On 2/5/07, Stiffler Scientific <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John Berry said;
>>I hate theory, but must add that understanding what is going on with
this technology is important if it is to become a science.
John, so is this the old 'Chicken and Egg' thing?
Maybe I do not understand what you meant, but isn't there two ways of
doing things;
1) Idea, (Hypothesis to Theory) to Test? I mean the basic premise, water
flows down hill. We collect some water, go to the top of various elevations,
release the water. Then we go to various valleys and depressions, release
the water and see if it will flow up. Fine, I agree and all is well, unless
we have 0 gravity, right? Therefore in this case our findings are only valid
under the test conditions and the test frame in which they are performed.
So; >> but must add that understanding what is going on with this
technology is important if it is to become a science.
Is only of value or accurate in the context that a reaction or result
exists that can be understood. What is to understanding a technology that
has yet to exist outside of arm chair minds? 'Think, Do, Explain', or could
it be 'Do, Think and Explain' or is it 'Explain, Think and Do'?
Study the devices that have demonstrated Free Energy or Antigravity along
with other similar technology and phenomena, look for the oddities, the
clues that betary what is going on, apply logic.
So it is: 'Many others did, Think, Understand (not create theory but
understand the phenomena at work and the consistent unique design features
all these devices have), do'
This means observation and correlation.
This is 100% right. But, observe what?, a vision, dream or a 'Real Test
Result' in physical measurable results out side of mental vision?
See above.
Gravity, magnetism, electricity are not theories, ideas of how they work
are theories.
Well my simple mind don't see it this way. First, 'Gravity and Magnetism
or what ever' are phenomena which are name assignments given to somewhat
predictable and duplicate able actions and consequences.
Yes.
Who, where and how can anyone say that because of billions of experiments
under a specific set of conditions, insures that those results are fact and
carved in the stone of the universe, never to be changed based on the
Empirical Results and the Matching Mathematic Treatise?
Indeed, what is possible can be changed by changing space time, or the
aether which is the medium for all matter and energy, by manipulating it
what is possible can be changed.
What about multiple dimension's, Multiple Universes' and working under
'Different Sets of Action Consequence'?, Sorry, that has not been proven by
experiment, wait, would not these experiments have to be done in all
dimension's to insure this fact? Then what if these results show sub or
super dimensions where it all changes again.
>>Recognizing other fundamental forces in the universe and correlations
and observations from different FE/AG devices isn't theory but is critical
to piecing this together.
I agree again 100%, but how does one recognize in vision?
Not sure what you mean.
I do admit maybe I have it all backwards. I'm a do it, think about it,
improve or discard it kind of guy. I am not a think about it, discard it and
never try it because my simple vision says it can not be done.
Indeed, obviously you can't do something outside of current understanding
within the rules of current understanding, actually you might be able to
find the odd loophole (and I think I have) but that's not the best way to
go.
The current understanding is not only somewhat incomplete, it's missing huge
huge chunks so theory can't tell us what experiments will do.
If you think I'm saying that we should trust equations or theory over
experiment clearly I haven't been explaining myself very well.
Theory, Thought, Vision, Dreams are primary to advancement, yet you can
never be sure water is wet until you actually feel it with that mass that
supports your thinking machine.
-----Original Message-----
*From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*Sent:* Sunday, February 04, 2007 3:40 PM
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Re: vortex-digest Digest V2007 #50
On 2/5/07, Stiffler Scientific <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You are calling it right?
>
> I have been in and out of groups for over 12 years now and it has not
> changed. The hands on people are 1% of the listers. I have cried foul often
> about the arm chair crowd and they just tell me to 'MOVE ON'.
>
I hate theory, but must add that understanding what is going on with this
technology is important if it is to become a science.
This means observation and correlation.
Gravity, magnetism, electricity are not theories, ideas of how they work
are theories.
Recognizing other fundamental forces in the universe and correlations and
observations from different FE/AG devices isn't theory but is critical to
piecing this together.
I guess ego and self stroking gets them off more than doing and seeing a
> positive or negative result. Maybe I just hit on it, they can not stand up
> to failure.
>
Personally I find negative results hard to take so I think 10 times more
than experiment.
I'd be quite ok with a list that excluded everyone that did no
experiments, what use are they?
I'm sick and tired of the 'Math Says It Can't Be' if we were doing what
> could be, then it would be done...
>
I agree, plus the 'math' types will still insist it can't work even when
the math says it can.
I think the speech about the 'ugly nest of believers' needs to be heard
again.
I have failed and screwed up and mis-represented so many times I lost
> count, _BUT_ I'm building systems, doing experiments and seeing my
> retirement decrease daily as a result. But, never have I looked in the
> mirror and said 'I know this is not so because the math says so'.
>
> Well John I don't see it happening, at least not until we are all back
> with candles and eating our dogs. Guess the educational system has at last
> won.
>
No, actually you've hit on one of the key Free Energy principles,
amplified power transfer where 2 coils transfer power through unusual
distances and seem to be OU. (despite how you dislike the term)
I can assure you that what you achieved with Barium can be achieved with
totally different cores (or no core), that's not to say the barium wasn't
critical in your experiment, just that it isn't the only thing that can
allow a transformer to do that.
Take care, took guts to make the post.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* john herman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:52 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Subject:* [Vo]: Re: vortex-digest Digest V2007 #50
>
>
>
> Dear Vo.,
>
> General post:
>
> Open question set:
>
> NB: This is intended to address real world science. NOT theory.
> Please defive term[s] and or experiment[s] which support answer.
>
> This is an attempt to guide vortex back toward science, as opposed to
> armchair
> thinking and the like.
>
> (A) Can any one give examples of monopoles?
>
> (B) Will anyone describe real world science that encompasses
> supporting
> experiments that might guide others toward energy convesion of ANY
> type and useful and or unusual energy conversion ... prefer conversion
> to electric energy. amps and volts required.
>
> (C) Any new work of any type which fits with above...[not theory]
>
> I am sure not everyone is restricted to theory or guess or
> armchair alone
>
> I may be wrong... but do not see same over the last 5 to 7 YEARS...!!!
> Herma john
>
>
>
>
>
>
