Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: OT re 7820, perpetual motion

Expand Messages
  • johndavidpasley
    Hi Andrew and Group ... rather ... You make it sound as though laws dont work unless scientists have written them down. Just look at nature its beautiful with
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Andrew and Group

      > Hi John,
      >
      > Yes, the laws as scientists have so far discovered do leave a
      rather
      > bleak picture of the world...

      You make it sound as though laws dont work unless scientists have
      written them down. Just look at nature its beautiful with natural
      energies everywhere. I dont see any bleak picture painted by
      scientists, just misuse of what they have learnt.

      > None the less, the examples David and yourself quote as PM do
      indeed
      > comply with accepted laws in that they are in equilibrium, with no
      > gain or loss of kinetic energy.

      I'm afraid you have missed the point here. Before there was a
      Universe there was no kinetic energy, now there is plenty, how is
      that an equilibrium?

      There are natural breaking forces in any orbit, including an
      electron. Again look to nature, you will find the Moon's orbit is
      slowing and will eventually be the same rate as the Earth's rotation.
      The Moon does not have friction as such with the Earth yet this still
      happens, it would happen too with an electron around a nucleus if it
      did not get additional energy from somewhere.

      Also, please dont get the idea that me and Mr Hamel (not David, lets
      show some respect in this forum please) are somehow sitting down
      conspiring to produce information for this group. He has the
      knowledge here, i'm doing what I can to bring a little of it to the
      group.

      > Diamagnetic levitation in a vacuum will allow a small neo magnet to
      > keep spinning for ages, one person reporting 50 days continuous
      > spinning. This is no more 'free energy' as a spinning planet or
      > electron is, because the experimenter has cut off as many losses
      (or
      > forces acting on the magnet) as possible so that the motion is
      > preserved.

      This misunderstanding you show here is similar to above. Once there
      was no energy in the Universe, now there is lots. I dont like the
      term free energy either, I guess I prefer 'balanced energy'.
      Electrons have been orbiting much longer than 50 days, showing how
      little understanding there is in your example experiment.

      > Perpetual motion with any form of energy output does defy
      > conventional understanding in the same way it defies nature. I do
      not
      > know of any natural entity on earth that uses (and emits as heat)
      > energy that did not come from a recognised source, but a 'working'
      > 3CD will have to do this because it has friction losses, and
      friction
      > will always create heat.

      Every form of life does this. You would say that all human energy
      comes from food alone. So what do I do at night when tired. Do I have
      a big feast and say, that's good i'm awake now, or do I go to sleep.
      Why do I get energy from sleep, and only material for my physical
      body from food?

      Why does dowsing work? (including with remotely held maps)
      Why do people see themselves being operated on in near death
      experiences?
      Why has this out of body experience been induced by activation of
      certain parts of the brain recently?
      Why is there a guy in South America who paints via the spirits of
      long dead artists, with his eyes closed?
      What is energy, what is spirit?

      > I do however subscribe to the idea that there is a yet-to-be-
      > discovered form of energy entering the 3CD via the cone geometry,
      and
      > the work Justin and others have done with pyramids would tend to
      > support this idea.

      Nature has many forms that relate to energy (e.g. tornado vortex),
      because Mr Hamels work stems from nature it will have natural shapes
      within it. It would be very wrong to think that shape power is the
      only factor in the technology. You could end up thinking that only a
      90 degree cone will work for instance which would be incorrect.

      Although you will find interesting effects from shape power, e.g. the
      reduced chance of mold forming on plants within a pyramid that
      Justin's work shows, you won't get plasma from it. Really what Hamel-
      technology is about is forming a gate to the 'sea of energy' and
      bringing out the energy. Just the same as humans do in their sleep at
      night.

      I also strongly believe in the 'additive and
      > accumulative' law (like attracts like), as this is VERY much a law
      of
      > nature.

      So does that mean that if I put two North facing magnets together
      they will attract? I think not. Does it mean that salts added to
      water will lump together rather than spread out equally, no they will
      spread out. Will the Universe expand or retract, expand I think. Will
      an electron repel another with the same charge or not, of course it
      will repel.

