Original Usenet thread from alt.ascii-art, started 23 Mar 2002.
_ _ _ _ _ _ | | | |___ ___ _ __ ___| |_ / \ _ __ ___| |__ (_)_ _____ | | | / __|/ _ \ '_ \ / _ \ __| / _ \ | '__/ __| '_ \| \ \ / / _ \ | |_| \__ \ __/ | | | __/ |_ / ___ \| | | (__| | | | |\ V / __/ \___/|___/\___|_| |_|\___|\__| /_/ \_\_| \___|_| |_|_| \_/ \___|
Incredible! Anti-Gravity device works and is patented 01-31-2002
alt.ascii-art
· 68 messages · 23 Mar 2002 - 29 Mar 2002
Dr Scab wrote: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, > (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: > > >>http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 >> >>A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, >>tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an >>anti-gravity device. >> >>Totally incredible. >> >>I didn't think I'd live to see this day. > > > Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. > > You really are off your head. > > My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with IQ's higher than 80. Thanks Charlie
Charlie Ebert wrote: > Dr Scab wrote: > >> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, >> (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >> >>> http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 >>> >>> A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, >>> tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an >>> anti-gravity device. >>> >>> Totally incredible. >>> >>> I didn't think I'd live to see this day. >> >> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >> You really are off your head. >> > > My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > > But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with > IQ's higher than 80. The problem with that is that anyone with an IQ over 80 knows it's BS. Anything can be patented, it doesn't have to work. -- David J. Vorous Yosemite Llama Ranch dav...@TheLlamaRanch.com http://www.TheLlamaRanch.com UDP for WebTV
Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> espoused: >Dr Scab wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, >> (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >> >> >>>http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 >>> >>>A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, >>>tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an >>>anti-gravity device. >>> >>>Totally incredible. >>> >>>I didn't think I'd live to see this day. >> >> >> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >> >> You really are off your head. >> >> > >My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > >But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with >IQ's higher than 80. > I don't usually go with the Doc, but on this one, I think he's right. -- | Mark Kent -- Take out the ham to mail me. | My mind can never know my body, although it has become quite friendly with my legs. -- Woody Allen, on Epistemology
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dr Scab <sca...@herpes.co.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:37:17 GMT, in alt.ascii-art, > (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >>Dr Scab wrote: >> >>> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>> >>> You really are off your head. >> >>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > The moon does not defy gravity. This new device does not defy gravity any > more than helicopters do. Even anti-gravity devices (when and if they come to fruition) will not defy gravity, they will simply exemplify its properties. -----. -- end of line.
. wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dr Scab <sca...@herpes.co.uk> wrote: > >>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:37:17 GMT, in alt.ascii-art, >>(Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: > > >>>Dr Scab wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>>> >>>>You really are off your head. >>> >>>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! >> > >>The moon does not defy gravity. This new device does not defy gravity any >>more than helicopters do. > > Having read the others comments about just because it's patented doesn't mean it works, blah, blah, blah, despite the pictures.... I will say, shure! I've seen transister radios and the like exibiting this kind of phenomena for years! SHURE! Just go to any park and you'll see kids flying their high voltage UFO's all over the place. They quit kites years ago! SHURE!!! YEAH!!! This guy has had people all over the world repeat the experiment and build their own. Just check out the website. So it works. Now that covers their comments and now I will address my freind yttrx's comments. I have some respect for yttrx as I've been debating with him for years. Yttrx! > Even anti-gravity devices (when and if they come to fruition) will not defy > gravity, they will simply exemplify its properties. > Let me think here. To be anti would have the same meaning as exemplify in this case wouldn't it. To neutralize! But more than neutralize, to actually repulse as it lifts off the table. It doesn't just hover, it can go up and down like it was climing a ladder. But the comment about when and if they come is not necessary as the issue is now in the past tense. The technology has been invented and it's working. They are reversing the effects of gravity without the aid of thrust. There is no thrust here. So, I'm trying to imagine what frame of mind your in here. Are we in the same frame of mind or is there another angle you're trying to represent. Expound on your notion here. Gravity is a mass attraction and it's been discovered how to neutralize the mass attraction and this has implications for the mass production of a great many things. Charlie
It doesn't 'kill' gravity - it just uses electrostatic repulsion to fight against it. Since 20kV of electricity are being used, I think it is likely that the electrostatic replusion will win. Now to finish of the argument: The lifter works. But a 20kV (That's at least 1kg) powersource is needed to lift a little piece of aluminium foil and some balsa wood (That's a few grams). Something doesn't count as floating unless the entire unit is floating, not .1% of it. OK, so humans can't do it. Yet. But it is possible - give an object a + charge on the top and a - charge on the bottom, and surround it with + air, it will float - but you need an enormous voltage, from a PRACTICALLY SIZED power supply. -- Robert "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > . wrote: > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dr Scab <sca...@herpes.co.uk> wrote: > > > >>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:37:17 GMT, in alt.ascii-art, > >>(Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: > > > > > >>>Dr Scab wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. > >>>> > >>>>You really are off your head. > >>> > >>>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > >> > > > >>The moon does not defy gravity. This new device does not defy gravity any > >>more than helicopters do. > > > > > > Having read the others comments about just because it's patented doesn't > mean it works, blah, blah, blah, despite the pictures.... > I will say, shure! I've seen transister radios and the like exibiting > this kind of phenomena for years! SHURE! Just go to any park and > you'll see kids flying their high voltage UFO's all over the place. > They quit kites years ago! SHURE!!! YEAH!!! > > This guy has had people all over the world repeat the experiment and > build their own. Just check out the website. > > So it works. > > Now that covers their comments and now I will address my freind > yttrx's comments. > > I have some respect for yttrx as I've been debating with him for > years. > > Yttrx! > > > Even anti-gravity devices (when and if they come to fruition) will > not defy > > gravity, they will simply exemplify its properties. > > > > Let me think here. To be anti would have the same meaning as exemplify > in this case wouldn't it. To neutralize! But more than neutralize, > to actually repulse as it lifts off the table. It doesn't just hover, > it can go up and down like it was climing a ladder. > > But the comment about when and if they come is not necessary as the > issue is now in the past tense. The technology has been invented > and it's working. > > They are reversing the effects of gravity without the aid of thrust. > > There is no thrust here. > > So, I'm trying to imagine what frame of mind your in here. > > Are we in the same frame of mind or is there another angle > you're trying to represent. Expound on your notion here. > > Gravity is a mass attraction and it's been discovered how > to neutralize the mass attraction and this has implications > for the mass production of a great many things. > > Charlie >
speaking of ANTI-GRAVITY ... check out www.erikvonmarkovik.com and click on LEARN MAGIC. illusion or not, YOUR spectator will see what you see in the video clip clear and simple. mystery Dr Scab wrote in message ... >On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, > (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: > >>http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 >> >>A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, >>tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an >>anti-gravity device. >> >>Totally incredible. >> >>I didn't think I'd live to see this day. > >Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. > >You really are off your head. > > >-- >Drscab >cap...@hushmail.com > '. .' . . > '. : : .'' > : : : .' > : : : : .' > : : : : : : : > : :' ' ' . : : : : : > : : : : : : > : .'''. : . .: > : : ` : : . : > '.'...'.' : > :''''' ' : > : . : > : : : > '.....:......'
