SCIENCE STILL IS WITLESS and CLUELESS! IT CANNOT EVEN ANSWER ONE OLD SCIENCE QUESTION! WHY?

SCIENCE STILL IS WITLESS and CLUELESS!   IT CANNOT EVEN ANSWER ONE OLD SCIENCE QUESTION!  WHY?

WE WILL BET ANYONE,  FROM ANYWHERE, FROM ANY DISCIPLINE of EDUCATION,  and by ANYONE IN THE WORLD, NO MATTER HOW SMART or “EDUCATIONALLY SUPERIOR’,  THAT NO ONE CAN ANSWER  QUESTION # 150! 

These are the LAST of over 300, OLD SCIENCE QUESTIONS to SCIENCE!  To date, NONE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED!  WHY?  ARE THEY TO HARD!  WHY SHOULD THEY BE FOR PHYSICISTS EXPERTS, AS THEY CAME FROM THEIR OLD SCIENCE HISTORY?

These questions were formulated by Dante A. Donatelli Jr., president of
ONEGIFT4 POWER as he had to PROVE SCIENCE WRONG in their assertion that Dante and the organization were frauds.  He asked NO QUESTIONS of us!  Asked NO QUESTIONS of our EXPERTS!  DID NOTHING TOO CONTACT US, TO GET OUR STATEMENTS!  He just used his own questionable, supposedly superior intelligence, to assume we were frauds.  NOW HE HAS A CHANCE TO PROVE HOW SMART HE IS, PLUS ALL HIS CYNICAL PEERS IN THE WORLD, CAN HELP HIM!

To overcome this label, Dante formulated these questions from his  11 YEAR study of Old Science history, and he states that IF science is right, and this William Hetherington of Oregon State University, is right in his calling us frauds, HE THEN SHOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS and PROVE HIMSELF RIGHT and US WRONG!

WE HAVE ANSWERS!  VISIT OUR NEWLY REMODELED WEBSITE – ONEGIFT4POWER.COM - NOW – TO READ THEM and the COMPLETE DETAILS of EACH of SIX ANSWERS WE ARE PRESENTING. 

WE HAVE THE ANSWERS!  SCIENCE DOES NOT!  WE HAVE JUST PROVED THIS!

To date, NO ONE, INCLUDING THIS POOR EXCUSE of a PHYSICIST from Oregon State, , HAS ANSWERED NOT EVEN ONE QUESTION.

Dante knows the reason.  Few know their Old Science as well as Dante does, (as relates to his discoveries, Classical mechanics and the TRUEST ENERGY EVER DISCOVERED,) therefore, he is the ONLY WORLD’S EXPERT on cynical physicists Old Science that PROVES DANTE and OINEGIFT4POWER RIGHT!

To clarify what we have learned as facts concerning energy:

FACTS:

From McGraw-Hill, the Conservation of Energy Law states, in part:

“Energy cannot be created or destroyed”, and “ In an isolated or closed system, the sum of all forms of energy remains constant”.  Then, “The energy of the system may be interconverted among different forms – mechanical  , electrical, magnetic, thermal, chemical, nuclear and so on -  and finally, “for a system that is both gaining and losing energy in the form of work and heat, as is true of any machine in operation, the energy principle asserts that the net gain of energy is equal to the total change of the systems internal energy. See THERMODYNAMICS PRINCIPLES”

QUESTION # 109: Can #5, converted costly mechanical energy, the 2006 mechanical energy converted from one of the other four forms of primary energy,  be converted to #6, developed free mechanical energy, that of 1807, which costs nothing because it is only from the “work-stored-within” inanimate objects? 

Or, can #6, developed free mechanical energy be converted to more #6, developed free mechanical energy, just by increasing the velocity of the objects in motion?

QUESTION # 110:  If energy cannot be created or destroyed, can it be developed, as in the 1807 discovered pure energy form, and in motion, as of the 1856 discovery of kinetic energy?? 

If you say NO, then what happens when an OBJECT of 1807 and today, is put into motion to develop the kinetic energy of 1856, and of today. 

Is this energy created, or developed, as we also know that VELOCITY of the object determines the amount of developed energy the object delivers?

We know there is MORE ENERGY!  Where did it come from?

If you say YES, then WHY HAVEN’T YOU DISCOVERED, or RATHER RE-DISCOVERED WHAT DANTE DID IN 1964, the ENERGY of 1807?

