nay sayers ... 100,000 Euro's Bonus payment

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

I noticed a few errors on glancing through your document

step 1: the forces P+ and P- cannot be equal nor absolute on the X axis relative to each other or the approaching electron due to Earnshaw's Theorem.

step 2: you are using simple straight line geometry which does not apply, there are no straight lines in nature.

step 3: we have problems, you say the light red region decelerates the electron yet in step 1 you have declared the forces are equal. If the forces are equal as you say then there can be no deceleration. The forces are not independent with respect to the electron they are simultaneous.


In reality damn near anything could happen because the data set is incomplete if not not non-existent. However I believe you have made a few assumptions which would seem to contradict one another.

AC

[Ernst]

@Duncan,

You make it sound as if if Dr. Pappas is wrong there can be no 'overunity'.
There are 2 things in this universe that are abundant beyond your wildest imaginations; the first is space, the second is energy. There is no place in the entire universe where either of these are completely absent. So of course there must be ways to help ourselves to this energy.
I too have found a way (with a little help from Tesla) and a professor in plasma physics is currently examining my work.
I am sure Dr. Pappas made a few mistakes in his work, but he also found a few correct things. One of his findings you can see in one of my video's as well. Don't worry too much Duncan, there is plenty of energy and ways to obtain it.

For all remaining comments, let's just wait and see what the old prof has to say.

Ernst.

[Duncan]

[Duncan]

@Duncan


Hmm that is interesting and the first thing that came to mind when looking at the diagram was that we have been using a similar process for a very long time. Deep space probes are routinely brought close to other planets to "accelerate" them because it would be impossible to carry the required fuel on board to reach a realistic velocity. They generally use the Gravitational force of many planets to slingshot the probe to reach extremely high velocities.

Now if we can slingshot a probe with a supposedly static force to gain velocity then why not an electron?. It is also interesting to note many inventors have used the term "ricochet" ie( rebound, bounce or skip off a surface) to describe the effects in their devices.

I would imagine Prof Pappas challenge would be like a call to arms to egomaniacs around the globe, lol. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

AC

[erfinder]

90 deg vector to the parallel resonant electrical circuit is the electromagnetic transverse wave90deg to the series resonant electric state is the Linear wave

Finally we have reached a point in our exchanges where we find ourselves where Tesla probably desired for us to be when he patented his famous "Electro Magnetic Motor" back in 1888.

http://www.keelynet.com/tesla/00381968.pdf

Machines of this particular geometry I have come to call "Orthogonal" under the banner "Asymmetrical Magneto-Dielectric Machines" for reasons obvious to those skilled in the art. Sling-shot, whip action..... indeed!

Regards

[Farmhand]

Theoretical "mind toys" are all well and good but there is no "proof" of anything
without a working device providing an output that is confirmed by reputable and
competent testing personnel.

There is nothing to disprove, a theory or hypothesis is not a proved thing to be
disproved, it is a thing that is "to be proved" or it is invalid, and until proven it remains a
theory or hypothesis. Words and paper prove nothing a working real device is required.

I can give countless theories for others to disprove, is there a theory competition ?

I think the professor should put his 100 000 euro towards building a device or
I say he is full of it.

Duncan calling a heap of people "losers" again. Tut tut. Can't help yourself hey.
Am i to assume that anyone who doesn't believe energy can be created from
nothing is a loser ? Or is the energy simply transformed or harnessed ?

I hate to say it Ernst but I'd love to see you join the band of losers sitting on the "naughty step" quite quickly on this particular occasion.

Charming ! The naughty step is already full Duncan.

I ask you, do you think Over Unity involves creating energy or can it only be
the harnessing of energy. Which is it can energy be created Duncan or not ?

Cheers

[Ernst]

Funny,...
My first email to PTP got answered in about 1 hour, but it's been more than 1 day now after my second more detailed email.
Just hope his health is strong enough to deal with the disappointment.
Or would he be waiting for the banks to open?

I did tell him that I would not insist on payment, I just wanted to point out a small overlooked detail.

Well, I'll give it some more time.

He also offered 100.000 EUR for anyone who can point out two "inertial systems" as intended in the special theory of relativity. That one is pretty easy too. Anyone care to make that claim?

Ernst.

[Duncan]

[Duncan]

... If we could turn back time!

P.T Pappas ..... As a younger man
Energy Generation Phenomenon PT Pappas - YouTube
I guess dated but I thought you might like to see you adversery as a "young pup" Ernst

[Allcanadian]

@Farmhand

There is nothing to disprove, a theory or hypothesis is not a proved thing to be disproved, it is a thing that is "to be proved" or it is invalid, and until proven it remains a theory or hypothesis. Words and paper prove nothing a working real device is required.