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote: > . wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dr Scab <sca...@herpes.co.uk> wrote: >> >>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:37:17 GMT, in alt.ascii-art, >>>(Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >> >> >>>>Dr Scab wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>>>> >>>>>You really are off your head. >>>> >>>>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! >>> >> >>>The moon does not defy gravity. This new device does not defy gravity any >>>more than helicopters do. >> >> > Having read the others comments about just because it's patented doesn't > mean it works, blah, blah, blah, despite the pictures.... > I will say, shure! I've seen transister radios and the like exibiting > this kind of phenomena for years! SHURE! Just go to any park and > you'll see kids flying their high voltage UFO's all over the place. > They quit kites years ago! SHURE!!! YEAH!!! > This guy has had people all over the world repeat the experiment and > build their own. Just check out the website. > So it works. > Now that covers their comments and now I will address my freind > yttrx's comments. > I have some respect for yttrx as I've been debating with him for > years. > Yttrx! > > Even anti-gravity devices (when and if they come to fruition) will > not defy > > gravity, they will simply exemplify its properties. > > > Let me think here. To be anti would have the same meaning as exemplify > in this case wouldn't it. To neutralize! But more than neutralize, > to actually repulse as it lifts off the table. It doesn't just hover, > it can go up and down like it was climing a ladder. > But the comment about when and if they come is not necessary as the > issue is now in the past tense. The technology has been invented > and it's working. > They are reversing the effects of gravity without the aid of thrust. > There is no thrust here. Perhaps not, but there is energy which is being converted to "work", obviously. It is lifted off the table. > So, I'm trying to imagine what frame of mind your in here. > Are we in the same frame of mind or is there another angle > you're trying to represent. Expound on your notion here. What im saying is this: The thing that is being discussed here is probably not an anti-gravity device, since it is exploiting no known property of the force of gravity to achieve lift. However, this does not mean that anti-gravity devices (that which can be defined as "nullifying" or "neutralizing" or "reversing" the *force of gravity itself*) are impossible. If an anti-gravity device was somehow created, it would not "defy" gravity, logically it would simply expound on properties of the force of gravity that are either barely-or not understood at all at this point. > Gravity is a mass attraction and it's been discovered how > to neutralize the mass attraction and this has implications > for the mass production of a great many things. It sure does, which is why it is essential that it is not discounted entirely as "science fiction". Maybe we'll never come up with an actual anti-gravity device....But if we believe that it is not possible at all, we ABSOLUTELY never will. Thatd be missing out on quite alot. -----. -- end of line.
In article <113j7a.6eg.ln@192.168.1.1>, Mark Kent wrote: > Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> espoused: >>Dr Scab wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, >>> (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >>> >>> >>>>http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 >>>> >>>>A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, >>>>tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an >>>>anti-gravity device. >>>> >>>>Totally incredible. >>>> >>>>I didn't think I'd live to see this day. >>> >>> >>> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>> >>> You really are off your head. >>> >>> >> >>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! >> >>But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with >>IQ's higher than 80. >> > > I don't usually go with the Doc, but on this one, I think he's right. Yes, this is on the same lines as Charlie's time travellers visiting the WTC on September 11th, time travellers that turned out to be birds. Subject: Time Travel verified!!! Reference: <slr...@charlie.ebertlan.org> -- Peter It wasn't an overcall, it was an oversight.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Bowmaker <rob...@dse.gen.nz> wrote: > It doesn't 'kill' gravity - it just uses electrostatic repulsion to fight > against it. Since 20kV of electricity are being used, I think it is likely > that the electrostatic replusion will win. Now to finish of the argument: I agree completely. The important part in this particular case is not the argument over whether such a device can be described as "antigravity", but rather that we have figured out a way to employ EM fields as repulsors to *any non-ferrous material*. Further, since models of this effect can be constructed cheaply, experimentation is now very much in the hands of laypeople all over the world. We've all seen what happens when research and development is suddenly handed to tens of thousands of independent minds through cheap materials and free information-trade. This whole thing has alot of potential, imho. -----. -- end of line.
. wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Bowmaker <rob...@dse.gen.nz> wrote: > >>It doesn't 'kill' gravity - it just uses electrostatic repulsion to fight >>against it. Since 20kV of electricity are being used, I think it is likely >>that the electrostatic replusion will win. Now to finish of the argument: > > > I agree completely. The important part in this particular case is not the > argument over whether such a device can be described as "antigravity", but > rather that we have figured out a way to employ EM fields as repulsors to > *any non-ferrous material*. Further, since models of this effect can be > constructed cheaply, experimentation is now very much in the hands of laypeople > all over the world. > > We've all seen what happens when research and development is suddenly handed > to tens of thousands of independent minds through cheap materials and free > information-trade. This whole thing has alot of potential, imho. > Well, if I may. What you've just described is what happend to make Linux or FreeBSD. You will see thousands of flying apparatuses with appearently no thrust keeping them in the air and a bunch of fuck-headed EE's saying it will never work. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/2359231&mode=thread There has been no-one who has given their explaination of what they believe makes them fly. Only people who have said they can't. They same people who say Linux doesn't work say these can't fly. Charlie
. wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote: > >>. wrote: >> >>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dr Scab <sca...@herpes.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:37:17 GMT, in alt.ascii-art, >>>>(Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>Dr Scab wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>>>>> >>>>>>You really are off your head. >>>>> >>>>>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! >>>> >>>>The moon does not defy gravity. This new device does not defy gravity any >>>>more than helicopters do. >>> >>> > >>Having read the others comments about just because it's patented doesn't >>mean it works, blah, blah, blah, despite the pictures.... >>I will say, shure! I've seen transister radios and the like exibiting >>this kind of phenomena for years! SHURE! Just go to any park and >>you'll see kids flying their high voltage UFO's all over the place. >>They quit kites years ago! SHURE!!! YEAH!!! > > >>This guy has had people all over the world repeat the experiment and >>build their own. Just check out the website. > > >>So it works. > > >>Now that covers their comments and now I will address my freind >>yttrx's comments. > > >>I have some respect for yttrx as I've been debating with him for >>years. > > >>Yttrx! > > >>>Even anti-gravity devices (when and if they come to fruition) will >> >>not defy >> >>>gravity, they will simply exemplify its properties. >>> >> > >>Let me think here. To be anti would have the same meaning as exemplify >>in this case wouldn't it. To neutralize! But more than neutralize, >>to actually repulse as it lifts off the table. It doesn't just hover, >>it can go up and down like it was climing a ladder. > > >>But the comment about when and if they come is not necessary as the >>issue is now in the past tense. The technology has been invented >>and it's working. > > >>They are reversing the effects of gravity without the aid of thrust. > > >>There is no thrust here. > > > Perhaps not, but there is energy which is being converted to "work", > obviously. It is lifted off the table. > The art of repulsing gravity could be construed as THRUST! So I stand corrected. It has thrust but the debate is what kind of thrust. > >>So, I'm trying to imagine what frame of mind your in here. > > >>Are we in the same frame of mind or is there another angle >>you're trying to represent. Expound on your notion here. > > > What im saying is this: > > The thing that is being discussed here is probably not an anti-gravity > device, since it is exploiting no known property of the force of gravity > to achieve lift. > It's can't be because it's not known? It can't be an anti-gravity device because it's not exploiting something we understand? > However, this does not mean that anti-gravity devices (that which can be > defined as "nullifying" or "neutralizing" or "reversing" the *force of > gravity itself*) are impossible. If an anti-gravity device was somehow > created, it would not "defy" gravity, logically it would simply expound on > properties of the force of gravity that are either barely-or not understood > at all at this point. > If the properties are barely or not understood at this point, how can one conclusively say it isn't happening? > >>Gravity is a mass attraction and it's been discovered how >>to neutralize the mass attraction and this has implications >>for the mass production of a great many things. > > > It sure does, which is why it is essential that it is not discounted entirely > as "science fiction". Maybe we'll never come up with an actual anti-gravity > device....But if we believe that it is not possible at all, we ABSOLUTELY > never will. > > Thatd be missing out on quite alot. > They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to positive poles or the other way around? They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for over a hundred years now. The whole point is this yttrx. I find it amazing the vacuum of people who will just throw their bodies into this posture of "IT CAN'T BE" when they themselves will admit, or in the case of Mike {FLAGULATE}, the posture of the unknowning. Like the born again christian {REPUBLICAN} fat asses who lay their body's down on the sidewalks and protest abortions and condumns all day long, we have these hoards of people who have thrown themselves into this mid-evil stench of catholicism and have proclaimed they don't know what makes these things fly but they are god damn sure it can't be anti-gravity because they know better! Considering the parallel development model that Linux was indeed developed under, wouldn't it be a mid-evil thought of yours that turning a notion loose to thousands of untrained inventors would be an extremely bad idea. Don't you realize that Thomas Edison was indeed one of these dumb-asses in his day! I'm sure you spend most of your life protesting some of the issues I've covered, while breaking the same rule you protest in yet other fields of endevor! The bottom line here is NEVER SAY NEVER... The second lesson is NEVER POOP in another man's cup unless you can to educate. And by the term 'CAN' and the terms 'POOP' I'll let you put the rest together in your own time. But you have to have the experience to know how to put the two elements together properly. Charlie