QUESTION # 111: We have to ask this one, once again, because it is so important.  HOW can so much work be accomplished, at the Hoover Dam, when, if “no energy can be increased in a streamline”, and the energy at the Dam starts with ZERO potential energy or power at the surface of Lake Mead, and we know the HORSEPOWER DEVELOPED IS OVER 2.1 MILLION HP., WHEN NO ENERGY WAS INCREASED, AND ACCORDING TO SCIENCE THEN, NO ENERGY EXISTS AT THE END, WHERE THE 2.1 MILLION HP. IS AND ALL THE WORK IS ACCOMPLISHED?

Then;

QUESTION # 112:    If energy can be interconverted, can mechanical energy be converted to mechanical energy?  And if they can, then what kind of the first mechanical energy is converted into what kind of second mechanical energy?  If not, then why, if an OBJECT of 1807 has “work-stored-within”, can it be put into motion, as the kinetic energy discovery, of objects in motion of 1807, be accomplished?

We know that chemical, electrical, thermal and nuclear energy CAN IN FACT be converted to mechanical energy, BUT IS IT THE SAME?  Or, could it be the 5th known form of energy, CONVERTED COSTLY (as the fuels and energies used to convert it are costly,) MECHANICAL ENERGY or is it what Dante states: “DEVELOP FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY”, the 6th re-discovered objects in motion energy of 1807, that is or was or could be converted? 

And finally:

QUESTION # 113: Where is or does any heat of conversion when an object put into motion developing this free mechanical energy, come from?  Where, 650 feet below Lake Mead, does heat come from, as the energy developed has to be developed free mechanical energy from the “OBJECTS” of VOLUMES of liquid matter in motion, (not particles, droplets, streams or even cupfuls, but VOLUMES that act as objects with “work-stored-within”)?

The point is,

QUESTION # 114:  WHY WAS THE CONSERVATION of ENERGY LAW FORMULATED in 1847? 

WASN’T IT FORMULATED TO STOP ALL THE PERPETUAL MOTIONALSIST THAT STARTED UP after science claimed there was “work – stored - within” OBJECTS and this was called ENERGY in 1807, so each man who tried to put these objects in a mechanical sequence from 1807 to 1847, then waiting to see if it moved, using the “work-stored-within”, or ENERGY, BUT when these started raising more money than science for their work, even though the work was fruitless, DIDN’T SCIENCE HAVE TO PUT A STOP TO IT, and the stop was this Law of Conservation of Energy?

AFTER ALL, the 1807 ENERGY WAS the ONLY ENERGY DISCOVERED, WHEN SOMEONE DISCOVERED the CONSERVATION of ENERGY LAW!
After all, NONE OF THE OTHER ENERGY FORMS, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, WHERE EVEN DISCOVERED AS YET,  THE ONLY ONE, the TRUE ONE, was OBJECTS of 1807, and NOTHING IS STATED IN HISTORY THAT ANY HEAT IS DEVELOPED.

QUESTION # 115: THEN, AS FAR AS THERMODYNAMICS IS CONCERNED, HOW COULD THIS BE INVOLVED WITH OBJECTS in MOTION, AS no OTHER ENERGY WAS DISCOVERED, except the POWER of the STEAM ENGINE THAT WAS DISCOVERED BEFORE ENERGY?

IS POWER what science is stating as conserved?  AND,  if not, why not?  POWER was discovered before ENERGY.  POWER of the steam engine develops HEAT, and this was the ONLY MACHINE known of in 1807.  HEAT is CONTROLLED BY THERMODYNAMICS.  IS POWER, ALSO CONTROLLED BY THESE VERY CONFUSING and ONLY LIMITED TO ONE ENERGY, LAW?

QUESTION # 116: How can a scientist  STATE A CONSERVATION of ENERGY Law, WHEN AN OBJECT, OF SAY 10 POUNDS, CAN BE PUT INTO MOTION, WITH VARIOUS VELOCITIES, DEVELOPING VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF ENERGY, AND, IF IT COULD BE PUT INTO THE SPEED of SOUND (MACH,) OR THE SPEED OF LIGHT, (EINSTEIN’S FORMULA), THEN THERE IS NO LIMIT TO WHAT IT CAN DEVELOP?

The ENERGY of 1807 CANNOT BE CONSERVED, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT HAS NO LIMITS OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN ANY SYSTEM!