      Your idea works best with humans who have tried their level best to
      divorce themselves from nature, they then clump in cities, at bars,
      around unsound idealogies, much of which is anti nature and will only
      help to undermine the very planet we live on.

      I hope thats of some help at least to some group members.

      Regards

      John
    • t02112
      Perhaps the following website may also provide additional insight to shed some light on this subject? Tovi Sciences The Order Of Things Changing - Changing
      Message 2 of 10 , Nov 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Perhaps the following website may also provide additional insight to
        shed some light on this subject?

        Tovi Sciences
        "The Order Of Things Changing" - Changing the order of things, is
        likely one of the most difficult and perilous of human pursuits as it
        augurs in revolution, ardently opposed by existing establishments.
        The work of Tovi Sciences is primarily involved in such pursuits.
        With difficulty it has changed the course of cctv surveillance with
        the first discreet surveillance system in 1976 (US Patent 4,225,881.)
        based on a new beam splitter technology. Its current works in
        progress offer revolutionary changes in Astronomy, Astrophysics,
        Architecture, Art, Air Conditioning and those are just the A's. Many
        patents have been issued, several feature articles in a variety of
        publications have been published, a continuing education course has
        been endorsed and a TV documentary aired. Tovi Sciences is about the
        work of futurist Murray Tovi.
        http://www.tovisciences.com



        --- In hameltech@y..., "johndavidpasley" <john@j...> wrote:
        > Hi Andrew and Group
        >
        > > Hi John,
        > >
        > > Yes, the laws as scientists have so far discovered do leave a
        > rather
        > > bleak picture of the world...
        >
        > You make it sound as though laws dont work unless scientists have
        > written them down. Just look at nature its beautiful with natural
        > energies everywhere. I dont see any bleak picture painted by
        > scientists, just misuse of what they have learnt...
      • Adriaan Erasmus
        John, Interesting bit of text there ;-) I totally agree with what you said here. Perpetual motion is DEFINITELY not the principle that drives the devices under
        Message 3 of 10 , Nov 15, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          John,

          Interesting bit of text there ;-) I totally agree with what you said
          here. Perpetual motion is DEFINITELY not the principle that drives
          the devices under investigation. The configuration of these devices
          are of such a design as to produce a LONG-LIVED motion that - while
          in motion - generates and stores enough ENERGY to keep the motion
          going indefinitely once a certain threshold is reached whereby the
          stored energy is released into the running system in controlled
          bursts to AMPLIFY the GENERATING MOTION. A byproduct of this action
          is the generation of extremely powerful electromagnetic fields of
          just the right frequency to influence the space around the operating
          device. This force influences not only the space but also all the
          forces that live within that space like gravity etc.

          This technology is designed around the idea of manipulating the
          already jaw-dropping splendour of nature by gently GUIDING it to
          perform miraculous feats for OUR benefit.

          The only reason we (as worker bees) don't know it yet is because it
          has been supressed by the numerous mystery schools out there.

          My two cents ;-)