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote: > . wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote: >> >>>. wrote: >>> >>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dr Scab <sca...@herpes.co.uk> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:37:17 GMT, in alt.ascii-art, >>>>>(Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Dr Scab wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You really are off your head. >>>>>> >>>>>>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! >>>>> >>>>>The moon does not defy gravity. This new device does not defy gravity any >>>>>more than helicopters do. >>>> >>>> >> >>>Having read the others comments about just because it's patented doesn't >>>mean it works, blah, blah, blah, despite the pictures.... >>>I will say, shure! I've seen transister radios and the like exibiting >>>this kind of phenomena for years! SHURE! Just go to any park and >>>you'll see kids flying their high voltage UFO's all over the place. >>>They quit kites years ago! SHURE!!! YEAH!!! >> >> >>>This guy has had people all over the world repeat the experiment and >>>build their own. Just check out the website. >> >> >>>So it works. >> >> >>>Now that covers their comments and now I will address my freind >>>yttrx's comments. >> >> >>>I have some respect for yttrx as I've been debating with him for >>>years. >> >> >>>Yttrx! >> >> >>>>Even anti-gravity devices (when and if they come to fruition) will >>> >>>not defy >>> >>>>gravity, they will simply exemplify its properties. >>>> >>> >> >>>Let me think here. To be anti would have the same meaning as exemplify >>>in this case wouldn't it. To neutralize! But more than neutralize, >>>to actually repulse as it lifts off the table. It doesn't just hover, >>>it can go up and down like it was climing a ladder. >> >> >>>But the comment about when and if they come is not necessary as the >>>issue is now in the past tense. The technology has been invented >>>and it's working. >> >> >>>They are reversing the effects of gravity without the aid of thrust. >> >> >>>There is no thrust here. >> >> >> Perhaps not, but there is energy which is being converted to "work", >> obviously. It is lifted off the table. >> > The art of repulsing gravity could be construed as THRUST! > So I stand corrected. It has thrust but the debate is what > kind of thrust. >> >>>So, I'm trying to imagine what frame of mind your in here. >> >> >>>Are we in the same frame of mind or is there another angle >>>you're trying to represent. Expound on your notion here. >> >> >> What im saying is this: >> >> The thing that is being discussed here is probably not an anti-gravity >> device, since it is exploiting no known property of the force of gravity >> to achieve lift. >> > It's can't be because it's not known? It can't be an anti-gravity > device because it's not exploiting something we understand? Stop arguing with me...we agree on all of this. I purposely said "probably not an anti-gravity device" because I honestly do not know whether repulsion of non-ferrous materials achieved by very strong EM fields is exploiting a property of the force of gravity or not. From the research ive done in the field, its not clear to me that *anyone* knows. >> However, this does not mean that anti-gravity devices (that which can be >> defined as "nullifying" or "neutralizing" or "reversing" the *force of >> gravity itself*) are impossible. If an anti-gravity device was somehow >> created, it would not "defy" gravity, logically it would simply expound on >> properties of the force of gravity that are either barely-or not understood >> at all at this point. >> > If the properties are barely or not understood at this point, how can > one conclusively say it isn't happening? One cant. Thats my point. I try to chose my words carefully, with terms like "probably" implying a certian mild conviction on my part that is admittedly not provable one way or the other. Maybe the electromagnetic force (one of the basic four; EM, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and gravity) properties employed in this experiment really *are* directly or indirectly employing a property or properties of gravity that we do not understand yet. But again, I dont think that thats the important thing here. The important thing here is that it seems to work, and its cheap to build. >> >>>Gravity is a mass attraction and it's been discovered how >>>to neutralize the mass attraction and this has implications >>>for the mass production of a great many things. >> >> >> It sure does, which is why it is essential that it is not discounted entirely >> as "science fiction". Maybe we'll never come up with an actual anti-gravity >> device....But if we believe that it is not possible at all, we ABSOLUTELY >> never will. >> >> Thatd be missing out on quite alot. >> > They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > positive poles or the other way around? > They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for > over a hundred years now. > The whole point is this yttrx. I find it amazing the vacuum of people > who will just throw their bodies into this posture of "IT CAN'T BE" when > they themselves will admit, or in the case of Mike {FLAGULATE}, the > posture of the unknowning. > Like the born again christian {REPUBLICAN} fat asses who lay their > body's down on the sidewalks and protest abortions and condumns all > day long, we have these hoards of people who have thrown themselves > into this mid-evil stench of catholicism and have proclaimed they > don't know what makes these things fly but they are god damn sure > it can't be anti-gravity because they know better! > Considering the parallel development model that Linux was indeed > developed under, wouldn't it be a mid-evil thought of yours that > turning a notion loose to thousands of untrained inventors would > be an extremely bad idea. Don't you realize that Thomas Edison was > indeed one of these dumb-asses in his day! Yes, and we all have nikolai tesla to thank for the induction (so to speak) of AC power into all of our homes. We also have him to thank for the radio, no matter what fans of marconi tell you. :) Ive been following the development of EM work-systems for some time now, ever since I first heard of the guy in berkeley (sorry, I cannot remember his name) who years ago aimed two tesla coils at a styrofoam cup and made it fly up and hit the ceiling. According to his measurements, even though one of the "supposed" prerequisites for EM repulsion was that both materials be magnetized, the cup itself was not to any measurable capacity. He repeated the experiment with cups of yogurt, planks of wood, coffeegrounds, etc, all with identical results. He was an amateur---though he admittedly did know quite alot about electrical engineering and physics. Amateur inventors are just as important now as they were 100 years ago; they may not always know WHAT theyre inventing or why it works the way it does, but theyre very often unbridled by the same revolting "scientific religion" which closes the minds of their well-known collegues. > I'm sure you spend most of your life protesting some of the issues > I've covered, while breaking the same rule you protest in yet other > fields of endevor! I'm not sure what this means. > The bottom line here is NEVER SAY NEVER... > The second lesson is NEVER POOP in another man's cup unless you > can to educate. And by the term 'CAN' and the terms 'POOP' I'll > let you put the rest together in your own time. But you have to > have the experience to know how to put the two elements together > properly. We agree, I think. -----. -- end of line.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote: > . wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Bowmaker <rob...@dse.gen.nz> wrote: >> >>>It doesn't 'kill' gravity - it just uses electrostatic repulsion to fight >>>against it. Since 20kV of electricity are being used, I think it is likely >>>that the electrostatic replusion will win. Now to finish of the argument: >> >> >> I agree completely. The important part in this particular case is not the >> argument over whether such a device can be described as "antigravity", but >> rather that we have figured out a way to employ EM fields as repulsors to >> *any non-ferrous material*. Further, since models of this effect can be >> constructed cheaply, experimentation is now very much in the hands of laypeople >> all over the world. >> >> We've all seen what happens when research and development is suddenly handed >> to tens of thousands of independent minds through cheap materials and free >> information-trade. This whole thing has alot of potential, imho. >> > Well, if I may. What you've just described is what happend to make > Linux or FreeBSD. > You will see thousands of flying apparatuses with appearently no thrust > keeping them in the air and a bunch of fuck-headed EE's saying it will > never work. > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/2359231&mode=thread > There has been no-one who has given their explaination of what they > believe makes them fly. Only people who have said they can't. > They same people who say Linux doesn't work say these can't fly. On a semi-related side note, and im sorry that I dont have any handy urls for you (but you are more than capable of looking it up :))--- Check out Tesla's colorado electricity-transmission experiments. Particularly the one that ended up blowing out a few transformers and causing his back-yard to glow bright blue. Tesla's experiments with this sort of thing lead him to the theory that EM fields can be made "somewhat corporal" (his words) by increasing the frequency of the electricity that generates them. -----. -- end of line.
