I am not trolling. I am only seeking a better understanding of what
motivates keelynet members and of the theories they have.
>
>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
I am not refuting the idea of a linear TOMI; indeed, I believe that they do
work. I am disagreeing with the idea that you can get perpetual motion in
the sense of free energy from a circular TOMI, and as far as I know, nobody
has demonstrated that you can. The link I posted said that "it is believed
that the guide rails could be curved to go in a continuous circle perpetual
motion...". In other words, such a device has not been built. If it has,
then please correct me.
Has anyone compiled a new set of laws that explains this experiment as well
as other experiments that traditional electromagnetism explains? If the
laws I've learned are indeed incomplete, I'd be interested in whatever
theory there is that's better.
>
>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
How do you know that I am wrong when the experiment hasn't been performed?
Again, if the experiment has been performed, let me know, but according to
the link, it hasn't been.
>
>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...
I am content to model in the imagination, yes. I leave it to people with
engineering talent and desire, neither of which I have, to apply the
theories.
Of course we need reality. We all get sick, we all need to eat, we all
need to use energy. But we need the theory as well. Could we build and
fine tune a laser without Maxwell's Equations? Could we put a man on the
moon without Newtonian mechanics? Could radar accurately pinpoint a jet
without relativity?
>
>but you don't appear interested in knowing enough about it
>to USE IT for practical applications....so whats the point?
Was Einstein's work pointless? He didn't build things using relativity.
>
>> >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
When we send a spaceship past Jupiter, we have created a self-running model
(the spaceship isn't going to stop) in reality (it's a real physical
object) fed by the forces of the universe (gravity).
Or when you say "self-running" do you mean "produces energy?" If so, then
that will be much more difficult. An electron orbitting an atom doesn't
produce energy, or even change in energy. Neither does the moon orbitting
the earth or the earth the sun, or molecules vibrating; they only play with
energy that they already have, and we can steal that energy from them for
our own uses. Nowhere in nature do we observe something that produces new
energy.
>> 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.
I asked "Historically, what discoveries have been made by a lone maverick
researcher not associated with universities or corporations? It's an
honest question; I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'm
willing to accept that there are lots."
How did you manage to prove that "wrong?" As I said, it was an honest
question.
In addition, I don't understand the logic behind "you were wrong before,
therefore you must be wrong now."
>..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....
If I am not willing to question the facts that I have been taught, then why
did I join this group in the first place?
>
>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...
Interesting.
>
>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...
Once more, are you saying that Einstein's work in general relativity was
pointless and just "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 do frequent the newsgroups, although I don't post there often. I was
asked to join this discussion list by someone who apparently has made it
his mission to win me over from academia.
>
>> >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,
I have not said that.
> 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....
Why hurl yourself against a brick wall? A dazzlingly huge variety of
inventions is allowed by the laws of physics that we know, and when we
observe phenomena that is not in agreement with our laws, we can revise
them to learn and invent yet more.
>> 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)...
I dislike your disdain towards academia and theoretical modelling, but I
respect anyone who has the ability and willingness to "get their hands
dirty." I certaintly respect keelynet members more than the sites I see
with *cough* "Theories of Everything" that don't even qualify as a theory
(they aren't testable, etc.) Although I personally think your beliefs are
misguided, your methods are excellent.
>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...
It sounds to me like you are arguing that no revolutionary theories can
ever come from academics. Is this what you mean to imply? There are many
counterexamples, so I hope not.
You speak of "orthodox thinking" as if it were a great big body of science
that everyone agrees on. In reality, there is a huge amount of
disagreement among orthodox scientists, and this disagreement causes
tremendous progress in both the theory and practical applications.
>
>> >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...
I don't think I will become a regular poster, no.
>
>> >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'
There are plenty of others who are willing to build and measure, but don't
have the desire or ability to build coherent theories that describe their
results. Most real scientific progress is a team effort; where would
Einstein have been without Maxwell to find the flaws in Newtonian
mechanics, Lorentz to develop some of the mathematics, etc.?
>
>and who said it can't be tested, haven't you read any of the
>URLs relating to machines and experiments and even
>anomalies??
You said that we are "stuck in laws, completely oblivious and disparaging
of what you can't yet measure." Things that cannot be measured can't be
tested, unless you meant something different?
>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...
Indeed, someone else just admitted that she was incorrect. I stand corrected.
>
>> >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
How do you know that general relativity can't account for frane dragging,
matter currents, gravity, time distortions, etc.? Do you understand
general relativity and the mathematics behind it? That is an honest
question.
I do not yet understand general relativity, but I feel obligated to learn
it before I can criticize it.
>...slim
>chance?? Cancer has CERTAINLY been cured...slim chance???
>give me a break...
Yes, there is an extremely slim chance of any experiment that attempts to
"tap the aether" of succeeding at the present time. If this were not the
case, then we would already have devices that "tap the aether."
>
>> >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...
You are right. I do not think that I am participating in the spirit of the
list. This will therefore be my last post in this thread, though I will
read any response you care to post.
Best of luck with your theories.
-Peter
-------------------------------------------------------------
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/
-------------------------------------------------------------