          Adriaan

          --- In hameltech@y..., "johndavidpasley" <john@j...> wrote:
          > Hi Andrew and Group
          >
          > > Hi John,
          > >
          > > Yes, the laws as scientists have so far discovered do leave a
          > rather
          > > bleak picture of the world...
          >
          > You make it sound as though laws dont work unless scientists have
          > written them down. Just look at nature its beautiful with natural
          > energies everywhere. I dont see any bleak picture painted by
          > scientists, just misuse of what they have learnt.
          >
          > > None the less, the examples David and yourself quote as PM do
          > indeed
          > > comply with accepted laws in that they are in equilibrium, with
          no
          > > gain or loss of kinetic energy.
          >
          > I'm afraid you have missed the point here. Before there was a
          > Universe there was no kinetic energy, now there is plenty, how is
          > that an equilibrium?
          >
          > There are natural breaking forces in any orbit, including an
          > electron. Again look to nature, you will find the Moon's orbit is
          > slowing and will eventually be the same rate as the Earth's
          rotation.
          > The Moon does not have friction as such with the Earth yet this
          still
          > happens, it would happen too with an electron around a nucleus if
          it
          > did not get additional energy from somewhere.
          >
          > Also, please dont get the idea that me and Mr Hamel (not David,
          lets
          > show some respect in this forum please) are somehow sitting down
          > conspiring to produce information for this group. He has the
          > knowledge here, i'm doing what I can to bring a little of it to the
          > group.
          >
          > > Diamagnetic levitation in a vacuum will allow a small neo magnet
          to
          > > keep spinning for ages, one person reporting 50 days continuous
          > > spinning. This is no more 'free energy' as a spinning planet or
          > > electron is, because the experimenter has cut off as many losses
          > (or
          > > forces acting on the magnet) as possible so that the motion is
          > > preserved.
          >
          > This misunderstanding you show here is similar to above. Once there
          > was no energy in the Universe, now there is lots. I dont like the
          > term free energy either, I guess I prefer 'balanced energy'.
          > Electrons have been orbiting much longer than 50 days, showing how
          > little understanding there is in your example experiment.
          >
          > > Perpetual motion with any form of energy output does defy
          > > conventional understanding in the same way it defies nature. I do
          > not
          > > know of any natural entity on earth that uses (and emits as heat)
          > > energy that did not come from a recognised source, but
          a 'working'
          > > 3CD will have to do this because it has friction losses, and
          > friction
          > > will always create heat.
          >
          > Every form of life does this. You would say that all human energy
          > comes from food alone. So what do I do at night when tired. Do I
          have
          > a big feast and say, that's good i'm awake now, or do I go to
          sleep.
          > Why do I get energy from sleep, and only material for my physical
          > body from food?
          >
          > Why does dowsing work? (including with remotely held maps)
          > Why do people see themselves being operated on in near death
          > experiences?
          > Why has this out of body experience been induced by activation of
          > certain parts of the brain recently?
          > Why is there a guy in South America who paints via the spirits of
          > long dead artists, with his eyes closed?
          > What is energy, what is spirit?
          >
          > > I do however subscribe to the idea that there is a yet-to-be-
          > > discovered form of energy entering the 3CD via the cone geometry,
          > and
          > > the work Justin and others have done with pyramids would tend to
          > > support this idea.
          >
          > Nature has many forms that relate to energy (e.g. tornado vortex),
          > because Mr Hamels work stems from nature it will have natural
          shapes
          > within it. It would be very wrong to think that shape power is the
          > only factor in the technology. You could end up thinking that only
          a
          > 90 degree cone will work for instance which would be incorrect.
          >
          > Although you will find interesting effects from shape power, e.g.
          the
          > reduced chance of mold forming on plants within a pyramid that
          > Justin's work shows, you won't get plasma from it. Really what
          Hamel-
          > technology is about is forming a gate to the 'sea of energy' and
          > bringing out the energy. Just the same as humans do in their sleep
          at
          > night.
          >
          > I also strongly believe in the 'additive and
          > > accumulative' law (like attracts like), as this is VERY much a
          law
          > of
          > > nature.
          >
          > So does that mean that if I put two North facing magnets together
          > they will attract? I think not. Does it mean that salts added to
          > water will lump together rather than spread out equally, no they
          will
          > spread out. Will the Universe expand or retract, expand I think.
          Will
          > an electron repel another with the same charge or not, of course it
          > will repel.
          >
          > Your idea works best with humans who have tried their level best to
          > divorce themselves from nature, they then clump in cities, at bars,
          > around unsound idealogies, much of which is anti nature and will
          only
          > help to undermine the very planet we live on.
          >
          > I hope thats of some help at least to some group members.
          >
          > Regards
          >
          > John
        • johndavidpasley
          Adriaan, The perpetual motion is a by product of the energy bought in by the device. I agree with what you are saying about this and the motion itself. It is
          Message 4 of 10 , Nov 19, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Adriaan,

            The perpetual motion is a by product of the energy bought in by the
            device. I agree with what you are saying about this and the motion
            itself. It is natural.

            I'm not sure about the powerful electromagnetic fields however, the
            devices are finely balanced magnetically, any disruption in this
            could cause it too fail. There is a local effect on gravity but this
            does not appear to me to be electromagnetically induced.

