Aardvark

[BTMO]

this one really brought out the fruit loops, didn't it?

[HeebieJeebies]

No just the one cereal that has some nuts to it...



For the entire article on breaking down water in to its parts:

Planes, Branes and automobiles: Paranoia, Conspiracy theories, and the truth about free energy.



For the most recent physics theory on magnecules see

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0112066



For videos and DIY information see

T.O.E. Certified




BTW, people complaining this is a bad choosing of diamagnetic non-conducting stainless steel haven't seen

this frog float...



Greetings,
HeebieJeebies

[BTMO]

[HeebieJeebies]

For all the doubters out there see this mother bubble

[Bruce Simpson]

[HeebieJeebies]

[HeebieJeebies]

[HeebieJeebies]

[HeebieJeebies]

[BTMO]

Jesus H. Christ...

[BTMO]

[HeebieJeebies]

How this all comes to life in the history of physics; a short re-run:

warning: very explicit physics history following...

Relativity & Lorentz

From Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog_about_Objections_against_the_Theory_of_Relativity) (A. Einstein)


Critic: After this conversation I have to admit that the refutation of your point of view is not as easy as it seemed to me earlier. I do have more objections up my sleeve. But before pestering you with that I want to think over our present conversation thoroughly. Before we depart, one more question, that does not concern an objection, but that I ask out of pure curiosity: how does the diseased man of theoretical physics fare, the Aether, that many of you have declared to be definitely dead?


Relativist: Its fortunes have taken some turns, and overall one cannot say that it is dead now. Prior to Lorentz it existed as an all-pervasive fluid, as a gas-like fluid, and other than that in the most diverse forms of being, different from author to author. With Lorentz it became rigid, and embodied the resting coordinate system, respectively a privileged state of motion in the world. According to the special theory of relativity there was no longer a privileged state of motion, this meant a denial of the Aether in this sense of the preceding theories. For if there would be an Aether, then in each space-time point there would have to be a particular state of motion, that would have to play a part in optics. There is no such privileged state of motion, as has been taught to us by the special theory of relativity, and that is why there is no Aether in the old sense. The general theory of relativity also does not know a privileged state of motion in a point, that one could vaguely interpret as velocity of an Aether. However, while according to the special theory of relativity a part of space without matter and without electromagnetic field seems to be characterized as absolutely empty, e. g. not characterized by any physical quantities, empty space in this sense has according to the general theory of relativity physical qualities which are mathematically characterized by the components of the gravitational potential, that determine the metrical behavior of this part of space as well as its gravitational field. One can quite well construe this circumstance in such a way that one speaks of an Aether, whose state of being is different from point to point. Only one must take care not to attribute to this Aether properties similar to properties of matter (for example every point a certain velocity).


No privileged state of motion

From The Undiscovered Error - The Michelson-Morley Experiment (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Undiscovered-Error---The-Michelson-Morley-Experiment&id=483994) (M.M. Fiorentino)


The Theory of Super Relativity repairs the error made in history and sets us back on the proper course. Einstein in the Special Theory never explained why The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial Frames. Logically it defies common sense. There must be something PHYSICALLY going on in all frames of reference to make this phenomenon occur. For example the addition of velocities should be Vab=Va+Vb but it is not that way. In reality the proper Equation is Vab=(Va+Vb)/1+(Va*Vb)/ C2.

In Special Relativity it is not mentioned why this is, it is just correctly stated. In this theory it is explained why it is so. Unfortunately, not enough of the correct questions about our reality are being asked. Why is the speed of light the same in all frames of reference? Also why is the speed of light the precise number that it is? Neither Relativity; Quantum Theory nor String Theory can answer those questions.

To summarize, a bad assumption was made about the nature of the ether. The wrong state was chosen. Therefore the experiment was doomed from the start. After the experiment was complete and the results were in, Michelson and later Einstein came to the wrong conclusion. The experiment failed to detect the ether wind so it was naturally assumed that the ether did not exist. All the experiment really proved was, there was no ether wind. A paradigm shift occurred and scientists completely abandoned the idea of the ether. This concludes the article on the Undiscovered Error (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Undiscovered-Error---The-Michelson-Morley-Experiment&id=483994) (The Michelson-Morley Experiment).


