Motor Generators

[pmgriphone]

The thing you won't admit is that everything we know is a lie. All based on a false premise. You don't need anyone, start winning today. Experiment with an open mind and throw all of the fancy math books out. You can keep ohms law and so on. Up to 7th grade. The rest of it might keep you from reaching your full potential. Can't be done is the signal.

BroMie, you are contradicting yourself above. Clearly, not everything is a lie. But you are probably going to say that 2+2=4 is also a lie as you probably only learned that after 7t grade.

I think you have gone off the cliff and landed in that hole that you dug and now you can't get out of it anymore so the only thing left for you to do is to keep digging and digging and digging. Maybe if you keep on digging long enough you will end up in communist China. They might cover you up over there as that is what they are good at: covering up things and distorting the truth saying it's a lie. Their nuclear leak is the next thing coming... so you better bring your radiation protection suit.

[BroMikey]

The thing you won't admit is that everything we know is a lie. All based on a false premise. You don't need anyone, start winning today. Experiment with an open mind and throw all of the fancy math books out. You can keep ohms law and so on. Up to 7th grade. The rest of it might keep you from reaching your full potential. Can't be done is the signal.

[pmgriphone]

Debunkified E=MC2 2 peas in a pod

Indeed, E=mc₀² is just a special case of E(t)=1/2 mc²(t) where c(t) = c_A sin(wt)

I pondered the strangeness of the missing factor 1/2 in Einstein's equations when all other energy equations have a factor of 1/2 in them, e.g. E=1/2 LI², E=1/2 CV², E=1/2 mv², E=1/2 m w² etc.

So I finally figured out that the speed of light is not a constant. It's varies with time like a sin wave with some frequency w and amplitude c_A. However this frequency is too fast or too slow for us to observe, so all we can observe is some time average (frequency is too fast) or some instantaneous value (frequency is too slow) of the speed of light which we call c₀.

So e.g. if you do the time integral (RMS) over E(t), the factor of 1/2 will disappear and you will end up with E=mc₀².

So here also, if Einstein would have looked at all other energy equations that have the factor 1/2, he would have come to the conclusion that something was amiss in his equation and he would have found that his equation was a special case of a much larger set of possibilities.

[pmgriphone]

The Einstein relativity doctrine is false, yes, but I was where you are in the past. No more. Keep digging. Really tho you won't find many people like Aaron who can explain this. You can look thru past posts but things have changed twice in the last 10 years and I am still finding things.

We did go thru this several times.

Bro, you are right that Einstein's relativity is wrong. This is very easy to explain actually from the basic physics equation (no Aaron needed for that)

F = m*a, or a=F/m

F is the force working on mass m giving it acceleration a.

Einstein said that in the end if you try to go faster and faster, you can't accelerate anymore, or in other words, in the above equation the variable "a" goes to zero.

There are two ways in which "a" can go to zero according to that equation:

1. F goes to zero
2. m goes to infinity

Einstein picked the second case, saying you get so heavy that the force working on you can't accelerate you anymore.

Thinking about this, you should easily realize that this second case is total nonsense. It basically means that you would get heavier while you are being accelerated. TOTAL NONSENSE! You would need to be eating a lot of food while you are being accelerated to make your mass go to infinity.

What he didn't realize is that actually the first case is what happens. The force goes to zero with as a result "a" also going to zero.

How can the force go to zero while it is still being applied. Effectively the force looses its effect on you. So the faster you go, the less impact the force has on you. This can be easily understood. It's like shooting a spaceship into space from earth, the further it gets from earth, the less of an effect gravity will have on you. Gravity is still there though, you didn't turn the gravity field off. You simply did something that reduces the effect of that gravity field on you (and you certainly didn't get heavier as Einstein claims).

This is the same with relativity. You accelerate yourself with some force, yet eventually you are going so fast that that force no longer has an effect on you. Similar to a an elastic band that you are stretching you stretch and stretch and stretch it, but eventually the elastic band breaks and there is no more force on it.

So this is really what happens: F goes to zero, NOT m goes to infinity.

So yes, even the most famous physicists like Einstein make silly mistakes like this. I guess they get caught up in their equations too much and don't see their obvious mistake.

[pmgriphone]

The question is where does the free negative work come from in the video's posted by Thane? You can not answer because you don;t even know the material. You won't cover the video info because you have made up your mind ahead of the question. What is it they say about a person who answers a question before it is heard?HUH?

For the answer, see my post here: http://www.energeticforum.com/forum/...119#post506025

[BroMikey]

Bro' reckons Einstein flawed science. For the Walmart relativity I understand you don't need Einstein, Lorentz was already there! As for the Minkowski Duesenberg field equations they're far beyond me.
Einstein was nowhere near perfect and various people throughout his career had to make corrections.
Einstein was disturbed by the leakage of gas from refrigeration compressors being a health hazard. Einstein and colleagues developed a sealed system refrigerator which alleviated the problem.

Well a lot of those so called big discoveries are politically driven and we all know about the money being god in that arena. Often it has been reported that figureheads were threatened after the many years roll by, death bed confessions and so forth.

I know there is some truth in everything or we wouldn't bite and then from there to control the narrative mistrusts are added to the mix in the form of blatant lies.

The "Can't be done" Narrative that is.