            If you consider that energy relates to mass and mass relates to
            gravity. If you also consider all energy we know of/see is negative
            in this 'Universe', then if we take energy from a 'parallel Universe'
            with an opposite energy (all positive, to give a balanced creation,
            total = zero) then we would be changing the energy level in a mass
            and so it's relation to gravity (lighter). Nor are we creating or
            destroying energy. Although I have bounced this off Mr Hamel, and he
            said this was right, any mistake is mine.

            I'll post some definitions which may make this more clear in another
            post.

            John


            --- In hameltech@y..., "Adriaan Erasmus" <wokani@y...> wrote:
            > John,
            >
            > Interesting bit of text there ;-) I totally agree with what you
            said
            > here. Perpetual motion is DEFINITELY not the principle that drives
            > the devices under investigation. The configuration of these devices
            > are of such a design as to produce a LONG-LIVED motion that - while
            > in motion - generates and stores enough ENERGY to keep the motion
            > going indefinitely once a certain threshold is reached whereby the
            > stored energy is released into the running system in controlled
            > bursts to AMPLIFY the GENERATING MOTION. A byproduct of this action
            > is the generation of extremely powerful electromagnetic fields of
            > just the right frequency to influence the space around the
            operating
            > device. This force influences not only the space but also all the
            > forces that live within that space like gravity etc.
            >
            > This technology is designed around the idea of manipulating the
            > already jaw-dropping splendour of nature by gently GUIDING it to
            > perform miraculous feats for OUR benefit.
            >
            > The only reason we (as worker bees) don't know it yet is because it
            > has been supressed by the numerous mystery schools out there.
            >
            > My two cents ;-)
            >
            > Adriaan
            >
            > --- In hameltech@y..., "johndavidpasley" <john@j...> wrote:
            > > Hi Andrew and Group
            > >
            > > > Hi John,
            > > >
            > > > Yes, the laws as scientists have so far discovered do leave a
            > > rather
            > > > bleak picture of the world...
            > >
            > > You make it sound as though laws dont work unless scientists have
            > > written them down. Just look at nature its beautiful with natural
            > > energies everywhere. I dont see any bleak picture painted by
            > > scientists, just misuse of what they have learnt.
            > >
            > > > None the less, the examples David and yourself quote as PM do
            > > indeed
            > > > comply with accepted laws in that they are in equilibrium, with
            > no
            > > > gain or loss of kinetic energy.
            > >
            > > I'm afraid you have missed the point here. Before there was a
            > > Universe there was no kinetic energy, now there is plenty, how is
            > > that an equilibrium?
            > >
            > > There are natural breaking forces in any orbit, including an
            > > electron. Again look to nature, you will find the Moon's orbit is
            > > slowing and will eventually be the same rate as the Earth's
            > rotation.
            > > The Moon does not have friction as such with the Earth yet this
            > still
            > > happens, it would happen too with an electron around a nucleus if
            > it
            > > did not get additional energy from somewhere.
            > >
            > > Also, please dont get the idea that me and Mr Hamel (not David,
            > lets
            > > show some respect in this forum please) are somehow sitting down
            > > conspiring to produce information for this group. He has the
            > > knowledge here, i'm doing what I can to bring a little of it to
            the
            > > group.
            > >
            > > > Diamagnetic levitation in a vacuum will allow a small neo
            magnet
            > to
            > > > keep spinning for ages, one person reporting 50 days continuous
            > > > spinning. This is no more 'free energy' as a spinning planet
            or
            > > > electron is, because the experimenter has cut off as many
            losses
            > > (or
            > > > forces acting on the magnet) as possible so that the motion is
            > > > preserved.
            > >
            > > This misunderstanding you show here is similar to above. Once