. wrote: > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote: > >>. wrote: >> >>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>. wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dr Scab <sca...@herpes.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:37:17 GMT, in alt.ascii-art, >>>>>>(Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>Dr Scab wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You really are off your head. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! >>>>>> >>>>>>The moon does not defy gravity. This new device does not defy gravity any >>>>>>more than helicopters do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>Having read the others comments about just because it's patented doesn't >>>>mean it works, blah, blah, blah, despite the pictures.... >>>>I will say, shure! I've seen transister radios and the like exibiting >>>>this kind of phenomena for years! SHURE! Just go to any park and >>>>you'll see kids flying their high voltage UFO's all over the place. >>>>They quit kites years ago! SHURE!!! YEAH!!! >>> >>> >>>>This guy has had people all over the world repeat the experiment and >>>>build their own. Just check out the website. >>> >>> >>>>So it works. >>> >>> >>>>Now that covers their comments and now I will address my freind >>>>yttrx's comments. >>> >>> >>>>I have some respect for yttrx as I've been debating with him for >>>>years. >>> >>> >>>>Yttrx! >>> >>> >>>>>Even anti-gravity devices (when and if they come to fruition) will >>>> >>>>not defy >>>> >>>> >>>>>gravity, they will simply exemplify its properties. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Let me think here. To be anti would have the same meaning as exemplify >>>>in this case wouldn't it. To neutralize! But more than neutralize, >>>>to actually repulse as it lifts off the table. It doesn't just hover, >>>>it can go up and down like it was climing a ladder. >>> >>> >>>>But the comment about when and if they come is not necessary as the >>>>issue is now in the past tense. The technology has been invented >>>>and it's working. >>> >>> >>>>They are reversing the effects of gravity without the aid of thrust. >>> >>> >>>>There is no thrust here. >>> >>> >>>Perhaps not, but there is energy which is being converted to "work", >>>obviously. It is lifted off the table. >>> >> > >>The art of repulsing gravity could be construed as THRUST! >>So I stand corrected. It has thrust but the debate is what >>kind of thrust. > > > >>>>So, I'm trying to imagine what frame of mind your in here. >>> >>> >>>>Are we in the same frame of mind or is there another angle >>>>you're trying to represent. Expound on your notion here. >>> >>> >>>What im saying is this: >>> >>>The thing that is being discussed here is probably not an anti-gravity >>>device, since it is exploiting no known property of the force of gravity >>>to achieve lift. >>> >> > > >>It's can't be because it's not known? It can't be an anti-gravity >>device because it's not exploiting something we understand? > > > Stop arguing with me...we agree on all of this. > > I purposely said "probably not an anti-gravity device" because I honestly > do not know whether repulsion of non-ferrous materials achieved by very strong > EM fields is exploiting a property of the force of gravity or not. > > From the research ive done in the field, its not clear to me that *anyone* > knows. > > >>>However, this does not mean that anti-gravity devices (that which can be >>>defined as "nullifying" or "neutralizing" or "reversing" the *force of >>>gravity itself*) are impossible. If an anti-gravity device was somehow >>>created, it would not "defy" gravity, logically it would simply expound on >>>properties of the force of gravity that are either barely-or not understood >>>at all at this point. >>> >> > > >>If the properties are barely or not understood at this point, how can >>one conclusively say it isn't happening? > > > One cant. Thats my point. I try to chose my words carefully, with terms like > "probably" implying a certian mild conviction on my part that is admittedly not > provable one way or the other. > > Maybe the electromagnetic force (one of the basic four; EM, strong nuclear, weak > nuclear and gravity) properties employed in this experiment really *are* directly > or indirectly employing a property or properties of gravity that we do not > understand yet. > > But again, I dont think that thats the important thing here. The important thing > here is that it seems to work, and its cheap to build. > > >>>>Gravity is a mass attraction and it's been discovered how >>>>to neutralize the mass attraction and this has implications >>>>for the mass production of a great many things. >>> >>> >>>It sure does, which is why it is essential that it is not discounted entirely >>>as "science fiction". Maybe we'll never come up with an actual anti-gravity >>>device....But if we believe that it is not possible at all, we ABSOLUTELY >>>never will. >>> >>>Thatd be missing out on quite alot. >>> >> > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to >>positive poles or the other way around? > > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for >>over a hundred years now. > > >>The whole point is this yttrx. I find it amazing the vacuum of people >>who will just throw their bodies into this posture of "IT CAN'T BE" when >>they themselves will admit, or in the case of Mike {FLAGULATE}, the >>posture of the unknowning. > > >>Like the born again christian {REPUBLICAN} fat asses who lay their >>body's down on the sidewalks and protest abortions and condumns all >>day long, we have these hoards of people who have thrown themselves >>into this mid-evil stench of catholicism and have proclaimed they >>don't know what makes these things fly but they are god damn sure >>it can't be anti-gravity because they know better! > > >>Considering the parallel development model that Linux was indeed >>developed under, wouldn't it be a mid-evil thought of yours that >>turning a notion loose to thousands of untrained inventors would >>be an extremely bad idea. Don't you realize that Thomas Edison was >>indeed one of these dumb-asses in his day! > > > Yes, and we all have nikolai tesla to thank for the induction (so to speak) > of AC power into all of our homes. We also have him to thank for the radio, > no matter what fans of marconi tell you. :) > > Ive been following the development of EM work-systems for some time now, ever > since I first heard of the guy in berkeley (sorry, I cannot remember his name) > who years ago aimed two tesla coils at a styrofoam cup and made it fly up > and hit the ceiling. According to his measurements, even though one of the > "supposed" prerequisites for EM repulsion was that both materials be magnetized, > the cup itself was not to any measurable capacity. He repeated the experiment > with cups of yogurt, planks of wood, coffeegrounds, etc, all with identical > results. > > He was an amateur---though he admittedly did know quite alot about electrical > engineering and physics. > > Amateur inventors are just as important now as they were 100 years ago; they may > not always know WHAT theyre inventing or why it works the way it does, but theyre > very often unbridled by the same revolting "scientific religion" which closes the > minds of their well-known collegues. > > >>I'm sure you spend most of your life protesting some of the issues >>I've covered, while breaking the same rule you protest in yet other >>fields of endevor! > > > I'm not sure what this means. > > >>The bottom line here is NEVER SAY NEVER... >>The second lesson is NEVER POOP in another man's cup unless you >>can to educate. And by the term 'CAN' and the terms 'POOP' I'll >>let you put the rest together in your own time. But you have to >>have the experience to know how to put the two elements together >>properly. > > > We agree, I think. > Okay! Charlie
"Peter Hayes" <pet...@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > In article <113j7a.6eg.ln@192.168.1.1>, Mark Kent wrote: > > Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> espoused: > >>Dr Scab wrote: > >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, > >>> (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 > >>>> > >>>>A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, > >>>>tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an > >>>>anti-gravity device. > >>>> > >>>>Totally incredible. > >>>> > >>>>I didn't think I'd live to see this day. > >>> > >>> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. > >>> > >>> You really are off your head. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > >> > >>But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with > >>IQ's higher than 80. > >> > > > > I don't usually go with the Doc, but on this one, I think he's right. > > Yes, this is on the same lines as Charlie's time travellers visiting > the WTC on September 11th, time travellers that turned out to be birds. Gawd, this anti gravity thing was already invented about 6000 years ago, it is completely written down in the Rig Veda. Can I put a patent on God or some all powerfull creator gadget, too ? "Get a God(tm) at half price with a Big Mac and fries" > Subject: Time Travel verified!!! > Reference: <slr...@charlie.ebertlan.org> > > -- > > Peter > > It wasn't an overcall, it was an oversight.
