Cosmic Induction Generator by John Polakowski

The Real History of the Ed Gray Motor by Mark McKay
Energetic Forum  

Go Back   Energetic Forum > Energetic Forum Discussion > Renewable Energy
Homepage Energetic Science Ministries Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 05:34 AM
replaced replaced is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 34
Gravity is not a force

Gravity is not a force. The theory of General relativity gives a rock solid explanation on what gravity is. Gravity instead of caused by the curvature of the space-time continuum.

There is lots of evidence to support this.

1. Light/photons which has no mass will bend due to gravity. Evidence of this is light bending around stars, black holes, and light wavelength changes.

2. Binary pulsar PSR1913+16
where the pulse changes based on their orbit from one another.

3. Gravity probe B

4. The faster an object is traveling, the more mass increases and it approaches infinite mass as it nears the speed of light.

5. The perihelion shift of planet mercury.

6. Pound–Rebka experiment.

7. Atomic clocks put on airplanes were slightly slower than atomic clocks on the ground.

8. Scout Rocket Experiment.

9. Harvard Tower Experiment.

10. Global positioning satellites (GPS) would be off by more than 10KM per day if Einstein's time dilation equations weren't implemented in calculating the time. So without Einstein you wouldn't be able to have GPS in cars because time runs differently in satellites at precisely Einstein's predictions.

11. Seeing the effect of light being bent in Solar eclipses.

12. Furthermore, "aether" does not exist. What does exist are virtual particles such as electrons and positrons spontaneously coming in and out of existence everywhere. The amount of energy needed to separate these particles would be more than the amount of useable energy.

13. Not a single perpetual motion device using gravity or anything else has ever been created.

Gravity is not a force. You can't extract anything from something that doesn't exist. Gravity is no more than the effect of the curvature of the space-time continuum. There is a reason why I don't need to look at perpetual motion machines to know that they won't work. Looking at a perpetual motion machine is pointless, even one that is on the atomic scale.

Last edited by replaced : 12-28-2011 at 09:52 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 06:19 AM
ren's Avatar
ren ren is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by replaced View Post
Gravity is not a force. The theory of General relativity gives a rock solid explanation on what gravity is. Gravity instead of caused by the curvature of the space-time continuum.

There is lots of evidence to support this.



10. Global positioning satellites (GPS) would be off by more than 10KM per day if Einstein's time dilation equations weren't implemented in calculating the time. So without Einstein you wouldn't be able to have GPS in cars because time runs differently in satellites at precisely Einstein's predictions.


Theory of relativity - Conservapedia

"Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false. A 1996 article explains:

"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."[17][18]
This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."[19] Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS."
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 06:42 AM
replaced replaced is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ren View Post
Theory of relativity - Conservapedia

"Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false. A 1996 article explains:
So because one article says that it is false, means that it is false? An article made by one outcast?


Here are articles refuting it. The article above is WRONG because we KNOW that the clocks on satellites run slower relative to us. The article is dead wrong anyways because relativity was used by engineers to develop GPS.

GPS and Relativity

Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

What the Global Positioning System Tells Us About Relativity

Gravity Probe B Finally Pays Off - Science News

Despite this setback, in 2007 the Gravity Probe B team confirmed one prediction of general relativity. According to Einstein, the Earth’s gravity warps spacetime like a bowling ball on a trampoline. This geodetic effect was measured with an error of about 1 percent (SN: 4/28/07, p. 270).



We have many experiments CONFIRMING Einstein's equations. Data from experiments ALWAYS triumphs a scientific article.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 06:55 AM
ren's Avatar
ren ren is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by replaced View Post
So because one article says that it is false, means that it is false? An article made by one outcast?


Here are articles refuting it. The article above is WRONG because we KNOW that the clocks on satellites run slower relative to us. The article is dead wrong anyways because relativity was used by engineers to develop GPS.

GPS and Relativity

Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

What the Global Positioning System Tells Us About Relativity

Gravity Probe B Finally Pays Off - Science News

Despite this setback, in 2007 the Gravity Probe B team confirmed one prediction of general relativity. According to Einstein, the Earth’s gravity warps spacetime like a bowling ball on a trampoline. This geodetic effect was measured with an error of about 1 percent (SN: 4/28/07, p. 270).



We have many experiments CONFIRMING Einstein's equations. Data from experiments ALWAYS triumphs a scientific article.

Thats funny, all I see is scientific articles in your links. You only have to scratch the surface to see plethora of holes and short comings in Einsteins theories.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 07:21 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
documentation beats conversation

Quote:
Originally Posted by replaced View Post
Data from experiments ALWAYS triumphs a scientific article.
You're right!

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift
Experiments: A Fresh Look
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 07:22 AM
dambit's Avatar
dambit dambit is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 492
Send a message via Skype™ to dambit
If the "theory" of General relativity gives a rock solid explanation on what gravity is, why is it that conventional science cannot manipulate it or artificially create its effects?

Maybe the theory / explanation is wanting in some areas.

Cheers,

Steve
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 08:32 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
gravity isn't force - it is the potential for force to exist on a mass' resistance

Quote:
Originally Posted by replaced View Post
Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

We have many experiments CONFIRMING Einstein's equations. Data from experiments ALWAYS triumphs a scientific article.
This one single image predicts every single phenomena relating to relativity, but with a foundation rooted in the aether:



1. Mass displaces aether and aether rebounds back to where it was displaced from pushing on any mass in the direction of the center of mass causing the effect of gravity.

2. The aether is more dense towards the mass that displaced it than further away.

3. The image also depicts inertia as a mass moves through space, the ambient aether relative to the mass is compressed giving a push on it causing inertia - the more the mass accelerates - the more the inertia. Energy is not an intrinsic property of the mass, it is from external potential being imparted onto the mass.

4. Time is not a dimension. It is simply the movement of mass through aether at a certain density over a certain period. The more dense the aether the slower the movement and slower the time. The less dense the aether the faster the movement and faster the time.

Therefore, my model predicts the following:

"1. Light/photons which has no mass will bend due to gravity. Evidence of this is light bending around stars, black holes, and light wavelength changes." - quoted by Replaced

As the light wave "moves" towards a mass (Earth), the aether is not pushing on the mass - the entire medium of propagation is compressed in the direction of the mass shifting the entire path of the light - therefore light moving towards a large mass will enter denser aether in its trajectory that has shifted towards the mass and the light will then move at a different trajectory.

"4. The faster an object is traveling, the more mass increases and it approaches infinite mass as it nears the speed of light. " - quoted by Replaced

As indicated in my definition of inertia, my model predicts that as a mass accelerates, it is encountering more aether per unit of "default" time (not relative time) and is therefore causing a relative increase in the density of the aether in relation to the side of the mass that is faced in the direction of movement. The aether is imparting a push on the mass of the object with more and more resistance. The mass stays the absolute same while the weight of the object increases as it is no different than being on the surface of a planet that is growing in mass causing more displacement of aether that is pushing back harder giving an increase in weight (more gravity). Mass is the amount of matter the object has and that doesn't change as it goes faster but the resistance to movement increases - same as gravity for a stationary object.

Gravity is the objects passive experience to the moving downward push of the aether.

Inertia is the objects active experience to the ambient aether it is moving through.