IS THIS TRUE, OR NOT?

NOW, ON to  ANOTHER SUBJECT CYNICS FORGOT!    DESIGNING MACHINES, the OLD SCIENCE WAY, and the NEW SCIENCE WAY DANTE DISCOVERED!

FACT:  

It is a FACT of OLD SCIENCE, as recorded by McGraw-Hill that a “MACHINE” can be designed and perform anything one wants it to perform, or TO ACCOMPLISH WORK, or ANY NUMBER of WORK ACCOMPLISHMENTS,   as ONE, TWO or MORE WORK ACCOMPLISHMENTS, IN ONE MACHINE,  CAN IN FACT BE PERFORMED and ACCOMPLISHED, as they stated the following, in part:

“MACHINE DESIGN: Application of science and invention to the development and construction of machines.    An understanding of the basic laws of nature is essential to a proper  perspective in the approach to machine design.”

 Then, IT CONTINUES;

“Knowledge of the past development of machine design elements makes possible their effective applications”

 then; it continues, once again;

“Inventiveness consists of producing new combinations of old elements or, where extreme need arises, of exercising genius either in breaking the bounds of convention, or in evolving new principles not hitherto applied or known”

QUESTION #  117: Why then cannot a man, by simply following the Old Science definition as stated in McGraw-Hill, BEGIN TO DESIGN a MACHINE THAT BREAKS the BOUNDS?

Why can’t he also design a machine to perform the WORK, of DEVELOPING FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY, with the 1807 OBJECTS, put into motion as discovered they have to be, in 1856?

In other words,

QUESTION # 118:  Why cannot a genius design MANY MACHINES, as long as MANY BASIC LAWS of NATURE EXIST, to PERFORM the WORK, of DEVELOPING ENERGY, the one of 1807, AS NO OTHER FORM OF ENERGY CAN BE DEVELOPED, besides the CONVERTED COSTLY MECHANICAL ENERGY, already known of?

QUESTION # 119:   Have ALL the PRINCIPLES of SCIENCE BEEN INVENTED, DISCOVERED and/or PROVEN?  

Couldn’t there be a few yet to be discovered, and used by a man in a machine design or TEN POWER PLANTS DESIGNED?

Even the Old Science, “WORK-IN equals WORK-OUT” Principle, doesn’t have to be broken;

QUESTION # 120:  Does it, if ALL the WORK PERFORMED WITHIN the MACHINE, be INCLUDED IN the WORK-IN and ALL the WORK TRANSMITTED TO AN ELECTRICAL GENERATOR, DRIVING IT, BE CONSIDERED the WORK –OUT?  Couldn’t there be MORE than one “work-in”, even in an Old Science Machine design?

Even the Old Science “LAW of MACHINES”,  which means:

  “A machine is a device used to transform or transfer energy.  Theoretically, input equals output.”,

NOT be violated in a new Science machine Design, IF INPUT EQUALS OUTPUT, and MANY INPUTS EQUAL the ONE INPUT, EVEN TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION,  the FRICTION of the MECHANICS?

QUESTION  # 121:  WHY CAN’T THIS AS WELL BE USED AS  a NEW SCIENCE useful tool to design a NEW SCIENCE MACHINE?

Does it have to be violated when considering the New Science machine design as using ALL of what has been stated as facts of Old Science, and GENIUS as well?

“Effort times effort distance equals resistance times resistance distance”, is also part of this “Law of Machines”

QUESTION # 122:  Why can’t the “EFFORT” be everything that happens BEFORE and IS TRANSMITTED INTO a FLYWHEEL, and the EFFORT OUT, be that that which the FLYWHEEL DELIVERS, no matter WHAT DISTANCES EACH MOVE?

QUESTION # 123:  Isn’t it a fact, that in an internal combustion engine, EACH cylinder piston ONLY moves a short distance, BUT the TOTAL of ALL PISTONS MOVEMENT equals the GREATER DISTANCE of the CIRCUMFERENCE of the CRANK SHAFT? 

Doesn’t EVEN the POWER of each cylinder, ADDED UP,  make the ENTIRE HORSEPOWER of a COMPLETE TURN of the CRANKSHAFT?

