'...time to leave
Peter or come up with something relevant to the list...
Peter Ammon wrote:
....snipped redundants and NO answer to have you built TOMI
> I don't have the time to build this device during the school year, but I
> will be able to tackle it over the summer. However, everything I've
> learned about magnetism tells me that this device will not work. For
> example, because the wheel cannot rotate except around its natural axis,
> there is a magnetic potential energy that depends only on the position of
> the magnet in the loop, so if the magnet were to complete a loop, it would
> have exactly the same energy potential as before it began. It gets worse:
> because the wheel magnet is moving past the fixed magnets, it is causing a
> changing magnetic field, which will create eddy currents in the fixed
> magnets which get dissipated as heat; the energy for those currents must
> come from the wheel magnet's kinetic energy. So at best your wheel magnet
> will be moving more slowly than when you started the loop, even if you
> neglect friction.
precisely, EVERYTHING YOU HAVE BEEN TAUGHT...do the
experiment, see the results, then you will see the truth of
how you can be misled by 'laws' that are far from complete
> It's possible I'm wrong, but until those doubts of mine are put to rest, I
> won't invest the effort required. I believe that for something to work in
> practice, it must work in theory as well.
with the TOMI, you ARE WRONG, but how best to put to
rest?? BUILD the TOMI as a simple, cheap proof that there
ARE unexplained anomalies that don't fit what you have been
taught
> >About the misnomer 'perpetual'....is that term really
> >something a human can comprehend? I wish it wasn't even in
> >the language.
>
> Perhaps we can't comprehend it intuitively, but our mathematics can handle
> it nicely, and that's all we need. We don't need to understand an answer
> to arrive at it and have it be correct.
if you can't prove it IN HARDWARE, its bogus....period....
> >Do you KNOW why the planets orbit the sun?
>
> What does it mean to know things in science? We observe that the planets
> orbit the sun, and we have relatively simple theories, such as gravity and
> conservation of momentum, whose predictions match up with experiments.
> What more can you ask of scientists, except to make simpler, more
> comprehensive theories that model what we observe more accurately?
So you remain content to just model in the imagination while
our goal here it on USING THE KNOWLEDGE in REAL devices or
technology....again, the 'virtual' disease that infects and
propagates through the internet...everything is virtual, we
don't need REALITY...
> >Do you KNOW why electrons orbit or for that matter what
> >causes all matter to VIBRATE?
>
> I know the names for the phenomena, and I know the mathematics and
> explanations behind the model. That is as much as we can know, and all we
> can hope to do is develop better mathematics and better models.
but you don't appear interested in knowing enough about it
to USE IT for practical applications....so whats the point?
> >Is it beyond your scope to imagine that any human could EVER
> >figure out HOW TO TAP INTO THOSE FORCES and USE them?
>
> Haven't we? When we light a match, we are using the energy inherent in the
> orbits of the electron. When we microwave a cup of water, we are using the
> vibrations of the water molecules as a mechanism to heat up the water.
> When we slingshot a space shuttle around Jupiter, we are using the energy
> inherent in the gravity of the sun as well as in the rotation of the planet
> itself. It seems to me that we tap into and use these forces every day.
you have way too much time on your hands....use it to build
the TOMI, not type more virtual fluff, you are completely
ignoring the point of how we could TAP into the FORCES that
CAUSE the orbiting...not virtually as a model, but IN
REALITY for an essentially self-running device fed by the
forces of the universe that surround us...and are free for
the taking for those who can see beyond the far from
complete facts of orthodox science
> >> Are there examples in science where someone has overturned the existing
> >> theories without at least a basic understanding of those theories?
> >
> >Neither you, I or anyone BUT the DISCOVERER could KNOW that
> >because only they would know how much advice or instruction
> >they had received.