"7. Atomic clocks put on airplanes were slightly slower than atomic clocks on the ground." quoted by Replaced

According to my model, it predicts that the faster an object goes, it encounters more aether per unit of time meaning there is an increase in the relative density the object experiences with the aether. Therefore, since the motion of the mass is resisted more the faster it goes, TIME, only a measurement of the mass' ability to move through the aether will be slower. Therefore, a clock on an airplane going hundreds of miles an hour around around the world will be predicted to be slower than a clock standing on the ground.

The clock on the ground is slower because although it is in more dense aether than there is at 30,000 feet, the movement of the plane at much higher speed causes the relationship of the object to the density of the aether to increase above the density of the object on the ground.

Therefore, the clock on the ground ticks faster than the one in the plane since the plane experiences more aetheric density as it is moving compared to the clock on the ground.

"10. Global positioning satellites (GPS) would be off by more than 10KM per day if Einstein's time dilation equations weren't implemented in calculating the time. So without Einstein you wouldn't be able to have GPS in cars because time runs differently in satellites at precisely Einstein's predictions. " quoted by Replaced

The same form of equations can be used for almost everything I have said except for the fact that my model would be using them in the proper context - and based on the same formulas that describe what my model predicts, it would have permitted perfect engineering of GPS systems even if Einstein were never born.

"12. Furthermore, "aether" does not exist. What does exist are virtual particles such as electrons and positrons spontaneously coming in and out of existence everywhere. The amount of enemy needed to separate these particles would be more than the amount of useable energy. " quoted by Replaced

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments

There are enough references there to stick 10 final nails in the coffin of aether deniers.

A battery sitting on the counter top in open circuit condition is constantly polarizing the "virtual photons" or bipolar aether without expending any work. All the "virtual particles" or aether needs is a dipole or any separation of potential differences and you have usable potential from right out of space.

"Gravity is not a force. You can't extract anything from something that doesn't exist. Gravity is no more than the effect of the curvature of the space-time continuum." quoted by Replaced

You say there is gravity, yet you say it is something that doesn't exist. You say gravity is the effect of curved space but you and Einstein never even define what space is in order for it to be "curved".

"We have many experiments CONFIRMING Einstein's equations. Data from experiments ALWAYS triumphs a scientific article." quoted by Replaced

Experiments that you quote are CONFIRMING Aaron's little ol' aetheric gravity model. This is indisputable that my model predicts all of those outcomes!

The only thing you can try to dispute is if there is aether or not and I gave you the references to experiments that validate the aether. If you are not willing to objectively look at that experiment and the others in those references, you are proving yourself to be not willing to walk your talk in regards to posturing yourself as a scientist. In other words, you're not willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Now, I really don't want to be argumentative with you - I'm just responding in this thread with what I believe to be fairly straightforward examples of why those experiments you quote in no way, shape or form dispute the existence of the aether - and that is evidenced by the fact that my aetheric model predicts the SAME outcomes!

Space is a volume of aether - nothing more and nothing less.

And that space as defined by x-y-z dimensions is RELATIVE to an absolute frame of reference! In higher density aether, xyz is SMALLER than lower density aether of xyz in relation to each other! The density of the aether will define how much space there is.

My model defines space and predicts what happens in various experiments while what you quote of "curved space" and the "EFFECTS" of time dilation are just that - postulations based on effects, without ever knowing how to properly define space with aether or the cause.

I show you the cause while what you quote of Einstein is limited to the effects - which is analogous to describing the whole elephant while being blindfolded and just grabbing one of its limbs.

Gravity being a force? That isn't claimed by itself.

Gravity being a dynamic fluid of aether moving towards the direction of the mass that displaced it like a ball that displaces water in a tub, will impart a push on an object. When the object in gravity falls, there is no force since relative to the gravitational moving potential, the object is standing still - again - relative to gravity. Only when the object is resisted by the ground or anything else that resists its movement will the gravitational potential impart an active push of the mass of the object, which will be resisted and this dissipates potential and is work.

The gravity isn't a force by itself and to argue against that is a false argument against something that was never claimed. Gravitational potential available to a falling object that has it's movement resisted will experience a force during the resistance which is caused the gravitational push against the object. At that point, you can say that there is force.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 10:45 AM
replaced replaced is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
This one single image predicts every single phenomena relating to relativity, but with a foundation rooted in the aether:
Ok, let me sum it up.

You think that the effects of time dilation, increased mass with acceleration, and some other effects of general relativity exist but based on aether and not based on the speed of light.



So if general relativity is correct then the above chart will show that the effects of relativity are small until you go about 30% the speed of light. If aether is correct, then we would see a straight line instead of a curved one since the speed of light shouldn't be the cosmic speed limit.

There isn't much evidence to show a difference as we can only accelerate particles at near light speed and nothing in our solar system is traveling near the speed of light. But with the evidence we do have, every particle either stays below the speed of light or above it, but never crossing the speed of light. Also the amount of time dilation experienced by the flying planes and the GPS satellites shows that time dilation is not linear, it follows Einstein's equations.

The final nail in the coffin for your aether theory is that we are all traveling through space, right? Earth goes around the sun at 67,000 mph and our solar system should be traveling around our galaxy at 490,000mph. Then time dilation should slow down or speed up depending on which direction is taken. In fact, time dilation wouldn't show up with objects rotating around the earth like satellites since you would go slower in time and faster when you go around the earth and that would balance itself out. Faster moving objects from our point of reference have time go slower for them REGARDLESS of what direction or path the object is moving in. Gravitational red shift from stars appears from ALL directions, not one. This wouldn't happen unless you believed that the Earth was very close to the center of the universe with aether.

A GPS satellite moves at only 4km/s. 1km/s = 2237mph. So only 8,948 mph for a GPS satellite, yet the Earth goes around the sun at 67,000mph. Why would there be time dilation present in a GPS satillite? Time would go faster as the GPS goes around the Earth but that would be offset by time going slower when the GPS goes around the second half of the Earth.

Last edited by replaced : 12-28-2011 at 10:56 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 11:00 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
linear vs non-linear

rquote=replaced;173191]If aether is correct, then we would see a straight line instead of a curved one since the speed of light shouldn't be the cosmic speed limit.[/quote]

Aether's effect on mass must be ("we would see a straight line") linear? Where do you get this stuff from? Whether it is or isn't isn't relevant to the fact that you simply made that up out of thin air. And you ignore everything else I posted, conveniently.

I never said it was linear and that cannot be deduced by anything I said. I simply explained a relationship between higher and lower densities with masses and increase or decrease of speed to demonstrate that in concept, the aetheric model I suggest predicts the same outcome of those experiments.

Also, most importantly, you fail to address or acknowledge the experiments in this reference and the other references to other experiments showing the aether exists. Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments Why is that?

If you don't have time, you have to admit you don't have time to be objective, which would require you to stop denying the aether until you have actually explored the evidence that gives credit to it.

But if you're not going to review it because you simply think it is bogus - that kind of response speaks for itself as to your true agenda.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-28-2011, 11:33 PM
geotron geotron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 321
On Gravity,

The mass and size of an object seems to be in direct proportion to its
influence on other objects, speaking on a planetary scale of course.

The gravitational influence of the Moon has various effects on tide and
possibly weather, and without it the Earth would likely have a slightly
different shape.