QUESTION # 124:  COULDN’T  ALL EFFORTS, POWERS and DISTANCES BEING ADDED in this OLD SCIENCE. INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE SCENARIO, be used AS WELL, in  NEW SCIENCE MACHINE DESIGN, as ALL “WORK – IN”, short distance power burst, added up to equal the one EFFORT INPUT, because of the ingenious uses of the Mechanical Advantages of all basic simple machines DESIGNED, … BE ADDED UP?

QUESTION # 125: Couldn’t even, the three basic physics simple machines, the lever, the inclined plane and the wheel & axel, USED in INNOVATIVE and INGENIOUS WAYS, DYNAMICALLY, ALSO BE USED in NEW SCIENCE MACHINE DESIGN?

Doesn’t this seem to fit hand in glove, all the Old Science scenarios and the New Science work claimed by Dante?

If not. WHY NOT?

QUESTION # 126:   Does everyone REALLY understand all the Basic Laws of Nature, as say, for an example, to a simple scenario that defines one of these Basic Laws of Nature of OBJECTS in motion?

If a  3 pound iron railroad spike, (an object and scenario Dante has a first hand experience of,)   being tied to a ten foot rope and the spike being swung around a persons head and WHAT BASIC LAW of NATURE TAKES PLACE, and MAYBE HOW THESE CAN BE USED to DESIGN a SPECIAL MACHINE, a POWER PLANT that is “FUEL-LESS” and RUNS ITSELF?  In fact many sets of these objects being swung around, using the SAME, BASIC LAW of NATURAL as relates to this scenario of an object tied to a rope scenario?

Doesn’t the actions and results of this rope swinging scenario, follow a Basic Law of Nature?

QUESTION # 127:     If you do, THEN NAME AS MANY of the TEN OTHER BASIC LAWS of NATURE  DANTE DISCOVERED, SINCE THEY EXIST, EVEN IN YOUR OLD SCIENCE?

(We know you cannot even imagine a machine designed with them, so just name them,  Dante did the rest by inventing the machine to use them all in.)

Dante can name them ALL, as he wrote a complete text about this simple scenario of an object, being swung in space, developing KINETIC energy of DEVELOPED FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY, and HE CAN NAME ALL 10, plus one more hidden away, like the “Basic fluid-flow equation” that science installed for every fluid-flow situation, just one more Basic Law of Nature.

QUESTION # 128:    Dante can name EVERY Basic Law of Nature as relates to ALL TEN of his Power Plants.  CAN YOU NAME JUST the ONE IN THE SCENARIO?

After all, as the MACHINE DESIGN definition continues, ONE HAS TO FOLLOW THIS DEFINITION of OLD SCIENCE if ONE WANTS TO DESIGN MACHINES THAT ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

DANTE HAS DESIGNED TEN POWER PLANTS, most with ONE MACHINE INSIDE, but a few with TWO and THREE MACHINES, TOTALLY INNOVATIVE, INSIDE!  (To clear up the air, Dante has TEN Power Plants that generate electricity, using dozens of Basic Laws of Nature, and EACH HAS A MACHINE DESIGNED WITHIN, SOME TWO, and ONE EVEN THREE!)
 
QUESTION # 129:   IF A MACHINE USED THESE INANIMATE SOLID MATTER OBJECTS, in MOTION, DEVELOPING KINETIC ENERGY TYPE, of the DEVELOPED FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY FORM,  USING ALL the APPROPRIATE BASIC LAWS of NATURE,  WHY THEN COULDN’T THIS BE USED AS ONE AMOUNT of WORK, THEN BOTH THIS DEVELOPED ENERGY and the SMALL AMOUNT of INPUT ELECTRICAL ENERGY BE BOTH USED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY?

And if not, WHY NOT? 

Everything is present!  All the necessary “understandings of past knowledge” are present!  The GENIUS has to be present.  The Basic Laws ,of Nature, as well, are present, as explained as the example explained!

BUT, if you feel it can, THEN WHY HASN’T SCIENCE NOT ACCOMPLISHED IT?

And, to finish this one Old Science to New Science Questions, we present the following:

 FACT:

To go back to 1995, when Dr. Richard Olenick saw what Dante had discovered, he made the following statement, among many!

“Nonetheless, it seems that Dante’s work has uncovered certain gaps in our present understanding of mechanical devices that allows the use of solid matter using simple machines that performs like nothing before”

QUESTION # 130:   Now, since an expert of some reputation, world-wide, has stated what the MACHINE DESIGN definition states: “inventiveness consists of producing new combinations of old elements”, and, why then couldn’t one do this, ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE of PHYSICS, AN EXPERT ONE at that, STATES THAT DANTE HAS UNCOVERED CERTAIN  “GAPS”? 