>
> I don't agree. When we read a paper describing a new theory, usually the
> author tries to demonstrate how it's better than the old theory, thereby
> revealing his knowledge of that theory. It should be possible to develop a
> new theory without understanding the currently accepted theory, but I doubt
> it ever happens in practice. Einstein had an excellent understanding of
> Newtonian mechanics before he developed relativity. Shrodinger and
> Heisenberg had an excellent understanding of the Bohr model of the atom
> before they wrote the Shrodinger equation and developed quantum mechanics.
Well, you certainly proved wrong on the 'lone inventor'
FACT....so this is just a second error...the academic
brainwashing is terminal at this point...<g>...no hope, he
won't build, he won't test, he won't question the 'facts' he
has been taught....another one lost....
By the way, I found one I didn't know, a 1929 patent by a
Lillienfeld who patented the first transistor....working
alone...but it was simply 'rediscovered' by what history
writes as Bell lab scientists....though actually developed
and invented by Henry Moray, working alone, without academia
or corporations...and thus out of the loop that gives him
historical profit or credit...
> Perhaps our disagreement stems from differences in our goals. It seems
> like most members of keelynet have as a goal to create a working model of
> something...something physical. After all, as you say, it's easy for the
> scientific establishment to brush off a theory, but next to impossible to
> brush off a device that's easy for anyone build that demostrates
> never-before-seen phenomena. I, on the other hand, am more interested in
> the theory; I don't believe it's worthwhile trying to create a device
> before you have the theory of why and how it should work.
and THAT is the CRUX, you are yet another virtual guy, who
apparently has no interest in reality.....thus you probably
won't ever lift a finger to build anything, even the very
simple, very cheap TOMI which you say is IMPOSSIBLE based on
'what you have been taught'
What is the POINT??? If you cannot use your knowledge and
your discoveries to benefit everyday life as HARDWARE, then
its all virtual...its one big game...
so this list really isn't somewhere you want to be....try
some of the newsgroups as there are many who seek out and
promote the virtual, never to be realized, never to be used
approach
> >I have read it time and again that, I
> >did it because I didn't KNOW IT COULDN'T BE DONE!
>
> I believe that the greatest scientists, engineers, and inventors don't work
> on new theories out of naivete, but out of a knowledge of the weakest
> points of existing theories. In other words, they did it because they knew
> (or strongly believed) it could be done, not because they didn't know it
> couldn't.
and if they DID KNOW it couldn't be done, like you have
said, WHY TRY and so miss yet another discovery, give it up,
don't think, don't imagine, don't correlate, its all been
done, its all been invented, the 'laws' clearly show it
CAN'T WORK....
> >Good, EXCELLENT...keep thinking like that....laws change and
> >most of the people here expect and look forward to the new
> >'laws' of physics....
> >
> >We never flew before because we didn't have wings, but the
> >Wrights and others watched birds and KNEW that the 'law' was
> >in error....etc...they were considered crazy and half-backed
> >by their 'peers' too. But you can believe their 'peers'
> >jumped all over it once they realized there was money to be
> >made.
>
> That's for sure. Of course, we never hear about the thousands of theories
> that are labeled crazy and half backed because they are. For every correct
> (by correct I mean "better than the existing") revolutionary theory, there
> are dozens of hundreds of incorrect ones.
Really, the net is replete with them and some consider
KeelyNet and the people who frequent it in that category,
apparently you included (that is, you think we are crazy,
gullible or half-baked)...
You choose to study what fits your worldview....if it was up
to the skeptics and academics, there WOULD BE NO FREE
EXPRESSION of anything that remotely didn't fit with
orthodox thinking.....wrong country, wrong millenia...
> >There is always the safety and comfort of your 'laws' to
> >lean on, but now you know, there is a growing cadre of
> >physics LAWBREAKERS...ready and working to correct and add
> >to 'mainstream' science, to expand it to the next level.
>
> Very true! And those people can be found not only on keelynet but in
> universities as well. I aspire, like any scientist, to do that myself
> someday. My strategy, though, is to climb to the top of the currently
> known laws so that I can get a better view of the next ones.
ok, then you certainly won't be interested in this list
since you choose not to look into anything that would
deviate you from your path...
