0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I had no idea that anything could exceed light speed. Isn't that the final barrier? Never to be breached. Needs infinite energy therefore also infinite mass? I really do not understand this concept except in this very basic sense. If you're referring to the electron's orbit in the nucleus - then again, in term of known classical theory I understood that 2C was outside the limit of it's velocity? Have I missed something?
Cherenkov radiation (also spelled Cerenkov or Čerenkov) is electromagnetic radiation emitted when a charged particle (such as an electron) passes through an insulator at a constant speed greater than the speed of light in that medium. The characteristic "blue glow" of nuclear reactors is due to Cherenkov radiation. It is named after Russian scientist Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov, the 1958 Nobel Prize winner who was the first to characterise it rigorously.
By the way - the proposal is that the truant is manifest. But when it interacts with its partner/partners - those composites - it actually partially decays back to the field's coincident mass/size - so to speak. At that point it disappears from our measurable dimensions. It 'flickers' out of view. so the need for symmetry also requires that the 'non-manifest' part of each particle is always there as an anchor. I've proposed that this is a quark. While this is co-incident with observation - it certainly is not in line with conventional science. But nor does it entirely contradict known evidence.
But Einstein lost that argument as superluminal communication has been proven.
It is an entire misconception to assume that science is determined by anything other than sound experimental evidence.
The final test is to remove the battery and have the system run itself.Until you have done that you have not shown that you have an "over unity" system.Since, at that point, it will fail, I predict that this will be a short thread.
Why must I use a capacitor? It works with a battery.
Regarding the capacitor - I actually don't know what this is.
I'm still battling with your explanation of current flow. Will need to get back to this.
I would add that my own explanation of current flow definitely passes the Occam's razor test more than conventional explanations.