SO, NOW ANSWER THIS QUESTION:

QUESTION # 131:   WHY CANNOT ONE PERFORM AS DANTE HAS, AND COME UP WITH A MACHINE DESIGN THAT NO ONE IN HISTORY HAS DISCOVERED or INVENTED, as Dr. Richard Olenick witnessed?

He stated, in one of his reports, as posted on ONEGIFT4POWER website:

“Our further conversation of February 25, 1993, in which your deduction of where the energy gain, which you claimed is still another of the phenomenon of the device, comes from, also seems a logical conclusion.

Ted Carnes, PhD., ME. stated these words, and went a bit further:

“It is now more apparent to me that my first impression of the mechanics of the device,  as related to you in my very first report dated June 21, 1991, in which I state:’ The mechanical device is an ingenious machine’ was understated”

The point to all this is that IF a prominent Mechanical Engineer, one who had INVALIDATED two other men’s devices that made similar claims, stated these words,  leads us to another question:

QUESTION # 132:   WOULDN’T TED CARNES, who carries a DEGREE as HIGH AS ANY DR, OF PHYSICS,  KNOW AS MUCH ABOUT MECHANICS AS ANY CYNICAL PHYSICIST in the WORLD?

After all, he isn’t talking about physics here, HE’S TALKING ABOUT MECHANICS!

AND, didn’t the MACHINE DESIGN definition state that GENIUS WAS NEEDED?

BY THE WAY, JUST TO CLEAR UP A POINT HERE,  DO ANY AMONG YOU FEEL YOU ARE MORE EDUCATED,    MORE EXPERIENCED,    MORE CREDITED THAN DR. RICHARD OLENICK?

QUESTION # 133:   Does ANYONE reading this, contemplating answering these questions, FEEL HE or SHE IS AS QUALIFIED AS Dr. Richard Olenick, OR LESS QUALIFIED, or even MORE QUALIFIED?

QUESTION # 134:   If Dr. Richard Olenick states HE KNOWS THAT DANTE CAN GAIN ENERGY and HORSEPOWER to be USED FOR OTHER WORK, WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?

ANSWER THESE, and LETS SEE WHO YOU ARE, and WHAT YOU KNOW!

Getting back to what Dr. Olenick stated in one of his reports as relates to horsepower gain and energy gain:

“Thus it appears that he can gain horsepower in the down path travel, then transmit it into an energy storage device, use what the up side needs for the return trip up, and have an amount left over in the storage device”

GAIN HORSEPOWER!  IS THIS POSSIBLE?

AND, IF IT IS,

CAN ENERGY BE GAINED?

QUESTION # 135:  Do you believe he wrote this?  Or do you think Dante made this up, using such a reputable mans name?

Did you read his actual reports on www.ONEGIFT4POWER.org?

OR, DID YOU MAKE UP YOUR MIND, PREDICATED ON YOUR MISERABLE EXISTENCE in the PHYSICS COMMUNITY, like William Heatherington, at Oregon State?

NOW, the MOST IMPORTANT THING, a GAIN in ENERGY to be used for WORK, OUTSIDE the MACHINE, as physicists state IS NOT POSSIBLE!  Dr. Olenick states:

“As far as a gain in energy is concerned, I can say that a gain is possible if the velocities of the masses increase and decrease as he claims they do.  I find no reason to say any different,”
QUESTION #136:  DOES EVERYONE TRULY UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN QUOTED HEREIN?

GAINED ENERGY!  WHO EVER HEARD OF SUCH A THING!

SCIENCE, IN GENERAL STATES   ”NO ENERGY CAN BE GAINED!”

HE STATES:  “DANTE CAN GAIN IT!”

Are YOU arrogant enough to say, THESE TWO DOCTORS ARE WRONG?

PLUS; Do you know and understand who Dr. Richard Olenick is? 

Do you know, HE  received a 2 MILLION DOLLAR GRANT from the National Science Foundation to write another curriculum like  his college “MECHANICAL UNIVERSE curriculum,…for high school students.

WHICH OF YOU HAS EVER ACCOMPLISHED THIS?

WHICH OF YOU CO-PRODUCED A T. V. SHOW,  ABOUT PHYSICS?