Super Relativity


The theory of everything (TOE) as proposed by software engineer and award-winning trouble-shooter Mark Fiorentino. Including several differences with and advances to old aether theory, with means of measuring and predicting universal 'constants'; while introducing a new law on the speed of light. The theory, based on three postulates, allows for the mathematical deduction of all physical fundamental laws ( Newton, Coulomb, Ampere, Lorentz, Maxwell ) ; based on the work of Rene Descartes, Isaac Newton, James Clerck Maxwell, Hendrick Antoon Lorentz, and Albert Einstein.

For all previously made comments about the article(s) see

Steorn forum

Science Forum

Wikipedia T.O.E. talk page

VTK Ugent forum (university engineer forum) (dutch-google translated)

Skepp Forum (scientific skepticism forum) (dutch-google translated)

Greetings,
Heebiejeebies

[HeebieJeebies]

[HeebieJeebies]

to get any further, one must realise the full effect of the philosophy of SR

The Philosophy behind Super Relativity



The original idea for this new theory was inspired by a great deal of research having to do with the study of Albert Einstein and his quest for the Unified Field Theory. Einstein and physicists and philosophers before and after him have spent a great deal of effort trying to explain how the Universe works. Scientists have spent the last 75 years or so trying to tie together all known phenomena to explain the nature and behavior of all matter and energy in existence.

Since physics has made little progress in discovering the Grand Unification Theory an interesting question arises. Why have the best minds of the past and present failed to discover the truth about our Universe.

Since the time of Isaac Newton who began the era of Classical Mechanics and modern day physics we have all been trying to unlock the secrets of how the Universe works. Many of the greatest intellects of all time have attempted to find a simple explanation for material existence and the central cause of force, action at a distance. The question of why so many great minds could not solve this problem eventually led the author of the theory to come up with a reasonble explanation for our failure to solve this great mystery. It seemed reasonable to assume that perhaps something might be wrong with our approach and that possibly a mistake was made somewhere in the past. The mistake would creat a paradigm shift that would take physics in the wrong direction.

If this idea is correct the only explanation that makes sense is that somewhere along the way we began to attempt to solve an inequality. In other words we switched onto a track that was a dead end, a red herring so to speak. What if for the past hundred years or so we have been trying to prove something, that is not true. What if we have been trying to prove that a=b and in fact a<>b. If we did not know this fact we could spend centuries trying to prove an incongruity.

This was the idea that led to the development of the Theory of Super Relativity. Research was begun in an effort to find the error in the past and then correct it. After spending several years of research the error was found. The error that was discovered was subtle and it went completely undetected. The mistake occurred about a hundred years ago. It was, in my mind the most important experiment in history. The Michelson-Morley Experiment and this was the experiment that was to determine whether the ether existed or not. Neither the measurements, nor the technique were in error. That part of the experiment was executed to perfection. The experiment has been repeated many times and confirmed. I do not dispute the measurements. The error actually occurred before the experiment. A faulty assumption was made about the ether. The bad assumption was that the ether was a fluid or gas or in some way the ether could flow or move. The faulty assumption led to a design of experiment that was flawed. The experiment was designed to detect a change in the speed of light caused by light passing through an ether wind. What in fact the experiment proved was that there was no ether wind. There was no wind because it is not a gas or fluid and it did not move in any way to have a frame of reference that would be in motion. That is all that the experiment proved. Unfortunately, it was then assumed that since there was no ether wind, therefore, there was no ether. That is the mistake. The ether is a solid therefore there is no wind or resistance in any direction.

In the years following the experiment, the notion of field theory as an explanation of the fundamental mediator of force was all but given up on. The Standard Model and particles interactions have risen into power. Quantum Mechanics and its success with helping to identify and predict the existence of new particles has led us into an even deeper commitment to the belief that particle interactions themselves are the reason and explanation of force. Super Relativity says that all force is generated by the fields that particles are made up of and that the interactions that occur between the particles are caused by the fields emanating from the cores of the particles.

This idea is further bolstered by the fact that the Standard Model cannot be reconciled to the idea of Gravity uniting with the other so called primary forces, the Strong and Weak Nuclear forces and Electromagnetism. This is the error or bad assumption that was spoken about earlier in this section. SR Theory states that Gravity is not physically the same thing as the other so called forces. Gravity, Electrostatic fields, (the Coulomb force) and Magnetism are the true and only forces of nature and they are purely mechanical and require direct contact via space (the ether). The primary forces of nature are not mediated by particles they are mechanical elastic deformations of space. These forces are different types of spatial deformations that manifest themselves as force fields. Since they share the same medium they can be unified.