You remember the old slogan? In the Hollywood for ugly people (Politics) (ugly with lies)
"MONEY TALKS AND BULZHIT WALKS?" And that's a fact. You know it and I know it.

[BroMikey]

Oh what a disappointment! After all the years I've yearned to understand relativity ( and achieve it ) a couple of years later I find,to my horror, that the b thing is wrong anyway.

Try reading thru all the heavyside books. All it does is help you regain confidence in yourself. Each person tried their best and now it is your turn at a later date with more at your disposal.

You can now dream big dreams of succeeding without thinking everyone else is one up on you. That's a fact. You name it you can do it.

[Quantum_well]

Bro' reckons Einstein flawed science. For the Walmart relativity I understand you don't need Einstein, Lorentz was already there! As for the Minkowski Duesenberg field equations they're far beyond me.
Einstein was nowhere near perfect and various people throughout his career had to make corrections.
Einstein was disturbed by the leakage of gas from refrigeration compressors being a health hazard. Einstein and colleagues developed a sealed system refrigerator which alleviated the problem.

[Quantum_well]

The Einstein relativity doctrine is false, yes, but I was where you are in the past. No more. Keep digging. Really tho you won't find many people like Aaron who can explain this. You can look thru past posts but things have changed twice in the last 10 years and I am still finding things.

We did go thru this several times.

Oh what a disappointment! After all the years I've yearned to understand relativity ( and achieve it ) a couple of years later I find,to my horror, that the b thing is wrong anyway.

[BroMikey]

[Rakarskiy]

https://youtu.be/Az0v79-vG_E

The author from Indonesia did not bring his installation to its logical conclusion, "stumbling" precisely on the calculations and design of the generator. His mistake is that when changing the parameters of the generator, he did not change the rotor, leaving the magnetic induction in the same place, but lengthened the wire, reduced its cross section. As a result, he received the necessary EMF (no-load voltage), but excluded the possibility of obtaining the required current parameter in the wire. It was necessary to increase the number of magnets on the pole, change the design of the rotor, or add another (or more) block of the accelerator module, using the PUSH-PUL technology, in order to increase the speed of rotation of the rotor - a massive flywheel.
EMF formula: E = B * L * V;
where: B - magnetic induction (in teslas); L is the length of the conductor (in meters); V is the rate of change of the magnetic induction on the conductor (meters per second).

Current formula: I = (E - Ubat) / R + rZ + r0;
where: E - EMF of the no-load phase (in volts): Ubat - operating voltage of the storage battery (in volts); R, rZ, r0 - resistances of the loop, load and phase wires (in Ohm)

The second formula does not change, we use it to calculate the current, i.e. battery voltage and resistance cannot be changed, only one EMF parameter remains. To fulfill the condition for changing the conductor length parameter (in the first formula), in the corresponding case, it could not be changed, or it could be performed with a large cross-section to preserve the phase conductor resistance parameter r0 (in Ohms), but the volume of the package did not allow this. There are only two parameters left: B - magnetic induction (in tesla) - increase, this means adding magnets to the stack, or V - the rate of change of magnetic induction on the conductor (meters per second), adding one more or other accelerating nodes of the PUSH-PUL system. ..

Perhaps in the future, the author will still achieve the correct calculation of his design and receive a self-propelled gun with recharging the ballast battery.

If you read what the authors of EARTH ENGINE (Gravity Generator) from the USA say about their design


"We 'push' a large mass by manipulating the magnetic field. When the two opposite sources of 'fuel' (magnetic fields) driving the flywheel mass are in the correct position, the engine generates a small electromagnetic charge, about 52 W. This charge allows the opposing sources of fuel." "see each other and can create a significant force to rotate a large mass of the flywheel. This inertial force of the rotating mass is then transmitted through a separate magnetic link to a generator, which generates electrical energy. This force can also be used mechanically."
(Source: https://ie.energy/about.html)

It is clear that the principle is the same, but a different, larger-scale design. All this can be done independently, including counting
http://rakarskiy.narod.ru

[BroMikey]

Shake and bake simplified

0:00 Debunk Einstein Special Relativity
0:23 Clock Paradox 2:09 Spherical Wave Proof
2:33 Debunk Quantum Mechanics
3:21 Schrodinger Wave Demo
4:02 Max Born Collisions
5:08 Quantum Particle Demo
5:56 Quantum Computers Fake
6:15 Photon Particle Problem
7:07 Electron Capacitor Problem
8:17 Now What? #physics #quantum #einstein

[BroMikey]

Debunkified E=MC2 2 peas in a pod

[BroMikey]

Here is a basic run down easy for anyone who actual got thru that BS theory.

https://beyondmainstream.org/special...flawed-part-1/

The speed of light and light are not the same thing. Light is an observers personal attribute cum characteristic to maintain a stable visual environment for that observer only. That is why the speed of light is invariant not absolute, irrespective of how fast the observer is moving. So, we can move faster than the speed of light, but not light.
Hope this helps.
There is negative torque but if you use it you either replace it or grind to a halt.

[BroMikey]

Start here for the major flaws

http://www.mrelativity.net/FatalFlaw...Relativity.htm

The Einstein relativity doctrine is false, yes, but I was where you are in the past. No more. Keep digging. Really tho you won't find many people like Aaron who can explain this. You can look thru past posts but things have changed twice in the last 10 years and I am still finding things.

We did go thru this several times.