            there
            > > was no energy in the Universe, now there is lots. I dont like the
            > > term free energy either, I guess I prefer 'balanced energy'.
            > > Electrons have been orbiting much longer than 50 days, showing
            how
            > > little understanding there is in your example experiment.
            > >
            > > > Perpetual motion with any form of energy output does defy
            > > > conventional understanding in the same way it defies nature. I
            do
            > > not
            > > > know of any natural entity on earth that uses (and emits as
            heat)
            > > > energy that did not come from a recognised source, but
            > a 'working'
            > > > 3CD will have to do this because it has friction losses, and
            > > friction
            > > > will always create heat.
            > >
            > > Every form of life does this. You would say that all human energy
            > > comes from food alone. So what do I do at night when tired. Do I
            > have
            > > a big feast and say, that's good i'm awake now, or do I go to
            > sleep.
            > > Why do I get energy from sleep, and only material for my physical
            > > body from food?
            > >
            > > Why does dowsing work? (including with remotely held maps)
            > > Why do people see themselves being operated on in near death
            > > experiences?
            > > Why has this out of body experience been induced by activation of
            > > certain parts of the brain recently?
            > > Why is there a guy in South America who paints via the spirits of
            > > long dead artists, with his eyes closed?
            > > What is energy, what is spirit?
            > >
            > > > I do however subscribe to the idea that there is a yet-to-be-
            > > > discovered form of energy entering the 3CD via the cone
            geometry,
            > > and
            > > > the work Justin and others have done with pyramids would tend
            to
            > > > support this idea.
            > >
            > > Nature has many forms that relate to energy (e.g. tornado
            vortex),
            > > because Mr Hamels work stems from nature it will have natural
            > shapes
            > > within it. It would be very wrong to think that shape power is
            the
            > > only factor in the technology. You could end up thinking that
            only
            > a
            > > 90 degree cone will work for instance which would be incorrect.
            > >
            > > Although you will find interesting effects from shape power, e.g.
            > the
            > > reduced chance of mold forming on plants within a pyramid that
            > > Justin's work shows, you won't get plasma from it. Really what
            > Hamel-
            > > technology is about is forming a gate to the 'sea of energy' and
            > > bringing out the energy. Just the same as humans do in their
            sleep
            > at
            > > night.
            > >
            > > I also strongly believe in the 'additive and
            > > > accumulative' law (like attracts like), as this is VERY much a
            > law
            > > of
            > > > nature.
            > >
            > > So does that mean that if I put two North facing magnets together
            > > they will attract? I think not. Does it mean that salts added to
            > > water will lump together rather than spread out equally, no they
            > will
            > > spread out. Will the Universe expand or retract, expand I think.
            > Will
            > > an electron repel another with the same charge or not, of course
            it
            > > will repel.
            > >
            > > Your idea works best with humans who have tried their level best
            to
            > > divorce themselves from nature, they then clump in cities, at
            bars,
            > > around unsound idealogies, much of which is anti nature and will
            > only
            > > help to undermine the very planet we live on.
            > >
            > > I hope thats of some help at least to some group members.
            > >
            > > Regards
            > >
            > > John
          • Nathan Young
            John, i have no idea about this really, but wouldn t the positive energy and the negative energy just equal out and whatever the mass was before, now would
            Message 5 of 10 , Nov 19, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              John,
              i have no idea about this really, but wouldn't the positive energy and the
              negative energy just equal out and whatever the mass was before, now would
              just equal zero?
              Nathan.