This connection things have to effect eachother is some kind of invisible
energy due to the work it performs, and calling it a force of nature would be
altogether true.

Should the phenomenon known as Gravity mean something else?
Its perhaps a matter of opinion.

Like Pluto, how its official status is no longer that of a planet.
How they've failed to change my opinion on the matter is staggering.
Its inception as a planet ought to be revered as timeless.

Fussing over things can be a part of human nature I guess.

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 12-29-2011, 04:23 AM
Felix_the_cat Felix_the_cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 47
quantum gravity

Check out Nassim Haramein on quantum gravity.

Nassim Haramein Quantum Gravity Unification wwwyoutubecomalienscientist - YouTube

Ambiant magnetism exist everywhere.
Presence of mass compress that ambiant magnetism.
We call that compression gravity.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 12-29-2011, 02:49 PM
Allcanadian's Avatar
Allcanadian Allcanadian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 512
@Replaced
Quote:
Gravity is not a force. The theory of General relativity gives a rock solid explanation on what gravity is. Gravity instead of caused by the curvature of the space-time continuum.
Unfortunately this is a mute point because Einstein himself said that if it is ever proven that anything can exceed the speed of light then General Relativity is dead. As we know this has been proven of neutrino's and Quantum Entanglement so I'm not really sure why your still flogging a dead horse. String and wave theory explain every failure of general relativity and as you may know Einstein and friends could never reconcile quantum entanglement because even Einstein knew and stated as much that it was impossible in his view.
Science evolves and to me it makes little sense to try and saddle a horse which has already proven to be dead.
Regards
AC
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 12-29-2011, 06:00 PM
citfta citfta is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 836
@Allcanadian,

I think you are wasting your time trying to convince "replaced". There are some people that will still insist the earth is flat no matter how overwhelming the evidence is they are wrong.

Carroll
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 12-30-2011, 01:00 PM
Roland Roland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by citfta View Post
@Allcanadian,

I think you are wasting your time trying to convince "replaced". There are some people that will still insist the earth is flat no matter how overwhelming the evidence is they are wrong.

Carroll
Maybe so with "Replaced", but i must say the topic and the reply's has help me quit a bit, in further understanding some OU...

I no OU is real but i'm still learning about the "why OU is real"?

I found both of his threads here very helpful.
Many thanks to you guys who took time to reply to "Replaced" i especially enjoyed Aarons insight in both threads.
This one and Why perpetual motion machines do not exist

Last edited by Roland : 12-30-2011 at 01:04 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 12-30-2011, 10:14 PM
kalena555 kalena555 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 13
@ replaced.

I understand you feel strongly about general relativity and such but to me it sounds like you are just likemany other people in our history who have held on to old concepts and completely and utterly ignore new ideas, theories etc. An example of this would the people who said heavier than air machines couldn't possibly fly, the earth is flat etc. In my honest opinion that isn't the way a scientist or just people in general should think. Science is about "understanding" the moment we stop trying to understand how our world works we will never progress as a species, technologically or otherwise. It's obvious that general relativity can't explain everything and there are loop holes in the theory itself. It's obvious that its either incomplete or just plain wrong. Accounting for most of the way things work doesn't make it correct. It would have to account for "everything" and it doesn't.


You are entitled to you opinion as that is every persons right, however your mind isn't open to New things which is very apparent by your posts both this thread and others. No offense but what you are doing is similar to many religious groups subjugation of so called non-believers..

@Aaron I applaud your patience with replaced.. lol
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 12-31-2011, 04:25 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
gravitational potential IS input

Cloxxi, I'll demonstrate something very simple that demonstrates you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, indisputably, and have no business even commenting on these kind of systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloxxki View Post
Claims of OU or COP>1 are such a waste of time if they never result in a ball placed at higher point, or a second battery being all charged up after one was used to heat up some water.
I agree with above, the energy conversion needs to be PART of the invention.

Folks like Milkovicz who prove nothing, but are awarded prizes. Started out claiming 12x more output than input from a 2-stage oscillatior. Years later people say 3.25x, and still don't even loop it. Mechanical to mechanical, and still the conversation cannot be done to loop it.
So much of what I read on FE turns out to be a direct insult on my intelligence, and that of mankind...
First, over 1.0 COP happens with systems that are under 100% efficient. This is not debatable (with any common sense at least).

Here is a department of energy website:

Energy Savers: Selecting and Installing a Geothermal Heat Pump System

Here is a quote from this DOE website:

"If you are purchasing a geothermal heat pump and uncertain whether it meets ENERGY STAR qualifications, ask for an efficiency rating of at least 2.8 COP or 13 EER."

Do not be mislead by them saying efficiency and equating that with COP - "efficiency rating" is what COP is but COP is not the same as EFFICIENCY. If you want to make a bogus argument it is the same, then you are claiming that DOE admits 280% efficiency system - so please don't even try.

So even according to a DOE website, there are over 1.0 COP systems and they recommend that it should be at least 2.8 COP. That means there is 2.8 TIMES the amount of work done compared to the power that it takes to run the unit. The heat pump requires electricity or some other form of power from the wall or whatever in order to run the system. I can assure you that the compressor is running at under 100% efficiency. Where does the other input come from? From free environmental heat, whether it is in the air, in a pond of water or deep in the ground. It is not magic.

To make infantile comments about the ball needing to bounce higher on each bounce in order to be over 1.0 COP is the SAME as saying that the heat pumps needs have zero losses in the compressor when being powered by wall electricity in order to be over 1.0 COP. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the argument.

If a ball is dropped and it bounces to 83% of the previous height, the EFFICIENCY is 83% - that is NOT the same as COP! For the ball to bounce higher than it did on the previous bounce, it would have to be over 100% efficient and that has absolutely nothing to do with making an over 1.0 COP claim.

Here's the thing, I could honestly care less if the ball is over 1.0 cop or not and I could honestly care less if my model was 100% incorrect. I have no problems being wrong. What I do have a problem with is when goofball cynics use feeble minded arguments that have more holes than a fish net and when there are lies, false arguments and deceit involved, it speaks for itself who in the argument is actually sincere and authentic.

Suffice it to say, even though I don't support the DOE because I think it is a fraud, it is a "credible" reference that admits a device exists that produces more work than it takes to run it and this is commonly accepted for heat pump technologies. It also proves for a device to do more work than it takes to run it that it can be under 100% EFFICIENT because if you want to claim that the compressor is over 100% efficient would be another one of the most ridiculous false arguments anyone could make.

And your battery comments - those have already been done!

And to say conservation of energy still has to be part of it is like saying we still have to teach the world is flat even though we know it is round. There is no such thing as conservation of energy.

Your arguments are the real insult to the intelligence by describing the whole elephant when you are blindfolded and you only have your hand on the tail.

------------------------------------------------------------

Raise 1kg a meter and it is said to have 9.8 joules of potential available to do work. BUT, the classical claim is that you stored 9.8 joules in the object by lifting it to that height and that "energy is conserved".

Dig a 1 meter hole next to the same object and tell me how much potential did you just store in the object/ball/whatever?

How much energy did you conserve in that object by digging the hole next to it? I'd really like to hear this one.

The ball performed zero work, it wasn't lifted against gravity, yet it still has 9.8 joules of potential energy.