The problem I see with this line of thought is that it is an intellectual sinkhole. For instance do you accept the proof that Gravity exists?, well of course you do everybody does. However this is a false construct because nobody knows what it is fundamentally other than a supposed "force" is present for reasons we do not understand. However nobody seems to even question the proof that one mass is supposedly attracted to another which I find absurd. Really?, one mass is just magically attracted to another through a space which is supposedly empty?.

You see if your going to start asking for absolute proof then you had better be prepared to accept the answers you find. The fact of the matter is that almost nothing we know of anywhere has been proven beyond all shadow of doubt and most of what we do consider proven is still theoretical at best.

So where do we stand?, well we are left judging one theory as theoretical and unproven using another theory which is in fact theoretical and unproven as a foundation. In which case we come full circle to opinions and beliefs which is in fact all science ever was. Thus I believe it is a mistake to remove people and their perceptions from the equation because they are the cause of science and it is not something in itself beyond reproach otherwise we may as well just call it a religion.

AC

[Ernst]

Since the prof seems to need time, I also entered his second contest; the question of the 2 inertial systems.
Come to think of it, my Magnifying Transmitter (the Tesla version, not the Dollard one! ) could use some extra funds.

Meanwhile perhaps we can have some entertainment by asking AC a little question:
Do you really believe that the positive plate does accelerate the electron in the y-direction while it travels between the plates but as soon as the electron exits the space between the plates it stops attracting the electron?


If so, either of us is from a different reality! That is for sure!


Ernst.

[Duncan]

your a greedy greedy greedy man Ernst no pipe and slippers for the prof this week then! I thought theory wise one was part and parcel of the other anyway as for AC he's probably having a think about all that I guess, we'll see

[Allcanadian]

@Ernst

Do you really believe that the positive plate does accelerate the electron in the y-direction while it travels between the plates but as soon as the electron exits the space between the plates it stops attracting the electron?

Does a white-fronted, flat-footed goose flying south in a nor-Easter run faster than a squirrel fart collecting nuts in a West-nor'er?.

Both questions seem equal, generally speaking, because very few of the conditions/properties have been clearly defined. Is the same electron attracted to a squirrels nuts?, sure if their charged to a sufficient magnitude not disclosed which may cause some discomfort. Does it change in the y-direction while it travels between said nuts?, sure why not. Is the electron attracted back to the nuts in question?, that would depend on the variables and in both cases we have very few that would give us a clear result.

If the charged state changes so does the attractive force, does it change?, I do not know and neither do you as it was not clearly defined as changing or not to my knowledge. In fact very little has been clearly defined in my opinion, if the result has changed then so must the variables.

Here is what I think is a much more interesting question-
Would you believe what a person tells you even if this person has been proven to be wrong in most cases and continuously makes misleading statements?

Well no that would be absurd wouldn't it?, now look at the history of science and you will see we have been wrong about damn near everything at one point or another. So why should we believe them now anymore than we did then?... considering the facts. I find it simply mind boggling that each generation believes they could not possibly be wrong about anything and yet they always are in some way. Very strange.

AC

[tachyon]

lol errnst you didnt really think that by guiding the electron 45 degrees facing outwards closed to the + plate you accelerate it on the entrance as much as you decellerate it on exit... problem solved. now don't tell me how to maintain it because you made 100 assumptions for your "theory" figure it out.

[Ernst]

Does a white-fronted, flat-footed goose flying south in a nor-Easter run faster than a squirrel fart collecting nuts in a West-nor'er?.

Yep, I already thought so. You do come from a different reality.

Would you believe what a person tells you even if this person has been proven to be wrong in most cases and continuously makes misleading statements?

Suppose some complete and utter moron, defines a flower as something having red leaves. We then have a definition of the word "flower" whether it makes sense or not. And anything that we would call a white, pink, blue, orange, yellow or multi coloured flower which does not have red leaves, is not a flower by that definition.
Our science maybe that moron, and it has given us a definition of an electron, which you can look up on wiki. It has a well defined mass and charge. Anything that does not match that description, simply is not an electron. By its very definition. No assumptions made (tachyon).
The charge on the capacitor plate as drawn by PTP is also a well defined thing and we know how these well defined things act on eachother. PTP uses our definitions to establish the fact that the electron is accelerated in the y-direction but he ignores the very same laws when applied to the x-direction. Now that is simply wrong.
As for sciences level of stupidity; look around you, see what this moron has come up with. Now an invention like for example an H-bomb, is not a particularly desired type of invention. But it is pretty ingenious nevertheless. And so are many of todays scientific contributions. There even are a few good inventions....
But I have a comforting thought for you: In this world most squirrels do not have very highly charged nuts. So when you see one, no need to panic!

as for tachyon, first you said I only made assumptions, now you have changed that statement into something... I can not find heads or tails in. But thanks for your kind words, anyway.

Ernst.