John Berry said; >>I hate theory, but must add that understanding what is going on with this technology is important if it is to become a science.
John, so is this the old 'Chicken and Egg' thing? Maybe I do not understand what you meant, but isn't there two ways of doing things; 1) Idea, (Hypothesis to Theory) to Test? I mean the basic premise, water flows down hill. We collect some water, go to the top of various elevations, release the water. Then we go to various valleys and depressions, release the water and see if it will flow up. Fine, I agree and all is well, unless we have 0 gravity, right? Therefore in this case our findings are only valid under the test conditions and the test frame in which they are performed. So; >> but must add that understanding what is going on with this technology is important if it is to become a science. Is only of value or accurate in the context that a reaction or result exists that can be understood. What is to understanding a technology that has yet to exist outside of arm chair minds? 'Think, Do, Explain', or could it be 'Do, Think and Explain' or is it 'Explain, Think and Do'? >>This means observation and correlation. This is 100% right. But, observe what?, a vision, dream or a 'Real Test Result' in physical measurable results out side of mental vision? >>Gravity, magnetism, electricity are not theories, ideas of how they work are theories. Well my simple mind don't see it this way. First, 'Gravity and Magnetism or what ever' are phenomena which are name assignments given to somewhat predictable and duplicate able actions and consequences. Who, where and how can anyone say that because of billions of experiments under a specific set of conditions, insures that those results are fact and carved in the stone of the universe, never to be changed based on the Empirical Results and the Matching Mathematic Treatise? What about multiple dimension's, Multiple Universes' and working under 'Different Sets of Action Consequence'?, Sorry, that has not been proven by experiment, wait, would not these experiments have to be done in all dimension's to insure this fact? Then what if these results show sub or super dimensions where it all changes again. >>Recognizing other fundamental forces in the universe and correlations and observations from different FE/AG devices isn't theory but is critical to piecing this together. I agree again 100%, but how does one recognize in vision? I do admit maybe I have it all backwards. I'm a do it, think about it, improve or discard it kind of guy. I am not a thin about it, discard it and never try it because my simple vision says it can not be done. Theory, Thought, Vision, Dreams are primary to advancement, yet you can never be sure water is wet until you actually feel it with that mass that supports your thinking machine. -----Original Message----- From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 3:40 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: vortex-digest Digest V2007 #50 On 2/5/07, Stiffler Scientific <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: You are calling it right? I have been in and out of groups for over 12 years now and it has not changed. The hands on people are 1% of the listers. I have cried foul often about the arm chair crowd and they just tell me to 'MOVE ON'. I hate theory, but must add that understanding what is going on with this technology is important if it is to become a science. This means observation and correlation. Gravity, magnetism, electricity are not theories, ideas of how they work are theories. Recognizing other fundamental forces in the universe and correlations and observations from different FE/AG devices isn't theory but is critical to piecing this together. I guess ego and self stroking gets them off more than doing and seeing a positive or negative result. Maybe I just hit on it, they can not stand up to failure. Personally I find negative results hard to take so I think 10 times more than experiment. I'd be quite ok with a list that excluded everyone that did no experiments, what use are they? I'm sick and tired of the 'Math Says It Can't Be' if we were doing what could be, then it would be done... I agree, plus the 'math' types will still insist it can't work even when the math says it can. I think the speech about the 'ugly nest of believers' needs to be heard again. I have failed and screwed up and mis-represented so many times I lost count, _BUT_ I'm building systems, doing experiments and seeing my retirement decrease daily as a result. But, never have I looked in the mirror and said 'I know this is not so because the math says so'. Well John I don't see it happening, at least not until we are all back with candles and eating our dogs. Guess the educational system has at last won. No, actually you've hit on one of the key Free Energy principles, amplified power transfer where 2 coils transfer power through unusual distances and seem to be OU. (despite how you dislike the term) I can assure you that what you achieved with Barium can be achieved with totally different cores (or no core), that's not to say the barium wasn't critical in your experiment, just that it isn't the only thing that can allow a transformer to do that. Take care, took guts to make the post. -----Original Message----- From: john herman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 9:52 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Vo]: Re: vortex-digest Digest V2007 #50 Dear Vo., General post: Open question set: NB: This is intended to address real world science. NOT theory. Please defive term[s] and or experiment[s] which support answer. This is an attempt to guide vortex back toward science, as opposed to armchair thinking and the like. (A) Can any one give examples of monopoles? (B) Will anyone describe real world science that encompasses supporting experiments that might guide others toward energy convesion of ANY type and useful and or unusual energy conversion ... prefer conversion to electric energy. amps and volts required. (C) Any new work of any type which fits with above...[not theory] I am sure not everyone is restricted to theory or guess or armchair alone I may be wrong... but do not see same over the last 5 to 7 YEARS...!!! Herma john