No theory would be complete without a way to prove that it is correct or not. In the section called "The Experimental Verification of SR Theory" there are two experiments that can be performed that will prove if this theory is correct.

The Theory of Super Relativity was created to explain in more detail the concepts explained in this Introduction. The theory of Super Relativity as you can see returns us to a Universal structure that is a compromise between Newtonian Mechanics and Einstein like Relativistic Universe.


see the many other links for more answers...

Greetings,
HeebieJeebies

[BTMO]

[HeebieJeebies]

[Bruce Simpson]

[HeebieJeebies]

Also see this:

Joe Cell Stretches the Believability Envelope with Working Replications

Posted on Sunday, April 16, 2006 @ 13:01:08 PDT by vlad

Devices Explanation of the highly unusual technology and some of the astonishing claims surrounding it. This fuelless technology could make gasoline and diesel obsolete, while not requiring a change of the engine infrastructure now in existence.

by Sterling D. Allan, with Peter Stevens
Pure Energy Systems News

...Imagine a device about five inches in diameter by ten inches long, with a tube running from it to a bolt on your engine. Your engine is running, but your fuel line is disconnected. Not only does the motor run, but it has far more power than it did when running on gasoline or diesel. And somehow the car responds to the accelerator, even though the fuel line is disconnected. That and other seemingly cognitive attributes of a Joe cell have spurred people to call it a "living cell."


Weird; very weird -- and exciting.

This device, which makes fueling up obsolete, can be built for less than $100 in parts.

According to some proponents, electricity is what is being conveyed here. Others have experimented with the vapour. And others refer to it as a function of frequencies. Others invoke the living energy called Orgone, discovered and named by Wilhelm Reich in the mid-twentieth century.

The extreme shift of thinking required drives some people to the head-in-the-sand, preserve-my-comfortable-conformity statement: "If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is."

Yet the number of people claiming to have achieved success with this phenomenon is growing. And the instructions of how to do so are becoming more clear, spawning yet more success...

Guidelines for Successful Operation

Peter Stevens, an Australian, has spent about fourteen years pursuing this technology. He installed a Joe cell on his Ford Econovan, with a modified V6 GMH engine. He helped Bill Williams (U.S.) get his truck running on a Joe Cell. Stevens is more than happy to help anyone figure out how to make their Joe cell work, and is glad to share what he knows with the world via the propagation made possible by the Internet.

The Joe Cell basically consists of several equally-spaced, concentric stainless steel cylinders, with water between them. Stevens recommends 3-1-6L, non-magnetic stainless steel. The number of cylinders and particular diameter and length of the cylinders do not seem to be crucial, though the ratios and proportionate spacing may be...

Read the whole article here:

from (http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1859)

[BTMO]

[HeebieJeebies]

[Bruce Simpson]

Yes, please explain, why in these days of soaring oil prices when auto-makers are spending *billions* of dollars trying to eek the last percentage point of fuel efficiency out of their engines, they seem to be completely ignoring this whole HHO/Joe-cell/oxyhydrogen thing?

Don't you think that if any major auto maker was able to deliver a vehicle that offered 40% better fuel-efficiency than its competitors (or even better, the ability to run solely on water), they would do so?

Surely Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota or even the Eastern European marques would effectively take the world by storm if they offered this kind of energy efficiency.

Who in their right mind would *not* investigate and use this technology -- IF IT WORKED.

The fact that *nobody* in the auto-industry is using it effectively confirms what all the other real scientists are saying -- it doesn't work, can't work, won't work until such time as the laws of thermodynamics are repealed -- and there's no sign of that any time soon.

If it's as easy as you say, please point me to *any* proof provided and peer reviewed by suitably accredited universities.

With all the PhD students out there, why has absolutely nobody anywhere in reputable academia come up with a paper that proves this stuff works?

Conspiracy?

Yeah, right.

[HeebieJeebies]

[HeebieJeebies]

[Bruce Simpson]

[HeebieJeebies]

[HeebieJeebies]

[Bruce Simpson]

[HeebieJeebies]

[Bruce Simpson]

[HeebieJeebies]

aah pseudoscience

will wikipedia do as a f'ing reference for you to want a car on water?

try and read what einstein went through to even explain his simplest theories
in the long long ago

is physicalism pseudo-science?