"Peter Hayes" <pet...@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > In article <113j7a.6eg.ln@192.168.1.1>, Mark Kent wrote: > > Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> espoused: > >>Dr Scab wrote: > >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, > >>> (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 > >>>> > >>>>A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, > >>>>tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an > >>>>anti-gravity device. > >>>> > >>>>Totally incredible. > >>>> > >>>>I didn't think I'd live to see this day. > >>> > >>> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. > >>> > >>> You really are off your head. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > >> > >>But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with > >>IQ's higher than 80. > >> > > > > I don't usually go with the Doc, but on this one, I think he's right. > > Yes, this is on the same lines as Charlie's time travellers visiting > the WTC on September 11th, time travellers that turned out to be birds. Gawd, this anti gravity thing was already invented about 6000 years ago, it is completely written down in the Rig Veda. Can I put a patent on God or some all powerfull creator gadget, too ? "Get a God(tm) at half price with a Big Mac and fries" > Subject: Time Travel verified!!! > Reference: <slr...@charlie.ebertlan.org> > > -- > > Peter > > It wasn't an overcall, it was an oversight.
"Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > . wrote: > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Bowmaker <rob...@dse.gen.nz> wrote: > > > >>It doesn't 'kill' gravity - it just uses electrostatic repulsion to fight > >>against it. Since 20kV of electricity are being used, I think it is likely > >>that the electrostatic replusion will win. Now to finish of the argument: > > > > > > I agree completely. The important part in this particular case is not the > > argument over whether such a device can be described as "antigravity", but > > rather that we have figured out a way to employ EM fields as repulsors to > > *any non-ferrous material*. Further, since models of this effect can be > > constructed cheaply, experimentation is now very much in the hands of laypeople > > all over the world. > > > > We've all seen what happens when research and development is suddenly handed > > to tens of thousands of independent minds through cheap materials and free > > information-trade. This whole thing has alot of potential, imho. > > > > Well, if I may. What you've just described is what happend to make > Linux or FreeBSD. > > You will see thousands of flying apparatuses with appearently no thrust > keeping them in the air and a bunch of fuck-headed EE's saying it will > never work. > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/2359231&mode=thread > > There has been no-one who has given their explaination of what they > believe makes them fly. Only people who have said they can't. It's called the Biefeld-Brown effect. It's interesting, but not very practical. So I think you can't talk about people not having explanations. I have an explanation, you don't. > They same people who say Linux doesn't work say these can't fly. You just had to bring operating systems into this argument, didn't you? It's completely irrelevant. > Charlie
> They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > positive poles or the other way around? > > They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for > over a hundred years now. Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think you're a little behind. The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the time! > The whole point is this yttrx. I find it amazing the vacuum of people > who will just throw their bodies into this posture of "IT CAN'T BE" when > they themselves will admit, or in the case of Mike {FLAGULATE}, the > posture of the unknowning. > > Like the born again christian {REPUBLICAN} fat asses who lay their > body's down on the sidewalks and protest abortions and condumns all > day long, we have these hoards of people who have thrown themselves > into this mid-evil stench of catholicism and have proclaimed they > don't know what makes these things fly but they are god damn sure > it can't be anti-gravity because they know better! > > Considering the parallel development model that Linux was indeed > developed under, wouldn't it be a mid-evil thought of yours that > turning a notion loose to thousands of untrained inventors would > be an extremely bad idea. Don't you realize that Thomas Edison was > indeed one of these dumb-asses in his day! We're talking about the Beifeld-Brown effect, NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS!!! There's another thread going on for that! > I'm sure you spend most of your life protesting some of the issues > I've covered, while breaking the same rule you protest in yet other > fields of endevor! > > The bottom line here is NEVER SAY NEVER... I agree with this much. > The second lesson is NEVER POOP in another man's cup unless you > can to educate. And by the term 'CAN' and the terms 'POOP' I'll > let you put the rest together in your own time. But you have to > have the experience to know how to put the two elements together > properly. > > > Charlie >
Robert Bowmaker wrote: >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. >> >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to >>positive poles or the other way around? >> >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for >>over a hundred years now. > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal to the > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think you're > a little behind. > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the time! > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. They have never even seen electricity so they don't really know. > >>The whole point is this yttrx. I find it amazing the vacuum of people >>who will just throw their bodies into this posture of "IT CAN'T BE" when >>they themselves will admit, or in the case of Mike {FLAGULATE}, the >>posture of the unknowning. >> >>Like the born again christian {REPUBLICAN} fat asses who lay their >>body's down on the sidewalks and protest abortions and condumns all >>day long, we have these hoards of people who have thrown themselves >>into this mid-evil stench of catholicism and have proclaimed they >>don't know what makes these things fly but they are god damn sure >>it can't be anti-gravity because they know better! >> >>Considering the parallel development model that Linux was indeed >>developed under, wouldn't it be a mid-evil thought of yours that >>turning a notion loose to thousands of untrained inventors would >>be an extremely bad idea. Don't you realize that Thomas Edison was >>indeed one of these dumb-asses in his day! > > > We're talking about the Beifeld-Brown effect, NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS!!! > There's another thread going on for that! > I'll look this up. Thanks for being the ONLY OTHER person who's bothered to at least offer a theory. > >>I'm sure you spend most of your life protesting some of the issues >>I've covered, while breaking the same rule you protest in yet other >>fields of endevor! >> >>The bottom line here is NEVER SAY NEVER... > > > I agree with this much. > > >>The second lesson is NEVER POOP in another man's cup unless you >>can to educate. And by the term 'CAN' and the terms 'POOP' I'll >>let you put the rest together in your own time. But you have to >>have the experience to know how to put the two elements together >>properly. >> >> Charlie
"Rev. Juust E.S. Out" <juu...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message news:#wrU...@net005s.hetnet.nl... > "Peter Hayes" <pet...@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote in message > > In article <113j7a.6eg.ln@192.168.1.1>, Mark Kent wrote: > > > Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> espoused: > > >>Dr Scab wrote: > > >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, > > >>> (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>>http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 > > >>>> > > >>>>A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, > > >>>>tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an > > >>>>anti-gravity device. > > >>>> > > >>>>Totally incredible. > > >>>> > > >>>>I didn't think I'd live to see this day. > > >>> > > >>> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity > device. > > >>> > > >>> You really are off your head. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > > >> > > >>But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with > > >>IQ's higher than 80. > > >> > > > > > > I don't usually go with the Doc, but on this one, I think he's right. > > > > Yes, this is on the same lines as Charlie's time travellers visiting > > the WTC on September 11th, time travellers that turned out to be birds. > > Gawd, this anti gravity thing was already invented about 6000 years ago, it > is completely written down in the Rig Veda. Um... Can you explain this, please? > Can I put a patent on God or some all powerfull creator gadget, too ? > > "Get a God(tm) at half price with a Big Mac and fries" > > > > Subject: Time Travel verified!!! > > Reference: <slr...@charlie.ebertlan.org> > > > > -- > > > > Peter > > > > It wasn't an overcall, it was an oversight. > >
"Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > >> > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > >>positive poles or the other way around? > >> > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for > >>over a hundred years now. > > > > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal to the > > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think you're > > a little behind. > > > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We > > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the time! > > > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. The theory seems to fit electricity's properties perfectly. Maybe it's not absolutely proven, but it works so well (i.e. it predicts everything that really happes perfectly) that it doesn't really matter if it's proven or not. The same can not be said for gravity, though. We don't have a clue about gravity at all, no theories that really help explain it. Except of course for Superstring Theory (that's another thread by itself!). Perhaps when Superstring Theory is 'finished', we'll be able to have anti-gravity things, teleporters, time travel (!)... But until then, it might be best to leave all the serious speculating to the scientist. Also, the lifter needs ~15,000V (from memory) of electricity to work. If you scaled this 'lifter' up by a factor of 10 in all directions, would you still only need 15,000V? Or would you need 150,000V? Or even 15,000,000V? It starts to get impractical. > They have never even seen electricity so they don't really know. > > > > > >>The whole point is this yttrx. I find it amazing the vacuum of people > >>who will just throw their bodies into this posture of "IT CAN'T BE" when > >>they themselves will admit, or in the case of Mike {FLAGULATE}, the > >>posture of the unknowning. > >> > >>Like the born again christian {REPUBLICAN} fat asses who lay their > >>body's down on the sidewalks and protest abortions and condumns all > >>day long, we have these hoards of people who have thrown themselves > >>into this mid-evil stench of catholicism and have proclaimed they > >>don't know what makes these things fly but they are god damn sure > >>it can't be anti-gravity because they know better! > >> > >>Considering the parallel development model that Linux was indeed > >>developed under, wouldn't it be a mid-evil thought of yours that > >>turning a notion loose to thousands of untrained inventors would > >>be an extremely bad idea. Don't you realize that Thomas Edison was > >>indeed one of these dumb-asses in his day! > > > > > > We're talking about the Beifeld-Brown effect, NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS!!! > > There's another thread going on for that! > > > > I'll look this up. Thanks for being the ONLY OTHER person who's > bothered to at least offer a theory. > > > > > > >>I'm sure you spend most of your life protesting some of the issues > >>I've covered, while breaking the same rule you protest in yet other > >>fields of endevor! > >> > >>The bottom line here is NEVER SAY NEVER... > > > > > > I agree with this much. > > > > > >>The second lesson is NEVER POOP in another man's cup unless you > >>can to educate. And by the term 'CAN' and the terms 'POOP' I'll > >>let you put the rest together in your own time. But you have to > >>have the experience to know how to put the two elements together > >>properly. > >> > >> > > > Charlie > > >
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > >>Robert Bowmaker wrote: Allow me to repost what you deleted from your own statements here: >>Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal >>to the >>positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think >>you're >>a little behind. >> >>The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. >>We >>haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the >>time! >> >>>>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. >>>> >>>>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what >>>>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to >>>>positive poles or the other way around? >>>> >>>>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for >>>>over a hundred years now. >>> >>> And we can see where you deleted the above text which was right here. >>>Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal to >> > the > >>>positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think >> > you're > >>>a little behind. >>> >>>The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We >>>haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the >> > time! > >>This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > > It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. The theory seems to fit > electricity's properties perfectly. Maybe it's not absolutely proven, but it > works so well (i.e. it predicts everything that really happes perfectly) > that it doesn't really matter if it's proven or not. The same can not be > said for gravity, though. We don't have a clue about gravity at all, no > theories that really help explain it. Except of course for Superstring > Theory (that's another thread by itself!). Perhaps when Superstring Theory > is 'finished', we'll be able to have anti-gravity things, teleporters, time > travel (!)... But until then, it might be best to leave all the serious > speculating to the scientist. > Well, it's another theory. It's still not proven. We really still don't know how electricity works. We don't. We've never seen it. But I find the balance of your comments more in-line with reason than not. > Also, the lifter needs ~15,000V (from memory) of electricity to work. If you > scaled this 'lifter' up by a factor of 10 in all directions, would you still > only need 15,000V? Or would you need 150,000V? Or even 15,000,000V? It > starts to get impractical. > And from a previous post this man said this. >We're talking about the Beifeld-Brown effect, NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS!!! >There's another thread going on for that! And I told him then I would research this and I have. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Beifeld-Brown+effect&btnG=Google+Search Seems like every link to the subject mentions anti-gravity as the mechanism. And I have to say to this man, very good research sir. Very good. Okay, perhaps yttrx will join us again then. So we need some serious voltage to make this work effectively. And a functioning fusion power system would provide that juice. Check out these several points. Townsend Brown and his Anti-Gravity Discs by Gaston Burridge http://www.100megsfree4.com/farshores/tbrown.htm 1) PROXIMITY OF PLATES 2) DIELECTRIC CONSTANT This one will vary in space of course. 3) INTENSITY 4) VOLTAGE This one has been discovered by them also. 5) MASS (SURFACE AREA) They seem to have already discovered this one an their web site. Whoo, whoo! Here's something they didn't try. http://darlabs.com/AGCon2.html The maximum rotation rate that we were able to get around the center pole was about 12 rpm, which comes out to 3.39km/hr (2.11mph). This was achieved with the smaller two foot diameter disks. They are rotating the disks to produce yet another effect. Looks like he mis-spelled the effect so google corrected it for us. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Biefeld-Brown+effect&spell=1 And we find yet another 327 links. Pretty awesome Robert! I have to say I'm impressed with this guy. How about you yttrx. What do you think. Charlie
> I'll look this up. Thanks for being the ONLY OTHER person who's > bothered to at least offer a theory. http://foldedspace.com/data.html It seems a bit incomplete (i.e. it offers a few theories and then jumps into data which is irrelevant as far as explaining it goes), but who cares?