The ball can be 1 mile away and it still has 9.8 joules of potential energy with respect to the bottom of the hole!!!!!

And get this - I can place 100,000 balls weighing a kilo each all over a football field and dig one single hole 1 meter deep - an voila! That is 9.8 joules of potential energy that mysteriously appeared in every single ball on the entire field at the exact same time! How can that be?

Even according to one of your cynical associates "letsreplicate" and "replaced" - those 2 peas in a pod, stated that a ball on the table will do the same work when dropped to the ground as it will if I lifted the ball to the same height of the table. OF COURSE IT WILL, but the point is, the joules of potential "stored" in the ball on the table is "energy conserved"? lol

Therefore, by digging one single 1 meter deep hole, I have just "stored" or "conserved" 980,000 joules of energy just like that in all the balls simultaneously (according to the classical explanation of storing or conserving energy) - actually, I just "stored" or "conserved" enough joules of energy in every single object on ground level of the entire planet Earth by digging one single hole.

This example is absolutely preposterous - and that is because the classical explanation of potential energy being stored in an object as you lift it or energy being conserved in the object is preposterous.

I dug a hole, performed ZERO work on the ball to lift it (since it is just sitting on the ground), yet I established the same potential energy in the ball as if I lifted it to a meter?

Of course the rebuttle will claim work was done by the earth to raise the ground the balls were on and that is where the conserved energy or potential came from that the balls get when they roll into the hole. They'll go to any lengths.

I can guarantee you that the ball next to the hole I dug will do the same amount of work when it rolls into the hole as it will if it was lifted a meter and dropped to the ground.

What does this example actually show?

It shows the conventional explanation of storing potential or "conserving energy" is a psychological smoke and mirrors show based on manipulating one's PERSPECTIVE.

If something is a matter of perspective, it is not an actual difference but a perceived one. Is a glass half full or half empty? That is perspective and not an actual difference in the intrinsic quality of the water - the water is simply at the 50% line.

People's ideas of efficiency are the same. A heating element is 100% efficient at producing heat. If there was no glow to it, it would be a 0% efficient light bulb. If it glowed 10%, it is a 10% efficient light. And if it glowed 10% but was INTENDED to be a heating element, it would be a 90% efficient heating element. The efficiency is based on the INTENDED work - it does not mean other work is done!!

So to claim a ball isn't bouncing higher or isn't performing "work" is ridiculous because falling resistance, impact, compression, etc... those are all WORK and whether it is desired work or not does not negate that work as being work! A bouncing ball's INTENDED work IS TO BOUNCE - NOT to heat and cool your house! And if you add all that real work up, you see the honest story.

Again, there is no such thing as storing potential. The potential is free input from the environment, the real source of potential.

What is funny is that by digging the hole, there was indeed the manifestation of 980,000 joules of potential energy in 100,000 balls simultaneously.

It was only preposterous in the context of believing in "storing" potential energy or "conserving energy".

The reason there is 980,000 joules of potential energy is because it has nothing to do with the ball(s) itself as being the item that has energy conserved in it - it is because before the hole existed, there was no potential difference between the ball and the ground - it was in equilibrium.

The gravitational potential had no ability to cause work on all those balls. Suddenly, digging a hole established a potential difference of 1 meter between the bottom of the hole and 100,000 balls simultaneously - a potential difference was created (dipole or gradient) for gravitational potential input to actually do work with the balls now.

If you dig a 1 meter hole - you can honestly say there are 9.8 joules of potential energy established for each and EVERY SINGLE BALL. It is OBVIOUS energy is not conserved in the balls and it is obvious no potential was stored in the balls at all! We didn't even touch them. The reason there is suddenly almost 1 million joules of potential energy is because the potential is sourced from the gravitational potential!

Every bit of work we did on the hole is long gone - not conserved and cannot be accounted for in 100,000 balls. There can be 10 Million balls and there is still 9.8 joules of potential energy per ball that instantly became a reality by digging one hole. Energy didn't get conserved in balls that had zero work done on them and there is no energy conserved or stored in the hole.

Gravitational potential is the obvious source of potential and is external from the balls mass or lack of mass in the hole.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 12-31-2011, 04:29 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
gravitational potential IS input 2

Letsreplicate even slipped with an argument that backs this by claiming it didn't matter if I lifted the ball a meter or if the ball rolled off a table - it will still do the same amount of work. He can't say there is energy conserved in the ball when it was lifted to the table because his argument was to show that it doesn't matter that my real argument was that I was putting work in it to lift it or not! Hence the example of digging a hole 1 meter deep instantly materialized 9.8 joules of potential energy per 1 kilo ball - all 100,000 of them without having ever touched them.

Conservation of energy is a smoke and mirrors show. You lift a ball and there is no more potential energy left from the input (no conservation) - everything we put into lift the ball is 100% GONE. All our work to lift the ball is 100% dissipated in the lift in and of itself.

Then, there is simply a new potential difference established which can be described by mgh to show there is 9.8 joules of potential energy. Not energy, not conserved energy but what potential energy actually means - THE POTENTIAL FOR ENERGY TO EXIST - it is not something that is conserved - that is all brainwashing propaganda.

By digging one hole 1 meter deep, you cannot possibly conserve or store 0.98 million joules of potential in 100,000 balls simultaneously. It can be 1 Billion balls and there will still be 9.8 joules of potential energy for every single ball - all 1 billion of them. The math says there actually is 9.8 joules of potential energy for every single ball. This proves that the conventional model is smoke and mirrors and that the conventional model's idea of potential is an ABSTRACT ONE based on nothing more than a change in perception and does not even address a source of potential at all!

Since this is true and that much "energy" cannot be conserved in that many balls, it has to come from somewhere. The REAL source of potential that causes work on the ball dropping. To have millions or billions of joules of potential energy available in all those balls from digging one single hole, the potential to do that much work has to come from a source of potential capable of delivering that. It has to be something that is consistent with the fact that you can measure 9.8 joules of potential energy (potential to become energy) in 1 billions 1 kilo balls by digging one single hole. The only thing consistent with this is the free unlimited gravitational potential dynamically moving in the downward direction.

And anything subject to this is OPEN to receive it as the source of potential to do work whenever a potential difference is established - such as the device below...
Next item...

"Folks like Milkovicz who prove nothing, but are awarded prizes. Started out claiming 12x more output than input from a 2-stage oscillatior. Years later people say 3.25x, and still don't even loop it."

Your irrationality prevents others from seeing the truth - and most unfortunately, you deceive yourself.

First of all, even if the output is 3.25 COP and you claim it is worthless, that is like saying a heat pump is worthless - go tell that to anyone warming or cooling their home with a heat pump. I bet they wouldn't trade it for anything.

The oscillator can pump water. If it can pump water at a COP higher than a regular pump at a cop of less than 1. There are plenty of impoverished areas of the world that can have an increased standard of life by using a pump like this and you have the gall to comment about why it isn't being looped? That is really, really sad!

What is also sad is that by wanting to loop it proves indisputably that you have no idea what you are talking about and you are simply someone shouting from the peanut gallery. You are completely unaware of the principles in this kind of mechanical amplifier and why you don't want to loop it.

What you want to do is take this:



And turn it into this:



I'll make it simple enough so that even you can understand it.