WHICH OF YOU HAS EVER BEEN INVITED TO TEACH AT THE UNIVERSITY of MOSCOW?

HE DID.  HE WAS. AND, HE IS THE EXPERT, FOR OTHER EXPERTS TO LISTEN TO!

WHICH OF YOU THINKS HE DOESN’T KNOW AS MUCH, OR MORE THAN YOU ABOUT PHYSICS?

WHICH OF YOU FEEL, THAT WHEN HE STATES SOMETHING, AS HE DID FOR DANTE, IT ISN’T THE GOSPEL TRUTH, AS FAR AS MODERN PHYSICS IS CONCERNED?

And, would you go further and state;

QUESTION # 137:  DO YOU KNOW MORE, EVEN THOUGH YOU NEVER WITNESSED WHAT THEY WITNESSED?

FACT:

Ted Carnes, PhD., ME., PE.,  stated the following, on March 11, 1993:

“Your claims of certain phenomenon have been validated, in part, as I do now understand the operations of System #2 of the device.  Of course, System #1 and 3 will have to be analyzed dynamically, along with System #2.”

This was done near 21 months after Dante met Dr. Carnes.  He spent a lot of time calculating because he didn’t, at first believe his own calculations.  He then demanded collaborating proof that his work was right and the mathematics of formulas could prove or validate Dante’s claims. 

QUESTION # 138:  WHO among you think you are a better Mechanical Engineer?

Who among you would even sit and calculate for 21 months and claim VALIDATION for something supposed to be impossible?

Who among you would sign your names and risk your career for Dante?

NOW, LETS GET BACK TO OLD SCIENCE:

QUESTION#139:  DO YOU THINK THESE TWO EXPERTS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT?

DO YOU THINK YOU KNOW MORE?

DO YOU KNOW ANYONE BETTER?

FACTS:

A child can swing on a swing and go higher and higher, against the mgh principle and gravity!

QUESTION # 140:  WHY?

There have been a number of studies but ALL of them are not the proper, scientific explanation. 

Dante uses “altering the centers of gravity” as his explanation, as when a child swings forward, his feet and lower legs form their own “center of gravity”, and their own separate weight amount,  therefore they travel a distance DIFFERENT   than the entire body travels, and, it travels in a different velocity than the body travels, THEN, the head and shoulders go back, creating yet another “center of gravity” and this center, with its weight, TRAVELS YET IN ITS’ OWN DISTANCE, ERGO VELOCITY, because the entire child is traveling in a given velocity.

THIS IS TRUTH.  NO ONE IN HISTORY EVER MADE IT SO SIMPLE.

QUESTION # 141:  DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS?

If you say NO, WHY?

If you say YES,  why then haven’t you written about it, SINCE IT IS NEWSWORTHY?

IT GOES AGAINST THE LAW of CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, The Law of Machines, The First Law of Thermodynamics, etc!

THIS PROVES, KINETIC ENERGY of 1857, AND the DISCOVERED PURE ENERGY of 1807!

THIS IS  PURE AND SIMPLY - “CLASSICAL MECHANICS”, AS WRITTEN?

QUESTION#142:  WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU STUDIED “CLASSICAL MECHANICS”?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?

HAVE YOU EVER TAUGHT IT?

HAVE YOU EVER PERFORMED ANY RESEARCH IN IT? 

ONE LAST ITEM, WORK, in the physics sense!

The above scenario of a child swinging, PROVES the WORK-IN and WORK-OUT principle, WRONG!

The child is NOT PUTTING ANYMORE WORK IN BY LAYING HIS BODY OUT , but HE or SHE IS GETTING MORE WORK OUT, SIMPLY BY ALTERING HIS ENTIRE BODIES CENTER OF GRAVITY!    PERIOD!

QUESTION # 143:  Do you agree?

If you say NO, WHY NOT?

If you say YES, then why are you not calling Dante and congratulating him, since YOU NEVER BEFORE THOUGHT ABOUT IT THIS WAY.

FACTS:

If a 200 pound man, in perfect health, runs 600 feet in say 40 seconds, he does a certain amount of WORK: 

It is calculated as 200 pounds x 600ft.,  120,000 foot/pounds of WORK, and because he performed it in 40 seconds, he developed some 120,000 foot-pounds, divided by 550 x 40 seconds, = ,) 22,000, equals some 5.45 Horsepower!