> >Some of us are working to make it so in our lifetimes, even
> >though it requires our own meager resources...while many of
> >you guys get grants, labs and support to allow you to do it
> >fulltime, yet you get 'stuck' in 'laws', completely
> >oblivious and disparaging of what you can't yet measure,
> >even the ideas.
>
> How can we theorize about things that we can't measure? What's the point
> (aside from entertainment) of thinking of ideas that can't be tested?
you shoot your own self in the foot since all you DO is
theorize, you don't measure, you don't build, you don't want
anything that would divert your mastery of 'known laws'
and who said it can't be tested, haven't you read any of the
URLs relating to machines and experiments and even
anomalies??
> >...puzzling...while we discuss and correlate
> >and some of us do simple table top experiments to at least
> >TRY to discover the secrets.
>
> Something that strikes me as odd is that I've never seen anyone on keelynet
> say to another member "No, you're wrong." There are lots of aether
> theories, and many of them are certaintly mutually inconsistent, yet what I
> sense is cooperation, not competition. You can't all be right, folks!
trolling again without doing any research....you are
becoming tedious Peter, I thought you had a good faith
question and it was answered as well as could be with the
current understanding....you don't search, you don't read
and I can't do it for you...
there are MANY times people have been corrected on this
discussion list and even in URLs on this website...I have
often been corrected and acknowledged it publicly...please
refrain from such broadband statements.....it certainly
reflects badly on your thoroughness...
> >I know, get a PhD and join the herd...I'll pass...don't like
> >what I've experienced and peer pressure as well as threat of
> >cancelling funding if I DARED to investigate anything not
> >approved as orthodox...don't upset the applecart, the worms
> >might get out...<g>...
>
> It's tragic that funding is not available where it can be best put to use.
> Apply for a grant to build a DNA computer, and you're likely to get
> ignored; mumble something about "anti-cancer" and you've got a much better
> shot. That said, I think that public institutions that offer grants should
> not pursue tremendously ambititious projects with an extremely slim chance
> of success (which is where I currently place any project that attempts to
> tap the aether, since the aether hasn't even really been detected yet).
there he goes again...all the anomalies about frame
dragging, matter currents, gravity, time distortions....mean
nothing...you have made up your mind and simply will never
see anything beyond rote accepted facts and now you reveal
no interest whatsoever in anything that you've not looked
into sufficiently to make a rational determination...slim
chance?? Cancer has CERTAINLY been cured...slim chance???
give me a break...
> >Such a simple experiment the TOMI is...cheap, simple to
> >construct, full details of the first TOMI by the inventor
> >are at;
> >
> >http://www.keelynet.com/energy/tomibild.htm
> >
>
> Here is what the link says to me, with some analagous ideas substituted and
> a lot of paraphrasing.
it means nothing UNTIL YOU BUILD IT....I have built the TOMI
and it works, if you won't take my word for it, just DO IT
and you will see why the writer of this URL thinks it might
be possible, and I have to agree, it COULD be possible...
it becomes obvious you aren't here to help or learn
anything, and I hate to have my list garbaged up with
useless arguments from those who come asking a question and
remain to create mischief....
you have your own set of beliefs and views...that is well
and good, but I can't have my list swamped with ceaseless
arguments not based on any attempts to introduce useful
information or ideas....
the guidelines say it all and if you can't offer something
of use, either an idea, an experiment or something that
others will find useful here, then I don't think this kind
of material needs to be thrown into 360 mailboxes....
That is NOT why people signed up and you seem to not get
that....your next response will determine my course of
action....good luck...
-- KeelyNet - From an Art to a Science Jerry W. Decker - http://www.keelynet.com/discussion archives http://www.escribe.com/science/keelynet/KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite, TX 75187 - 214.324.8741------------------------------------------------------------- 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------