Robert Bowmaker wrote: >>I'll look this up. Thanks for being the ONLY OTHER person who's >>bothered to at least offer a theory. > > > http://foldedspace.com/data.html > > It seems a bit incomplete (i.e. it offers a few theories and then jumps into > data which is irrelevant as far as explaining it goes), but who cares? http://foldedspace.com/corporate.html Very good. Charlie
--(Once apon a time, in alt.ascii-art,)-- --(Rev. Juust E.S. Out said it like only they can.)-- > Gawd, this anti gravity thing was already invented about 6000 years ago, it > is completely written down in the Rig Veda. Can I put a patent on God or > some all powerfull creator gadget, too ? > Ok I have my copy of the Rig Veda in hand. Please tell me where I can find what you are refferancing. Why is everyone looking at funny because I said I had a copy? Dosen't everyone collect books published before Gutenberg's press? =) -- +-(faux@fugozi)-(0.05|0.08|0.08)-(19:02|Sun Mar 24)-+ cat ~/.{sig,uin} It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word. - Andrew Jackson UIN=66618055
In article <3C9...@mmcable.com>, Charlie Ebert wrote: >> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >> >> You really are off your head. >> >> > > My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > > But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with > IQ's higher than 80. Evidently, his physics IQ is higher than yours, since he seems to understand how the device works (ionizes the surrounding air, and then accelerates that air downward, thereby producing thrust upwards). --Tim Smith
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > . wrote: > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Bowmaker <rob...@dse.gen.nz> > wrote: > > > > > >>It doesn't 'kill' gravity - it just uses electrostatic repulsion to > fight > > >>against it. Since 20kV of electricity are being used, I think it is > likely > > >>that the electrostatic replusion will win. Now to finish of the > argument: > > > > > > > > > I agree completely. The important part in this particular case is not > the > > > argument over whether such a device can be described as "antigravity", > but > > > rather that we have figured out a way to employ EM fields as repulsors > to > > > *any non-ferrous material*. Further, since models of this effect can be > > > constructed cheaply, experimentation is now very much in the hands of > laypeople > > > all over the world. > > > > > > We've all seen what happens when research and development is suddenly > handed > > > to tens of thousands of independent minds through cheap materials and > free > > > information-trade. This whole thing has alot of potential, imho. > > > > > > > Well, if I may. What you've just described is what happend to make > > Linux or FreeBSD. > > > > You will see thousands of flying apparatuses with appearently no thrust > > keeping them in the air and a bunch of fuck-headed EE's saying it will > > never work. > > > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/2359231&mode=thread > > > > There has been no-one who has given their explaination of what they > > believe makes them fly. Only people who have said they can't. > > It's called the Biefeld-Brown effect. It's interesting, but not very > practical. So I think you can't talk about people not having explanations. I > have an explanation, you don't. How do you do that with a large steel plate??
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > > > Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > > makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > > positive poles or the other way around? > > > > They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for > > over a hundred years now. > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal to the > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think you're > a little behind. > No, the universities still don't know which way electrons flow. Do you know that when an electron jumps from a lower orbit to a higher orbit a photon is emitted?? But in the process of emitting a photon the electron disappears during the transition? > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the time! > That's the way the corporate droids want it to be.
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > >> > > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > > >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > > >>positive poles or the other way around? > > >> > > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for > > >>over a hundred years now. > > > > > > > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal to > the > > > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think > you're > > > a little behind. > > > > > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We > > > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the > time! > > > > > > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. URL please. > The theory seems to fit > electricity's properties perfectly. Maybe it's not absolutely proven, but it > works so well (i.e. it predicts everything that really happes perfectly) > that it doesn't really matter if it's proven or not. The same can not be > said for gravity, though. We don't have a clue about gravity at all, no > theories that really help explain it. Except of course for Superstring > Theory (that's another thread by itself!). Perhaps when Superstring Theory > is 'finished', we'll be able to have anti-gravity things, teleporters, time > travel (!)... But until then, it might be best to leave all the serious > speculating to the scientist. > > Also, the lifter needs ~15,000V (from memory) of electricity to work. If you > scaled this 'lifter' up by a factor of 10 in all directions, would you still > only need 15,000V? Or would you need 150,000V? Or even 15,000,000V? It > starts to get impractical. > So? What makes you think that 15megavolts is impractical? Tesla did this a long time ago.
"GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > > . wrote: > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Bowmaker <rob...@dse.gen.nz> > > wrote: > > > > > > > >>It doesn't 'kill' gravity - it just uses electrostatic repulsion to > > fight > > > >>against it. Since 20kV of electricity are being used, I think it is > > likely > > > >>that the electrostatic replusion will win. Now to finish of the > > argument: > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree completely. The important part in this particular case is not > > the > > > > argument over whether such a device can be described as "antigravity", > > but > > > > rather that we have figured out a way to employ EM fields as repulsors > > to > > > > *any non-ferrous material*. Further, since models of this effect can be > > > > constructed cheaply, experimentation is now very much in the hands of > > laypeople > > > > all over the world. > > > > > > > > We've all seen what happens when research and development is suddenly > > handed > > > > to tens of thousands of independent minds through cheap materials and > > free > > > > information-trade. This whole thing has alot of potential, imho. > > > > > > > > > > Well, if I may. What you've just described is what happend to make > > > Linux or FreeBSD. > > > > > > You will see thousands of flying apparatuses with appearently no thrust > > > keeping them in the air and a bunch of fuck-headed EE's saying it will > > > never work. > > > > > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/2359231&mode=thread > > > > > > There has been no-one who has given their explaination of what they > > > believe makes them fly. Only people who have said they can't. > > > > It's called the Biefeld-Brown effect. It's interesting, but not very > > practical. So I think you can't talk about people not having explanations. I > > have an explanation, you don't. > > How do you do that with a large steel plate?? Um... Can you expand the question? What are you asking? How do you do *what* with a large steel plate??? -- Robert
"GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > > >> > > > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > > > >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > > > >>positive poles or the other way around? > > > >> > > > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for > > > >>over a hundred years now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal to > > the > > > > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think > > you're > > > > a little behind. > > > > > > > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We > > > > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the > > time! > > > > > > > > > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > > > It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. > > URL please. > > > The theory seems to fit > > electricity's properties perfectly. Maybe it's not absolutely proven, but it > > works so well (i.e. it predicts everything that really happes perfectly) > > that it doesn't really matter if it's proven or not. The same can not be > > said for gravity, though. We don't have a clue about gravity at all, no > > theories that really help explain it. Except of course for Superstring > > Theory (that's another thread by itself!). Perhaps when Superstring Theory > > is 'finished', we'll be able to have anti-gravity things, teleporters, time > > travel (!)... But until then, it might be best to leave all the serious > > speculating to the scientist. > > > > Also, the lifter needs ~15,000V (from memory) of electricity to work. If you > > scaled this 'lifter' up by a factor of 10 in all directions, would you still > > only need 15,000V? Or would you need 150,000V? Or even 15,000,000V? It > > starts to get impractical. > > > So? What makes you think that 15megavolts is impractical? > Tesla did this a long time ago. The 15000V was produced by a large power supply, which is quite heavy (~500g - 1kg - even more???). It managed to lift just a few grams of aluminium foil and balsa wood. For it to become self-sufficient (i.e. can lift up its own power source), it will need to produce a lot more voltage (I think lifting power is proportional to voltage). For it to produce more voltage, it will need to be even heavier, which in turn will need more voltage to lift, etc... etc... - and that's before it's started to lift any cargo of any sort! -- Robert