The input section of the lower right of the grasshopper oil pump is locked in step with the output section on the left. The output section is directly proportional to the movement of the input section on the right.

If you were able to grab the output weight and were able to stop it, the input section would lock up. They are LOCKED TOGETHER.

And likewise, if you were to grab the input section and stop it, the output section would instantly stop since it it is LOCKED TOGETHER.

You CANNOT stop one without stopping the other.

This is a closed loop system. There is no input to it other than the input you are paying for by running a motor with electricity, diesel, etc...

Gravity is NOT real input into this system as the weights are only for counter weights and it is not free swinging - the output is dictated by the input that is LOCKED to the output.

Again, look at this:



What do you see? If you knew what that was Cloxxi, you wouldn't be asking for such ridiculous things such as closing the loop on this so you can turn it into a grasshopper!

It is not locked to an input mechanism locked on the ground.

The entire thing is free swinging.

AND, if you pinned the hammer to the anvil so that it cannot move - guess what??? The pendulum on the input section CONTINUES TO SWING! It is NOT LOCKED to the input. The input and output are INDEPENDENT of each other. The input and output are not necessarily directly proportionate to each other!

Why do they have to be independent? Because if they were locked together, there is no more input from the environment in the form of FREE gravitational potential!

If you take the hammer output and mechanically link that to the pendulum, you are forcing it to become a closed system, which will never be over 1.0 COP and to say that it has to be done in order to be useful taking something over 1.0 cop and destroying it's ability to be over 1.0 cop. That is completely NUTS.

It is a free energy machine, that is overunity, with a COP many times above 1 and is a practical machine to pump water for example with a fraction of the input of a normal water pump. It does practical work, VIOLATES CONSERVATION OF ENERGY - uses gravitational potential to do work and violates many classical bogus "laws". There is no conservation of energy, please deal with it.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 12-31-2011, 05:00 AM
OrionLightShip's Avatar
OrionLightShip OrionLightShip is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
Why do they have to be independent? Because if they were locked together, there is no more input from the environment in the form of FREE gravitational potential!
Try to look at this from a different perspective. The output and input do not have to be locked together. The hammer compresses a rubber bulb connected through tubing which expands another bulb giving the pendulum a kick at it's top swing. If there is more output than input, this type of indirect linkage would make it self running. Something no one has done. Just like no one wants to kill the magic in your coil by measuring it, no one wants to destroy the "free gravitational potential". You make assumptions based on your view of how things have to be, not with the freedom of "what could be". I believe you are operating in a logic box of your own creation and try as I might, you will not step out of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
What is also sad is that by wanting to loop it proves indisputably that you have no idea what you are talking about and you are simply someone shouting from the peanut gallery. You are completely unaware of the principles in this kind of mechanical amplifier and why you don't want to loop it.
Why must all of your explanations and logical arguments contain insults?

And yes, of course I am wrong again because like the above poster, I am not even qualified to know what I am looking at much less measure the input and output work done.

I am tired of your bouncing balls and unnecessary insults. You can have your "house" back. I want nothing more to do with it.

Orion
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 12-31-2011, 09:47 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
@Orion

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrionLightShip View Post
Try to look at this from a different perspective. The output and input do not have to be locked together. The hammer compresses a rubber bulb connected through tubing which expands another bulb giving the pendulum a kick at it's top swing. If there is more output than input, this type of indirect linkage would make it self running. Something no one has done. Just like no one wants to kill the magic in your coil by measuring it, no one wants to destroy the "free gravitational potential". You make assumptions based on your view of how things have to be, not with the freedom of "what could be". I believe you are operating in a logic box of your own creation and try as I might, you will not step out of it.



Why must all of your explanations and logical arguments contain insults?

And yes, of course I am wrong again because like the above poster, I am not even qualified to know what I am looking at much less measure the input and output work done.

I am tired of your bouncing balls and unnecessary insults. You can have your "house" back. I want nothing more to do with it.

Orion
Orion,

This is probably the 4th, 5th, or 6th time you are "done", "through with it", or want "nothing more to do with it" but you keep going. I won't hold it against you though that you aren't consistent. I was going to actually show you more until letsreplicate jumped into that thermodynamics thread and thought he knew what he was talking about. You're actually not that far from me.

There are ways to feedback some of the output back to the input... you are wrong about there not being things of that nature that have not been done - but you wouldn't know that seeing that you are too lazy to go dig out the references that I gave you.

And the smoke you're trying to blow now insinuates that if it is isn't self running, then it can't be overunity.

A DEVICE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE SELF RUNNING TO DO MORE WORK THAN IS INPUT.

No matter what kind of distraction or misdirection there is - the mechanical oscillator does more work than input. Period. What is wrong with you skeptics (actually cynics) is that when it is easy to show more out than in, the argument goes to "it isn't more because it isn't self running." Come on man, someone that "communicates to light beings" ought to be more authentic than that!

The way to feedback output to input is NOT to "close the loop" in order to kill the very system. It is "pseudo" closing the loop, which only means output can be sent to the input but the output and input still remain independent. You have to switch output to a different method then back to another method but you cannot close the loop with the same method.

You don't have to suggest to me to look at it from a different perspective - as those who know the parameters that these systems need to operate in are ALREADY aware that the output work has to be used to to perform a completely different kind of work and then that has to in in turn provide work that can come back but the loop remains open - again completely different than what is almost always suggested.

You're preaching to the choir with your example but I give you credit for at least clearly seeing what Cloxxi does not. You are seeing the steps needed to be taken that have nothing to do with locking the output to the input.

Most of these feedbacks HAVE been done with various systems including this mechanical amplifier - not with inflating a bulb, etc... but nevertheless, most have resulted only in a reduction of the input necessary. That DOES increase BOTH the efficiency AND the COP.

And being self running is NOT A REQUIREMENT to being overunity - it is only something that is desired.

This is demonstrating WAAAAY more work done than is input and the loop is not truly closed, it is pseudo closed with the pendulums, vibration feedback and most importantly, the ability to make use of ACTIVE gravitational potential to push the ball down the incline on the track when it self adjusts to that.

Perpetuum Mobile

There is a level of COP that is necessary to be achieved in order for there to be plenty of surplus to put back to the input for self running ability - the same as the need for a high enough efficiency for a system to be over 1.0 cop to being with. If a refrigerator, had a compressor of only 10% for example, it will never even be 1.0 cop. It it not as simple as 1.01 cop which is more than input and that it can be put to the input to run itself.

It has to be enough efficiency to be over 1.0 cop and THEN the cop has to be enough to make it self running. This is a very simple concept.

You can manipulate and deceive all the people you want with inferring whatever you want. My inductive resistor experiments are three years old and to think that you or any other cynic deserves having me dig everything out on my time and rebuild everything for you because you're too lazy and don't have enough respect or decency to go dig out what has already been posted publicly, then you are simply working in honor of the James Randi methodology. Like I said before, I did my work, go do yours! You simply are NOT qualified to analayze an air conditioner let alone an overunity oscillator. You already denied that a refrigerator is producing more work because you pay a power bill for the electricity that runs it and yo'ure qualified to analyze an overunity device.

You say: "You make assumptions based on your view of how things have to be, not with the freedom of "what could be"."