              >From: "johndavidpasley" <john@...>
              >Reply-To: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
              >To: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
              >Subject: [hameltech] Re: OT re 7820, perpetual motion
              >Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 20:38:06 -0000
              >
              >Adriaan,
              >
              >The perpetual motion is a by product of the energy bought in by the
              >device. I agree with what you are saying about this and the motion
              >itself. It is natural.
              >
              >I'm not sure about the powerful electromagnetic fields however, the
              >devices are finely balanced magnetically, any disruption in this
              >could cause it too fail. There is a local effect on gravity but this
              >does not appear to me to be electromagnetically induced.
              >
              >If you consider that energy relates to mass and mass relates to
              >gravity. If you also consider all energy we know of/see is negative
              >in this 'Universe', then if we take energy from a 'parallel Universe'
              >with an opposite energy (all positive, to give a balanced creation,
              >total = zero) then we would be changing the energy level in a mass
              >and so it's relation to gravity (lighter). Nor are we creating or
              >destroying energy. Although I have bounced this off Mr Hamel, and he
              >said this was right, any mistake is mine.
              >
              >I'll post some definitions which may make this more clear in another
              >post.
              >
              >John
              >
              >
              >--- In hameltech@y..., "Adriaan Erasmus" <wokani@y...> wrote:
              > > John,
              > >
              > > Interesting bit of text there ;-) I totally agree with what you
              >said
              > > here. Perpetual motion is DEFINITELY not the principle that drives
              > > the devices under investigation. The configuration of these devices
              > > are of such a design as to produce a LONG-LIVED motion that - while
              > > in motion - generates and stores enough ENERGY to keep the motion
              > > going indefinitely once a certain threshold is reached whereby the
              > > stored energy is released into the running system in controlled
              > > bursts to AMPLIFY the GENERATING MOTION. A byproduct of this action
              > > is the generation of extremely powerful electromagnetic fields of
              > > just the right frequency to influence the space around the
              >operating
              > > device. This force influences not only the space but also all the
              > > forces that live within that space like gravity etc.
              > >
              > > This technology is designed around the idea of manipulating the
              > > already jaw-dropping splendour of nature by gently GUIDING it to
              > > perform miraculous feats for OUR benefit.
              > >
              > > The only reason we (as worker bees) don't know it yet is because it
              > > has been supressed by the numerous mystery schools out there.
              > >
              > > My two cents ;-)
              > >
              > > Adriaan
              > >
              > > --- In hameltech@y..., "johndavidpasley" <john@j...> wrote:
              > > > Hi Andrew and Group
              > > >
              > > > > Hi John,
              > > > >
              > > > > Yes, the laws as scientists have so far discovered do leave a
              > > > rather
              > > > > bleak picture of the world...
              > > >
              > > > You make it sound as though laws dont work unless scientists have
              > > > written them down. Just look at nature its beautiful with natural
              > > > energies everywhere. I dont see any bleak picture painted by
              > > > scientists, just misuse of what they have learnt.
              > > >
              > > > > None the less, the examples David and yourself quote as PM do
              > > > indeed
              > > > > comply with accepted laws in that they are in equilibrium, with
              > > no
              > > > > gain or loss of kinetic energy.
              > > >
              > > > I'm afraid you have missed the point here. Before there was a
              > > > Universe there was no kinetic energy, now there is plenty, how is
              > > > that an equilibrium?
              > > >
              > > > There are natural breaking forces in any orbit, including an
              > > > electron. Again look to nature, you will find the Moon's orbit is
              > > > slowing and will eventually be the same rate as the Earth's
              > > rotation.
              > > > The Moon does not have friction as such with the Earth yet this
              > > still
              > > > happens, it would happen too with an electron around a nucleus if
              > > it
              > > > did not get additional energy from somewhere.
              > > >
              > > > Also, please dont get the idea that me and Mr Hamel (not David,
              > > lets
              > > > show some respect in this forum please) are somehow sitting down
              > > > conspiring to produce information for this group. He has the
              > > > knowledge here, i'm doing what I can to bring a little of it to
              >the
              > > > group.
              > > >
              > > > > Diamagnetic levitation in a vacuum will allow a small neo
              >magnet
              > > to
              > > > > keep spinning for ages, one person reporting 50 days continuous
              > > > > spinning. This is no more 'free energy' as a spinning planet
              >or
              > > > > electron is, because the experimenter has cut off as many
              >losses
              > > > (or
              > > > > forces acting on the magnet) as possible so that the motion is
              > > > > preserved.
              > > >
              > > > This misunderstanding you show here is similar to above. Once
              >there
              > > > was no energy in the Universe, now there is lots. I dont like the
              > > > term free energy either, I guess I prefer 'balanced energy'.