A few days later, the same, after resting, 200 pound man rode a bicycle the 600 feet, and he accomplished it in say 25 seconds, faster because the bike made him travel faster by Mechanical Advantages.

One would think he did the same WORK!

QUESTION #144:  DID HE PERFORM  the SAME WORK?

 The work in = work out principle states he did!

The same poundage traveling the same distance, regardless of time, states he did!

If you say NO, WHY NOT?

If you say YES,  THEN HOW ABOUT THE WEIGHT OF THE BICYCLE? 

Say the bicycle weighed some 20 pounds, now 220 pounds traveled the 600feet, and near 132,000 foot pounds of WORK would be accomplished, but over 9.6 HORSEPOWER WOULD BE DEVELOPED!

NOW, DOES ONE STILL THINK THAT THE SCENARIOS ARE the SAME AND PRODUCE the SAME WORK?

IF YOU DO, THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR REASONING, and MIND!

PLUS:  The ENTIRE POINT TO THESE QUESTIONS BEING PLACED HERE, BESIDES PLACING THE FRAUD LABEL ON THOSE WHO DESERVE IT, IN SCIENCE, IS: 

IS THERE ANYTHING IN OLD SCIENCE THAT PROVES DANTE COULD NOT DISCOVER WHAT HE DID? 

AND,

ISN’T THIS VIOLATION of the WORK PRINCIPLE, the EXACT OLD SCIENCE FORMULAS and REASONING and FACTS, PROVE IT COULD BE DONE?

AND, IF DANTE COULD FIND ONE WORK VIOLATION, COULDN’T HE FIND TWO, THREE OR MORE?

THEN, OLD SCIENCE STATES:

“Mechanical Advantage simply is, gaining time but at the expense of distance, or gaining distance, at the expense of time”,

BUT,

Isn’t the ABOVE  SCENARIO of developing MORE WORK, in LESS TIME, ERGO DEVELOPING ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH HORSEPOWER, BIG TIME SCIENCE, THAT SCIENCE DOESN’T AS YET KNOW OR UNDERSTAND?

DOESN’T THIS MEAN, THAT ANY ONE, TWO OR THREE of the BASIC PHYSICS MACHINES and THEIR MECHANICAL ADVANTAGE;

CAN IN FACT BE USED IN INNOVATIVE WAYS, AS MENTIONED ABOVE, AND DEVELOP  MORE HORSEPOWER?

ISN’T HORSEPOWER WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT, and ENERGY SECOND?

ISN’T THE HOOVER DAM RATED IN HORSEPOWER?

ISN’T THE AUTOMOBILE, TRUCKS and TRAINS RATED IN HORSEPOWER?

NAME ONE PIECE OF WORK RELATED EQUIPMENT, MEASURE IN ENERGY?

NOT ONE EXISTS!  Even electric motors are measured in HORSEPOWER!

FACTS:

ABOUT PENDULUMS:

Pendulums exist!

Pendulums have historically been used to keep time!

There is the Simple Pendulum!

There is a Compound Pendulum!

Baseball bats are also a form of a Pendulum!

The swing of the swinging child scenario is another form of the Pendulum.

Science, and specifically physics teachers and professors, use the Pendulum to PROVE the existence of the 1856 KINETIC ENERGY and the 1853,  POTENTIAL ENERGY DISCOVERY, as they swing them and teach how they stop and start as potential turning to kinetic and kinetic back to potential!

QUESTION # 145:  DOES ONLY the 1807 FORM of ENERGY CONSIDERED TO HAVE POTENTIAL and KINETIC ENERGY?

QUESTION # 146:    If  NOT, HOW THEN CAN ONE PROVE the EXISTENCE IN OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY, LIKE CHEMICAL, ELECTRICAL, CONVERTED COSTLY MECHANICAL ENERGY, THERMAL ENERGY and/or NUCLEAR ENERGY?

QUESTION #147: AND, IF YOU HAVE A WAY, OR STATE IT IS the SAME WAY AS ABOVE, THEN WHY CANNOT the KINETIC ENERGY turn back into POTENTIAL ENERGY, ONCE CONVERTED?

QUESTION # 148:  Could there be TWO SETS of KINETIC and POTENTIAL ENERGY, the ones discovered in 1853 and 1856, for the ENERGY of 1807, and another set discovered AFTER ALL the OTHER FORMS OF ENERGY WERE DISCOVERED?