Plenty of people have known for years "what could be" and your suggestion is only catching up to old news. The credit you get is for seeing you can feedback potential energy to the front but you FAIL in your attempt to imply that you are coming up with something that myself or anyone else doesn't get while insulting me at the same time? If you take notice - the only harsh comments I make are to people AFTER they insult me or others. I'm not an instigator of problems. If you communicate in a respectable manner, you'll get the same. But cynical "experts" are completely psychologically incapable of such communication.

A logic box that I'm stuck in? Go look in the mirror for a long time - you're the one preaching the earth is flat! It looks like your denial of such systems initially, then you come around to suggest what we already know to be true doesn't show that I was in the box. What it does show however is that YOU were the one trapped in the box and it might finally be pried open just enough to let a little bit of light in! Congratulations - that is a sign of hope that you are even thinking of the possibility of how to route the output to the input without closing the loop.

You say: "Why must all of your explanations and logical arguments contain insults? "

Thank you for admitting they are logical. Contain insults? Cloxxi insulted countless members of this forum with his post about what many people say as being nothing but an insult to the intelligence, don't waste his time and other babble??? Go look at his whole post in the Bearden oil thread. I simply took what he said and fed it back to him based on his own flawed analysis. If you cannot see this and think I'm simply insulting him, you have a double standard and are therefore a hypocrite.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
-- The Dalai Lama "

Don't confuse spirituality or intellectual progress with complacency and non-vigilance. I'm not going to sit around and take the ignorant insults from you or other cynics that bad mouth those of us that believe different than you and you sit around thinking that you want to measure other people's work? What makes you think anyone actually cares about YOUR approval? Nobody asked for it - nobody is volunteering to be judged by you - and when someone has results they want to share, why would anyone want to bring anything to you when all you do is quote the same garbage in the books that already disagrees with the results claimed by myself or others? You are a PHONY!

You're just another "skeptical expert" coward hiding behind an anonymous username because you have ZERO confidence in any of the hot air you're blowing! You lack any sincerity and all you want to do is whine about not posting anymore, how you're through with it, etc... and you keep posting. You have NO IDEA what you even want!

You're tired of the bouncing ball because it is a preschool example that you and other cynics are emotionally incapable of dealing with. You keep going back to "it has to bounce higher each time" and other comical arguments.

You claim you've seen craft in the air that clearly defies what you've been taught, yet you claim that classical psychics can't be wrong! The bottom line is that you simply have absolutely no idea what you are even looking for or what you want - so stop trying to play mr. kumbaya, "lets hold hands in world peace with the light brothers while in the meantime, let me examine you device that violates what I believe while I use a model that is incompatible with it to base my analysis on."

If you cannot see the obvious problem with this, I think you need some help.

Self Running Bedini Oscillator - YouTube

Around 5:45 you can see the input CAPACITOR (not battery) go down because it is supplying the potential to run the transistor to pulse the coil. All the recovery beats beats classical physics - especially the moment you see the front capacitor voltage start to climb slowly back up! You are seeing self organizing potential in this system - WATER IS RUNNING UP HILL! This stupid little experiment flushes conservation of energy down the drain and you're not qualified to dispute it. Get over it. The world is bigger than than the textbooks that define it!

When you and other cynics learn to change your tune and present yourself with an open mind that you don't know it all and that you are sincerely looking to learn something that may operate differently from what you already believe, then and only then will anyone care to share anything with you. Also, it is important to understand that you can't fake anyone out either because we smell snake oil salesman - and the classical "expert" services are the biggest snake oil of them all.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 12-31-2011, 03:46 PM
mpc755 mpc755 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
2. The aether is more dense towards the mass that displaced it than further away.
The aether is, or behaves similar to, a superfluid with properties of a solid. The aether is, or behaves similar to, an incompressible fluid.

[1106.3955] Phenomenology of Gravitational Aether as a solution to the Old Cosmological Constant Problem

"One proposal to address this puzzle at the semi-classical level is to decouple quantum vacuum from space-time geometry via a modification of gravity that includes an incompressible fluid, known as Gravitational Aether."

Quote:
"10. Global positioning satellites (GPS) would be off by more than 10KM per day if Einstein's time dilation equations weren't implemented in calculating the time. So without Einstein you wouldn't be able to have GPS in cars because time runs differently in satellites at precisely Einstein's predictions. " quoted by Replaced
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. The greater the pressure exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock by the aether the slower the clock ticks. In terms of general relativity, the greater the mass per volume of the matter, the less aether the volume contains, the greater the displacement of the aether from the volume. The greater the displacement of the aether from the volume the greater the pressure exerted toward and throughout the volume. The greater the pressure exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves through the aether the more aether the clock displaces the more pressure the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

NASA - NASA's Voyager Hits New Region at Solar System Edge

"Voyager is showing that what is outside is pushing back. ... Like cars piling up at a clogged freeway off-ramp, the increased intensity of the magnetic field shows that inward pressure from interstellar space is compacting it."

What is presently postulated as non-baryonic dark matter is aether. Aether has mass. Aether physically occupies three dimensional space. Aether is physically displaced by matter. Aether displaced by matter pushes back and exerts pressure inward toward the matter. The aether displaced by the solar system is pushing back and exerting inward pressure toward the solar system. This is gravity.

A quantum take on certainty : Nature News

"Intriguingly, the trajectories closely match those predicted by an unconventional interpretation of quantum mechanics known as pilot-wave theory, in which each particle has a well-defined trajectory that takes it through one slit while the associated wave passes through both slits."

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle travels a well defined trajectory which takes it through one slit. The associated aether wave passes through both. As the aether wave exits the slits it creates wave interference. As the particle exits a single slit the direction it travels is altered by the wave interference. This is the wave piloting the particle of pilot-wave theory. Detecting the particle strongly destroys the coherence between the particle and the associated aether wave, there is no wave interference and the direction the particle travels is not altered.

Last edited by mpc755 : 12-31-2011 at 04:07 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 12-31-2011, 11:03 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
time and space

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpc755 View Post
The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of the aether in which it exists. The greater the pressure exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock by the aether the slower the clock ticks. In terms of general relativity, the greater the mass per volume of the matter, the less aether the volume contains, the greater the displacement of the aether from the volume. The greater the displacement of the aether from the volume the greater the pressure exerted toward and throughout the volume. The greater the pressure exerted toward and throughout an atomic clock by the displaced aether the slower the atomic clock ticks. In terms of special relativity, the faster a clock moves through the aether the more aether the clock displaces the more pressure the displaced aether exerts toward and throughout the atomic clock the slower the clock ticks.
re: voyager "Stagnation layer" lol

Exactly! You just defined what time is above. I've agreed with that for years. It shows that time is not a dimension at all and that time is just the rate of motion permitted by the density of the aether within any area. That is all that "time" is.

If a rubber band propeller plane was wound up and let go in a tub of water, it will unwind and spin at a faster rate (lower density aether).

If a rubber band propeller plane was wound up and let go in a tub of jello, it will unwind and spin at a slower rate (higher density aether).

From an absolute reference point, the water has time ticking faster (aether giving less resistance to the movement of mass) and in the jello, time is ticking slower (aether giving more resistance to the movement of mass).

To the observer in the water, time ticks slower and in the jello faster.

Light is moving faster in the water and slower in the jello from an absolute reference point. But from each section, light speed always looks like it is at "light speed" of course.