              > > > Electrons have been orbiting much longer than 50 days, showing
              >how
              > > > little understanding there is in your example experiment.
              > > >
              > > > > Perpetual motion with any form of energy output does defy
              > > > > conventional understanding in the same way it defies nature. I
              >do
              > > > not
              > > > > know of any natural entity on earth that uses (and emits as
              >heat)
              > > > > energy that did not come from a recognised source, but
              > > a 'working'
              > > > > 3CD will have to do this because it has friction losses, and
              > > > friction
              > > > > will always create heat.
              > > >
              > > > Every form of life does this. You would say that all human energy
              > > > comes from food alone. So what do I do at night when tired. Do I
              > > have
              > > > a big feast and say, that's good i'm awake now, or do I go to
              > > sleep.
              > > > Why do I get energy from sleep, and only material for my physical
              > > > body from food?
              > > >
              > > > Why does dowsing work? (including with remotely held maps)
              > > > Why do people see themselves being operated on in near death
              > > > experiences?
              > > > Why has this out of body experience been induced by activation of
              > > > certain parts of the brain recently?
              > > > Why is there a guy in South America who paints via the spirits of
              > > > long dead artists, with his eyes closed?
              > > > What is energy, what is spirit?
              > > >
              > > > > I do however subscribe to the idea that there is a yet-to-be-
              > > > > discovered form of energy entering the 3CD via the cone
              >geometry,
              > > > and
              > > > > the work Justin and others have done with pyramids would tend
              >to
              > > > > support this idea.
              > > >
              > > > Nature has many forms that relate to energy (e.g. tornado
              >vortex),
              > > > because Mr Hamels work stems from nature it will have natural
              > > shapes
              > > > within it. It would be very wrong to think that shape power is
              >the
              > > > only factor in the technology. You could end up thinking that
              >only
              > > a
              > > > 90 degree cone will work for instance which would be incorrect.
              > > >
              > > > Although you will find interesting effects from shape power, e.g.
              > > the
              > > > reduced chance of mold forming on plants within a pyramid that
              > > > Justin's work shows, you won't get plasma from it. Really what
              > > Hamel-
              > > > technology is about is forming a gate to the 'sea of energy' and
              > > > bringing out the energy. Just the same as humans do in their
              >sleep
              > > at
              > > > night.
              > > >
              > > > I also strongly believe in the 'additive and
              > > > > accumulative' law (like attracts like), as this is VERY much a
              > > law
              > > > of
              > > > > nature.
              > > >
              > > > So does that mean that if I put two North facing magnets together
              > > > they will attract? I think not. Does it mean that salts added to
              > > > water will lump together rather than spread out equally, no they
              > > will
              > > > spread out. Will the Universe expand or retract, expand I think.
              > > Will
              > > > an electron repel another with the same charge or not, of course
              >it
              > > > will repel.
              > > >
              > > > Your idea works best with humans who have tried their level best
              >to
              > > > divorce themselves from nature, they then clump in cities, at
              >bars,
              > > > around unsound idealogies, much of which is anti nature and will
              > > only
              > > > help to undermine the very planet we live on.
              > > >
              > > > I hope thats of some help at least to some group members.
              > > >
              > > > Regards
              > > >
              > > > John
              >
              >
              >
              >Header Codes
              >11111: Theory, untested Hamel ideas
              >11112: Building and balancing, progress
              >11113: David Hamel reports
              >11114: Non-hamel mysteries and energies
              >OT: "Off Topic"
              >
              >Post message: hameltech@yahoogroups.com
              >Subscribe: hameltech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >Unsubscribe: hameltech-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >List owner: hameltech-owner@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


              _________________________________________________________________
              The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
              http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
            • johndavidpasley
              Nathan, Yes, they could do this, but it depends on how far apart they are from each other, or if they are separated to stop this, it s a case of +1.....-1 is
              Message 6 of 10 , Nov 25, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Nathan,

                Yes, they could do this, but it depends on how far apart they are
                from each other, or if they are separated to stop this, it's a case
                of +1.....-1 is not equal to 0. Averages can be misleading, if I have
                ground at sea level, its average height is 0, now if I dig a hole and
                pile the earth next to it, the average is still zero, but now I have
                a hole and a pile. Kind of the same thing.

                John

                > John,
                > i have no idea about this really, but wouldn't the positive energy
                and the
                > negative energy just equal out and whatever the mass was before,
                now would
                > just equal zero?
                > Nathan.
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.