If you say YES, where, by who and when WERE THESE OTHER SETS DISCOVERED?

If you say NO, THEN EXPLAIN HOW ONE SET CAN GO BACK and FORTH, the 1853 & 1856 set, BUT the OTHER POTENTIAL to KINETIC, CANNOT?

QUESTION # 149: In other words, explain why MORE GASOLINE HAS TO BE ADDED WHEN MORE DISTANCE, OR ENERGY IS NEEDED FOR AN AUTOMOBILE TO TRAVEL?

WHY, DOES GASOLINE NEED REPLACED, WHEN A SOLID OBJECT, IN MOTION, DOESN’T?

There are MANY. MANY MORE QUESTIONS THAT CAN BE ASKED HEREIN, BUT THE TIME, EFFORT and COST DOESN’T WARRANT SUCH, PLUS IF ONE CANNOT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, OR EVEN ONE QUESTION, HOW CAN ONE ANSWER MORE?

QUESTIONS REFERRING TO:

Total falsehoods about ENERGY being more important, or even as important as POWER!  The FALSEHOOD about TRUE GREEN ENERGY!  The FACTS about the Punch Press, Shear and Rock Crusher, all which use the 1807 energy discovery, and the #6, DEVELOPED FREE MECHANICAL ENERGY!   Perpetual motion, over unity and free energy, were not explained, or the scientific history of such!   The fallacies of the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics, concerning the 1807 energy, when THERMODYNAMICS WASN’T DISCOVERED UNTIL DECADES LATER.  AND MUCH, MUCH MORE!

THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE:

SCIENCE REALLY DOESN’T UNDERSTAND THEIR OLD SCIENCE AS WELL AS THEY THINK!

The last question is one that was asked before, but now can be better answered:

QUESTION # 150:

IF ALL the FACTS PRESENTED HEREIN, ARE TRUE, and THERE IS NO PROOF OF THEM NOT BEING TRUE, AS NO ONE HAS ANSWERED ANY QUESTIONS,  WHY CANNOT a MAN, SUCH AS A GENIUS, LIKE DANTE A. DONATELLI JR., DESIGN a MACHINE USING the OLD SCIENCE  DEFINITION OF “MACHINE DESIGN”, and ALL the OLD SCIENCE HE NEEDS TO TAKE FROM,   USING the 1807 PURE ENERGY and RECORDED PURE “FUEL” SOURCE, and USING ALL INGENIOUS, INVENTIVE MECHANICS,  PLUS, USING ALL the BASIC PHYSICS SIMPLE MACHINES,  PLUS USING ALL the BASIC LAWS of NATURE,  SINCE HE OBVIOUSLY TRULY UNDERSTANDS OLD SCIENCE BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE DOES, and THEN GIVE ONE OF HIS DISCOVERIES TO A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION, SO THEY CAN RAISE A FEW MEASLY DOLLARS and  COULD THEN INTRODUCE IT TO the WORLD, INSTEAD OF BIG BUSINESS, WHO WOULD BE GREEDY, AT BEST, or the GOVERNMENT WHO REALLY DOESN’T WANT IT?

If you can answer this last question in the affirmative, then call us.

We need a measly 2 million  to 3.8 million maximum, in tax deductible contributions. 

Send it to ONEGIFT4POWER:

CHALLENGE US WITH A FEW MEASLY DOLLARS AND YOU WILL GET AN EDUCATION LIKE NOTHING BEFORE!

PLUS, YOU WILL RECEIVE, FROM “CEDCO”, the MARKETING CORPORATION owned by ONEGIFT4 POWER, “FIRST-RIGHTS-OF REFUSALS”.

READ OUR WEBSITE FOR DETAILS, UNDER “CEDCO”.

These 300 questions, PROVE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, TO ANYONE WHO IS NOT BIASED,, CYNICAL and a LIFE LONG DENOUNCER, THAT DANTE HAS DISCOVERED WHAT SCIENCE STATED IS IMPOSSIBLE!

HOW ELSE COULD ONE ASK ALL THESE QUESTIONS, POINTING OUT ALL THE FACTS, AND NOT HAVE DISCOVERED SOMETHING SCIENCE NEVER KNEW EXISTED,  and  SCIENCE  CANNOT ANSWER EVEN ONE QUESTION!

After all, these questions never existed before, and the answers are NOT easy to come by, unless someone studied Old Science’s history for 11 years, as Dante did!