Our conscious awareness and all perceptions are also determined by the density of the aether since it will also be at light speed awareness.

In the water, light is at "light speed" from our reference point and the movement of the chemistry in our body and brain, electrical impulses, etc... are all determined by the density of the aether that the observer is in. So of course it will always look like "light speed" is light speed or a constant, which it is not a constant from an absolute reference point, the constant is limited to one's own frame of reference.

In the jello or higher density aether, light is slowed down from an absolute frame of reference but our awareness is slowed down as our perceptual/biological functions are also slowed down so from inside the jello, light speed always looks like "light speed" and appears to be constant, which of course it isn't.

If we were in the water and were able to peer into the jello, light would be going slower but the reason that no matter what, we perceive light speed to be at constant when we observe it "coming" from any location is that the observation is from inside our own density of the aether, which dictates the light speed's "drag or friction", which automatically determines our perception of it - which will always be at the speed limitation given by the density of the aether or "light speed".

So length, width and height are also determined by the density of the aether. Of course these are just thought experiments but appears congruent enough with the rest.

In a section of space from an absolute reference point, lets say the density of the aether is at a benchmark default density or maybe average density for simplicity. In that area of x,y,z, 1 meter is the benchmark 1 meter and will look like 1 meter to an observer in that area.

If in the same x,y,z, absolute volume of "space" (space is really defined by the aether in it but for the sake of an example)... if in the same xyz the density of the aether is 3 time greater than that of the benchmark density of xyz, the 1 meter stick is actually 1/3 the length compared to the bench mark 1 meter stick.

Observer in his own benchmark space sees 1 meter as 1 meter. Light is at "benchmark" speed.

Observer in the 3x density sees the 1 meter as 1 meter. Light is at 1/3 the benchmark speed.

Both see one meter because in 3x density, the volume of space there is contracted but no difference can be observed in that area of space from within the very space that is contracted.

So from an absolute reference point, in the default benchmark space, an object moving the distance (absolute distance) of x will move 3 times further than in the 3x density where it moves 1/3 the distance.

I don't know if there is a real linear relationship to the density of the aether and the contraction of space but is good enough for the example of a higher and lower density comparison.

At the further edges of the observable universe, the aether is probably very thin compared to where we are giving less resistance to the movement of anything and can account for the apparent acceleration away defeating entropy.

And I think there is a point where space is stretched so thin that instead of inertial resistance to the movement of mass through space, there is nothing but negative resistance to movement meaning everything in that vicinity is above light speed with no inertia basically instantaneous movement of matter from anywhere to anywhere without requiring any energy to do so.

I also think we can create this effect locally by driving a wedge in the aether and prying it open to have a ship move by slipping the aether around it so that it has the aether squeezing on it moving it along at negative resistance. I think the aether can be polarized and split by either rotating mass at high speed or by extremely high voltage and high frequency like on a shell of a ship. So that the aether is deflected around the ship like a Faraday cage for example and no aether actually moves through the matter that makes up the ship. Therefore, there can be no resistance or inertia experienced by the acceleration. A lack of aether is produced on the front of the ship while a stronger density is at the back by deflecting it around so it moves into negative resistance while the denser aether on the back of the ship squeezes on it pushing it forward.

I know someone that did this with an an aluminum sphere. The microwaves were pumped on the shell off/on and the weight was reduced and it went up and the counterweight on the beam went down. But I believe it defeated gravity because as aluminum is non-ferrous the metal's matrix is more scattered and the pumping polarized it to give an alignment that allowed a more clear path for the aether moving down through it thereby causing less resistance to the aether and it lost weight.

By directing the aether around the ship instead of through it, it defeats the idea that to travel at high speed to another star system, your clock ticks slow and on Earth is fast so when you come back everyone is long gone. This limitation in Einstein's throught is defeated because by deflecting the aether around the ship by strong polarization, there is no inertia and therefore, we can travel to another star system and come back and find out that WE are the ones that might have aged a little more than the people on Earth since on Earth, the density of the aether slows time while we were in a ship that possibly had faster time. However, there can probably be produced artificially in the ship a density of aether to match that on Earth so that there are no time difference when we get back. We don't spend any time moving around in the ship since we are actually not traveling any distance since distance is a product of the space that has the aether. And we are technically not moving or going any speed since that is a relationship of the mass to its movement through aether.

I've seen about 15 craft where the above explanation would make sense of their movements including cloaking and invisibility. Since aether is the medium to propagate light, when deflecting aether around a shell of a ship (completely) as opposed to partially, there is no light touching the shell of the craft and the light simply is bent around the ship so when we look up at it, we don't see a ship. I think aether can be partially deflected around the ship to give some antigravity effects but for full blown instantaneous "teleportation", it is full deflection. The the aether deflected around increase, there is simply a proportionate decrease in resistance to movement.

There is no "space" without aether since space is defined by that which has the dimensions to it.

Anyway a few tangents there but this is all fully congruent with the aetheric model and dynamic gravity model. It can explain everything that Einstein couldn't and unifies many things in such an elegant way.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 12-31-2011, 11:05 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
time and space 2

This depiction of "curved space" to explain Einstein's idea of gravity is a joke:



Although those pictures imply 3 dimensions, it is showing space 2 dimensions for all practical purposes and has done more to brainwash people that can be explained with words. It is completely short sighted.

This is more accurate - I know this is an atomospheric model that has nothing to do with space or gravity but I'm using that atmosphere to show the relation of the aether to the mass of the Earth:



The Earth is submerged in the aether and the lines of the aether should be spaced closer together (black stuff being the aether) by the Earth compared to further spacing out at the further edges until it gets spaced further apart to the point that it is back to being straight lines. Similar to the straight lines of the Einstein dimple picture BUT, in his depiction, the grid lines are equidistant from each other - he is using 2 dimentional space to represent gravity for a 3D object.

I understand Einstein accounts for 3 dimensions of space but his explanation of gravity as being an effect of curved space is in-congruent with his own model!

And these pro-Einstein people that claim gravity is static are contradicting themselves as Einstein does - but the point is, they claim you lift an object and it stores potential or conserves energy and that you get it back when you let go.

But in the Einstein picture of curved space, obviously if you removed the Earth, it wouldn't "push" on space and it would flatten out again meaning Einstein is even admitting an elasticity to space!

That means in Einstein's curved space, if you lift an object, it is giving a proportional push against space to curve it as the Earth does on a larger scale and this would be the only way you can "store" any potential or conserve energy. This would be "storing energy" or storing potential in the SPRING, which is space that gets curved by the mass that curves it because of its elasticity. So even in that model to be consistent, potential is not stored in the ball, it is in the space that is compressed. So when you leg go of the ball, the spring uncompresses and gives an ACTIVE DYNAMIC push on the ball pushing it back down just like a rubber band.

So pro-Einstein people saying gravity gives no active push on an object as it falls is being 100% inconstant with the very nature of the claim of curved space, which is obviously a result of the elasticity of it being pushed on by the mass of the Earth. Which therefore would cause the space to rebound back to being "flat" if the Earth was removed.

So essentially, the only way the curved space model can be right while claiming gravity is static is the rubber band analogy meaning that according to that claim of curved space, it MUST give an active push on the object as it pushes down.

