 |
       |
|
|
|
|
| Become an SVP lifetime member SVPMembership |
 |
| The Do-It-Yourself Unincorporated Business Trust |
|
Topic: Dale Pond
Collected Articles Section: Newtonian vs SVP Table of Contents to this Topic |
|
Joe, It is almost impossible to respond accurately to the post below because there are no clear questions posed. But I will make a few observations. The first being the material presented is basically a newtonian framework and certainly materialistic, as that term is usually applied. There is nothing wrong with either of these concepts in and of themselves. But in context of so-called free energy, etc. they are incomplete because they do not account for such things as origin or conversion to/from mass and the complex nature of energy, in its relations to mass. The presentment deals in objects having mass moving from A to B and another object having mass inserted between A and B reacts to that mass in motion. Like a sail in wind or a waterwheel in flowing water. This action of one mass in motion on another mass in less of no motion is considered as Newtonian action/reaction. There is another paradigm being currently explored by many that goes into these phenomena on a much deeper level. This paradigm, in part, explores what energy is, in its various phases as it transforms itself into mass then back into energy. Another important aspect it explores is the influence of energy on mass and mass on energy states or conditions. These subtle influences take several forms such as sympathetic action/reaction; another is what Russell called Principle of Regeneration and many others. The paradigm also explores the CAUSE of mass and energy, not just the effects of mass or energy in motion. So to this now evolving paradigm Newtonian type equations and concepts are but a small portion of the overall picture of what goes on and how. Dale hrevnack wrote: >Dear Group, > > > I had made a post to another group and I felt compelled to share it >with this group to try to get some feed back. > > You are saying in essence is that the direct conversion of mass >(or "metric of inertia" as you say) to energy will produce inertia >effects. I would agree with this as shown in the De Aquino >experiments and others. But what I do not see is how it defies >Newton's laws as you say. For instance in a realctionless propulsion >device it is only reactionless when defining the system in turns of >its mass parts. When the system is defined in terms of its mass parts >plus the field momenta (i.e.-ambient vacuum or in the case you >mention the actual mass of some object that is converted into energy >and directed in some arbitrary direction) that the mass is either >emitting or absorbing, Newton's laws are fully restored. A sail boat >to someone who does not know what wind is will think that a boat is >reactionless. With EM phenomena the "wind" is much more subtle and so >it is much harder to detect. > > In other words: > >Example 1)-When mass emits energy > Action=Craft Motion > Reaction=Field Energy Expulsion > The sum of momentums equal zero because both events are anti- >parallel to one another in three-space. > >Example 2)-When mass absorbs energy > Action=Field Energy Absorption > Reaction=Craft Motion > Again the sum of momentums equal zero. > > By understanding that the laws of nature are only definable when >the whole system is accounted for when making measurements it is easy >to see how one may think that they have violated certain laws such as >the conservation of momentum or energy. In terms of the latter it is >often argued that such a thing is absolute and non-breakable. However >it is all a matter of how one defines their system and getting their >circuit to be a system in which it is able to produce much useful >work from an initial impulse of energy. This is really a question of >engineering and NOT of fundamental physics. If one views the entire >universe or an atom as a system it is easy to see that perpetual >motion is a fact of life which is good for us or else we would not be >here. > >I will stop ranting now. > >Sincerely, > Joe > >P.S. The equation for EM "wind" force is: > F=(1/uc)(integral)(E cross B)ds >-Where; F=force, u=permeability of free space, c=the speed of light, >E=the electric field, cross=the vector product, B= the magnetic >field, and (integral)ds=the summation of all area increments |
| See Also: |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
