 |
       |
|
|
|
|
| Become an SVP lifetime member SVPMembership |
 |
| The Do-It-Yourself Unincorporated Business Trust |
|
Topic: Dale Pond
Collected Articles Section: Orthodoxy meets Unorthodox Table of Contents to this Topic |
|
Had some time on my hands and thought I'd straighten this mess out. What is happening here is the jargon is not being understood and is being mis-interpreted. I think the material is important to those studying New Physics. Actually the material is fundamental to any who wish to learn where useable energy may be derived - and how. If we are to develop new energy tools we need likewise to develop a new understanding. Keely made machinery that worked on these principles as attested to by signed affidavits by many engineers and scientists of his day. So what understanding of nature and physics did he have that allowed these creations? Over a period of time I will be posting what I've learned that others may study them and perhaps together we can further develop these ideas into working knowledge. The recent exchange being bafoofkit and myself affords a good contrast of concepts. This will help us grasp some of the similarities and differences between orthodox views and the New View being developed by myself and many others. Enjoy! DP: >"First: Matter is capable of infinite subdivision. bafoofkit: 1. WRONG! That is not how the universe is made. There are limits to sub-division. These start at the level of atoms and molecules. Perhaps you have not heard of the atomic theory? Get used to it, it is real! DP: >Well? How is the universe made? The only limits to subdivision is man's capability to subdivide. Molecules dissociate to create atoms. Atoms dissociate to create leptons, electrons, etc. These dissociate to photons. These dissociate to quarks. Which again are composed of still smaller thingies. These we can do today, now. How about tomorrow? Or next century? DP: >Second: In the aggregation of matter, force or energy is stored up or conserved. bafoofkit: 2. WRONG! In the aggregation of mater a gravitational field is generated which has NEGATIVE ENERGY. DP: The quote above does NOT refer to lumps of matter clumping together to create a planet. It refers to the self-assimilation of subatomic particles to form an atom or atoms to form together into a molecule. Molecules, atoms and subatomic particles are the "matter" being referred to. If force/energy were not stored or conserved in these particles during their formation where does that force/ energy come from evidenced during their dissociation? How? DP: >Third: In the dissociation of matter, force is liberated. bafoofkit: 3. WRONG! To seperate a mass from a gravitational filed you must SUPPLY the energy that was lost when the gravitational field was generated. That is why things do not fall up and you need a rocket to get off the earth. DP:> Excuse me, please. The phrase refers to dissociation of matter as in breaking apart a molecule, atom, electron, etc. Check out the physics on atomic fissions and detonations. A review of E=mc2 might help too. Here is a simple definition of dissociation. There are more definitions of "dissociation" out there. DISSOCIATION: "The process that may occur when a chemical compound is dissolved in a solvent (e.g., water). The molecules of the compound will break up ("dissociate") into two or more ions resulting in an ionically conducting electrolyte solution." (Electrochemical Dictionary) NOTE: Keely was able to dissociate water molecules into vapor and then into H and O using acoustics (ultrasound). Today we use ultrasonic humidifiers which illustrates the technique works though we have yet to duplicate his achievements: http://www.svpvril.com/Water.html We also today dissociate water using radio frequencies: http://www.svpvril.com/WRadis.html We also use today electricity or acoustics to achieve cavitation (dissociation): http://www.svpvril.com/svpweb9.html DP: >Fourth: All matter is in a state of perpetual activity, whether the substance under consideration be inanimate or animated, visible or invisible. bafoofkit: 4. Partially correct in that absolute zero still has zero point energy. DP: > Partially correct? When is it not correct? Be specific please and add some supporting references. DP: >Fifth: There is no dividing of matter and force into two distinct terms, as they both are ONE. FORCE is liberated matter. MATTER is force in bondage." bafoofkit: 5. WRONG! you are confusing force and energy again! As I said before this is a sticking point that confuses people, especcilly those that want to sell you a perpetual motion machine. E=MC2 or ENERGY = MASS times the speed of light squared. You can't get at this energy easily however. YOU need to use a fission reactor or a fusion reactor. So far we have only been able to make a fission reactor. DP: > Thank you for your definition of "force". When an atom is quickly dissociated what is released or produced? Just so happens we have other more refined definitions. Can't mix apples and oranges. In the quote above "force" is used as in this quote: "In this system [SVP], force and energy are classified as opposites, working in antagonism to each other: Force as a positive power which initiates aggregative motion, and resists separative motion, in three postules, of ponderable matter in the etheric medium;" Energy as a negative power, which initiates separative motion, or disintegration, and resists aggregative motion, in three postules of ponderable matter, also of the etheric medium." Bloomfield-Moore, What Electricity Is. The above quote accurately and precisely echoes what Russell wrote roughly 30 years later in his marvelous book "The Universal One" which I strongly recommend. This book goes into great detail concerning "force" as an "assimilative" power and "energy" as a "dispersive" power. He uses different terms but the ideas and concepts are identical to Keely's. DP: >See? It's all in the terms and their definitions. Useful energy may be concentrated from this useless energy. This is not extracting useful energy or work from nothing because nothing does not exist. There is a source. And it may be "tapped". Just as Keely did, Moray and Russell after him, and the little Swiss machine currently does. The question then is not "what" is happening it is "how" to do the concentrating or tapping or extracting as some conceive of the process. bafoofkit: Your definitions are wacko! DP: > Which ones, specifically? Sure, there are times I use words in a way you do not and vice versa. To learn new views new words or more precisely new uses of common words are required to convey the new ideas. Actually, however, I've found the older definitions are the more accurate for these topics, which btw are not new but they may be new to us who endeavor to study them. bafoofkit: NO the energy is a disspated system can't be tapped, it is lost. That is why you can't win. DP: > I assume perhaps you are referring to dissipated energy from or within a closed system such as a mechanical (Newtonian) system. Our work is not in a "closed system" as you understand it nor is it Newtonian. The system we work with is more comprehensive and contains matter that dissociates into energy and energy that reassociates into matter, just for starters. This concept has been known since the 1840s (Macvicar), 1880s (Keely) and some even in the 1900s (Russell 1920s, Ubaldi 1960s). I've been writing about it for the past 15 or so years. http://www.svpvril.com/Cosmology/cosunity1.html bafoofkit: Quoting the ravings of some scam artist will not change the laws of physics. YOu reject the things I say but you come up with old antiquated and thoroughly discredited theories in return. DP: > Which ravings of which scam artist are you referring to? Please provide quotes and sources of those quotes. BTW: Just because someone says, shouts, shreiks someone is a scam artist in no way makes that true or even believable. So far all we have is your unconsidered, unstudied and unsubstantiated opinion on these claims of yours. To slander someone and not be sued or even to preserve one's credibility one needs documented proof of their assertions. |
| See Also: |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