To say gravity is not a source of potential defeats the logic necessary for space to curve to begin with according to the Einstein dimple and the only way that gravity is not a source of potential is if you remove the Earth from his dimpled space and the dimple in space remains there!

Even with that goofy model, lifting an object would have to OBVIOUSLY dispalce and curve space proporionate to the mass of the object lifting which means for the curved space claim to be correct, the space is compressing like a spring in order to have the potential necessary to rebound the object back to the ground. An ACTIVE process.

But this whole thing is contradicted by the fact that an object in outer space that didn't lift up in Earth's gravity will come into the vicinity of Earth and will still fall to the ground. This means that the notion of curved space - especially depicted by ridiculous apples and oranges explanations like this are wrong:



With that model, Earth obviously is curving space in a way proportionate to the mass and its shape. The only way that model is consistent is by admitting that an object lifted from the surface has warped space proportionate to its mass. Whether it is enough to cause gravitational effect that we can measure or not is irrelevant - the model has to be consistent. And therefore, because a 1kg ball lifted to a meter has to offset the curvature in that direction by so much when the ball drops, that offset curvature by the ball will rebound back to where it was.

So even using Einstein's goofy explanation of curved space and even using the flat space with a 3d object depiction to describe gravity, an argument can STILL be made that gravity (rebounding back of rubber band space - not a dynamic aether) DOES give potential energy back to an object when it is released from a height. lol

If that doesn't happen, then the Earth can't bend space to begin with.

So I could say you expend energy to fill a tank of air and all that energy is "converted" to heat. Then if it is all expended how do you account for the fact that if the valve is opened that air can do more work? All the energy that went it was supposed to turned into heat and there is nothing left (except for a tank for of air that can power tools, etc...) lol

So an object is lifted up against Einstein's rubber band space, all that work is expended (air was compressed into tank). Then when letting go of object, the compression opens up to push ball down - that is the only way there is "potential stored" but it still isn't in the object, it is in the space.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 12-31-2011, 11:37 PM
mpc755 mpc755 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
re: voyager "Stagnation layer" lol

Exactly! You just defined what time is above. I've agreed with that for years. It shows that time is not a dimension at all and that time is just the rate of motion permitted by the density of the aether within any area. That is all that "time" is.

If a rubber band propeller plane was wound up and let go in a tub of water, it will unwind and spin at a faster rate (lower density aether).

If a rubber band propeller plane was wound up and let go in a tub of jello, it will unwind and spin at a slower rate (higher density aether).
We have the same concept. Where we disagree is in terms of the density of the aether. What you refer to as a lower or higher density of the aether I think is more correctly referred to as the pushing back and pressure exerted toward the matter by the displaced aether. I see the aether as a superfluid with properties of a solid; an incompressible fluid.

Quote:
There is no "space" without aether since space is defined by that which has the dimensions to it.
Agreed.

Quote:
Anyway a few tangents there but this is all fully congruent with the aetheric model and dynamic gravity model. It can explain everything that Einstein couldn't and unifies many things in such an elegant way.

"Einstein's 'First Paper'"


"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

What Einstein was unable to determine is the cause which conditions the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places.

Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"

The hidden medium of wave mechanics is the aether. The 'energetic contact' is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave passes through both.

Last edited by mpc755 : 01-01-2012 at 12:12 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2012, 03:33 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 9,681
aether and Einstein

Quote:
Originally Posted by mpc755 View Post
"Einstein's 'First Paper'"

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

What Einstein was unable to determine is the cause which conditions the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places.

Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

'Interpretation of quantum mechanics by the double solution theory - Louis de BROGLIE'

"any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium"

The hidden medium of wave mechanics is the aether. The 'energetic contact' is the state of displacement of the aether.

A moving particle has an associated aether displacement wave. In a double slit experiment the particle has a well defined trajectory which takes it through one slit while the associated aether wave passes through both.
The density I refer to is more of an apparent density or relative density. For example, as an object accelerates through space, the density of the aether remains unchanged away from the object. The "increase" in density "on" the object is the increase in inertia which is the object coming in contact with more aether per unit of "time" for a particular mass. So the density of the aether in relation to the object appears to have a higher density which causes more resistance to its movement.

I'm familiar with that paper but didn't Einstein simply dismiss all evidence that there is an aether? It is as if he had a "talking to" and had to change his tune.

There are a lot of aether experiments other than Dayton Miller's reference in this link but...

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments

Einstein said if it shows an aether, his model crashes.

He just dismissed this Dayton Miller data as just being an error that can be attributed to temperature. He just brushed it aside giving an appearance he was more interested in maintaining a house of cards and celebrity status rather than honestly exploring these ideas.

He did say this:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein

But also says:

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.



"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
— Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)



"You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
— Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 01-01-2012, 04:45 AM
mpc755 mpc755 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
There are a lot of aether experiments other than Dayton Miller's reference in this link but...

Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments

Einstein said if it shows an aether, his model crashes.
I'm not exactly sure what Dayton Miller was looking for but I do know the Michelson-Morley experiment was looking for a stationary aether the Earth moved through. I think Dayton Miller was looking for a similar type of aether. This is not the aether of relativity.

When Einstein discusses the state of the aether of relativity as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places he is referring to the state of displacement of the aether.

'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
Einstein: "Ether and Relativity"

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

To see a visual representation of the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places, which is the state of displacement of the aether, watch the following video starting at 0:45. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether. What is referred to as frame-dragging is the state of displacement of the aether.

EPIC: Einstein's 4-D Time Theory Confirmed by NASA - YouTube

The above video visually represents the state of displacement of the aether of relativity.

The analogy is a mesh bag full of marbles placed into a tank containing a superfluid.

Spin the bag of marbles. Even if you were unable to determine if the superfluid was in motion or not you should still be able to detect the state of displacement of the superfluid.

Last edited by mpc755 : 01-01-2012 at 06:25 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 01-02-2012, 11:24 AM
geotron geotron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 321
They're showing the apple will collide at 14.8deg off center and take a 30deg shift by calculating a vector. The ideas of physics and gravity with the composition of a 2nd-dimensional workspace is not accurate. The vortex coil math ought to naturally provide a representation fulfilling all coordinates.




The mathmatics of a gravity vortex surrounding a planet do not involve the tube banding effect present on a circular curved space map.

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2012, 03:04 AM
Doug Cherry Doug Cherry is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1
Gravity

I believe that gravity is just a by product of releasing energy.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-12-2012, 09:26 AM
lamare's Avatar
lamare lamare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by replaced View Post
Gravity is not a force. The theory of General relativity gives a rock solid explanation on what gravity is. Gravity instead of caused by the curvature of the space-time continuum.

General relativity theory is plain B.S. See my article on the matter:
Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff : Ruins 96 Years Einstein Relativity

And the single experiment to disprove this brainf***ed theory has already been performed in 1834:

Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff : Wheatstone Experiments To Measure The Velocity Of Electricity


Gravity is the gradient of the electric field, it is the Bernouilli/Venturi effect in the aether:

Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff : Stowe Personal E Mail

And BTW, Quantum Mechanics is flawed, too. Sy my posts here:

Gray Tube Replication
Gray Tube Replication


Try explaining TT Browns experiments with the relativity B.S.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
2007 Copyright ? Energetic Forum? A Non Profit Corporation - All Rights Reserved