Peter Hayes wrote: > > In article <113j7a.6eg.ln@192.168.1.1>, Mark Kent wrote: > > Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> espoused: > >>Dr Scab wrote: > >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, > >>> (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 > >>>> > >>>>A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, > >>>>tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an > >>>>anti-gravity device. > >>>> > >>>>Totally incredible. > >>>> > >>>>I didn't think I'd live to see this day. > >>> > >>> > >>> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. > >>> > >>> You really are off your head. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! > >> > >>But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with > >>IQ's higher than 80. > >> > > > > I don't usually go with the Doc, but on this one, I think he's right. > > Yes, this is on the same lines as Charlie's time travellers visiting > the WTC on September 11th, time travellers that turned out to be birds. > Awful big birds going behind the buildings if you ask me.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote on Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:10:35 GMT <3C9...@mmcable.com>: > . wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote: [snip for great brevity] >>>Gravity is a mass attraction and it's been discovered how >>>to neutralize the mass attraction and this has implications >>>for the mass production of a great many things. Pedant point: I'm not sure "neutralize" is the right word here. Counteract, perhaps? Bernoulli's Principle is used every time a plane takes off, for example, but I for one would not consider an airplane a device for "neutralizing" gravity. All the original experiment proves is that one can lift small objects off the ground using electrostatic repulsion; nothing horribly mysterious about that, really, although it could be employed in interesting ways if one can work around the air ionization issue. I will admit to some puzzlement as to why it works over a non-conductive wooden table, though. There are vaguely similar devices for electromagnetic repulsion; a specially-wound flat coil is used to set up eddy currents in a ferromagnetic bowl, which levitates and gets rather hot. The electrostatic variant appears to use far less power. It would be interesting to increase the area of the capacitor and make a strange hovercraft -- the main problem, however, is that grounding is essential for the repulsion to work, as far as I know. If the power plant is on the hovercraft it will have to dangle a wire, at least during initial launch (and possibly to counteract ion migration as well). >> >> >> It sure does, which is why it is essential that it is not >> discounted entirely as "science fiction". Maybe we'll never >> come up with an actual anti-gravity device....But if we believe >> that it is not possible at all, we ABSOLUTELY never will. >> >> Thatd be missing out on quite alot. >> > > They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > positive poles or the other way around? Depends. I know that sounds strange, but we originally got it backwards with "conventional current"; diodes still point the "wrong" way around, for example. (Pedant^2 point: zener diodes are supposed to be installed "backwards". :-) ) It gets even more complicated with alternating current; the electrons move -- quite a distance in fact for 60 Hz = 5,000 Km [*], give or take -- but on average end up in the same place since they're moving back and forth, as opposed to unidirectional direct current (DC). [rest snipped] [*] I'm not sure if an electron moves through lambda or half-lambda. This value assumes lambda. It's also not clear that copper conducts electrical energy at the speed of light (it's close, though). -- ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random misquote here EAC code #191 38d:00h:29m actually running Linux. Hi. I'm a signature virus.
Followups. (Should I instead send this subthread to sci.physics? :-) ) In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote on Sun, 24 Mar 2002 18:18:07 -0600 <3C9...@mmcable.com>: > Robert Bowmaker wrote: >>>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. >>> >>>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what >>>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to >>>positive poles or the other way around? >>> >>>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity >>>for over a hundred years now. >> >> >> Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative >> terminal to the positive terminal. Millions of people know that >> for certain; I think you're a little behind. >> >> The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We >> haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the time! >> > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > They have never even seen electricity so they don't really know. How does one "see" electricity, anyway? We can't even determine with our 5 senses whether water is wet! We deduce it from: - observing a cooling effect when a wet finger is exposed to moving air, - looking at a meniscus in a test tube, and - observing that one can pour water. Note that water in a paraffin container has a different meniscus, as does mercury (if one can still obtain it -- it was outlawed in thermometers some time ago) in a glass container. It might be more accurate to say that "water wets glass" (adheres thereto), but that "water does not wet paraffin" -- making the verb "to wet" purely transitive. [*] At best, one can sense a small electric shock, such as that caused by rubbing one's feet on carpet on a dry day and approaching a doorknob or other metal object with one's finger; one can feel the spark jumping over and might even see the minute flash. We can deduce that: - electricity can flow from finger to metal, or from metal to finger (I forget precisely which; the principle employed here is occasionally used in Van de Graaf generators) - electricity can ionize air, and - ionized gas glows. (The latter is used in a lot of lighting products, such as fluorescent tubes and neon advertising signs; a variant is used in televisions and fluorescent tubes (which are a two-stage process: the gas in a tube glows with UV light which excites the phosphors coating the tube; in a TV set the electrons excite the phosphors directly, after being shot in a stream deflected (in most cases) by electromagnetic coils wound around the neck of the tube [+]).) [snip for brevity] >> We're talking about the Beifeld-Brown effect, NOT OPERATING SYSTEMS!!! >> There's another thread going on for that! >> > > I'll look this up. Thanks for being the ONLY OTHER person who's > bothered to at least offer a theory. I'm going to have to look this up as well. At least one other poster has commented on Telsa making his back yard a bright blue glowing color, which corroborates with the Philadelphia experiment giving the ship a bright green color. However, I'm not sure how much stock to put in either observation at this time. [rest snipped] [*] This usage is a slightly different meaning than "to wet oneself". :-) [+] Electrostatic deflection was used in the past. -- ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random misquote here EAC code #191 38d:00h:30m actually running Linux. You were expecting something relevant down here?
Followups. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote on Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:49:53 -0800 <3C9...@cumulus.com>: > Robert Bowmaker wrote: >> >> > They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. >> > >> > Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what >> > makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to >> > positive poles or the other way around? >> > >> > They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for >> > over a hundred years now. >> >> Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative >> terminal to the positive terminal. Millions of people know that >> for certain; I think you're a little behind. >> > > No, the universities still don't know which way electrons > flow. > Do you know that when an electron jumps from a lower orbit > to a higher orbit a photon is emitted?? But in the process > of emitting a photon the electron disappears during the > transition? Erm...how long does *that* take? The electron of course reappears after the photon is emitted, of course (in a lower energy band); there's also the little philosophical question as to how electrons exist, as well, since they're conventionally represented as probability clouds (the ns orbitals look like spheres, but the np orbitals look like teardrops or fingers, if memory serves; the d and f orbitals might look like something else, for all I know :-) ). And we can't "see" them, in the conventional sense, except by bombarding them with something (photons, usually). I could see the transition happening within a very small fraction of a second at most (1*10-8 m / 3*10^8 = 3.33*10^-17 sec or so; the 1*10-8 m, IIRC, is the "average" width of an atom but I may have misplaced a decimal point :-) ). I could also see the photon and electron combining to create a transitory particle, which immediately decays into an electron in a higher energy state (electrons in orbit have negative energy, because they're in a "well" of sorts). However, that's about as up-to-date as my knowledge is on particle theory. As for electron flow -- meaningless, in some sense, with respect to AC, as the electrons move back and forth. To be sure, they move back and forth very long distances (60 Hz = 5,000 Km lambda). > >> The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't >> use it. We haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet >> we use it all the time! >> > > That's the way the corporate droids want it to be. They'd love it, I'm sure; can't have the amateur chemists duplicating copyrighted chemicals now, can we? :-) -- ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random OpenCola here EAC code #191 38d:01h:52m actually running Linux. [ ] Do you want this message to be private? Oops, too late.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, David J. Vorous <dav...@thellamaranch.com> wrote on Sat, 23 Mar 2002 15:21:03 -0800 <3C9...@thellamaranch.com>: > Charlie Ebert wrote: > >> Dr Scab wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 21:37:20 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy, >>> (Charlie Ebert <kd5...@mmcable.com>) wrote: >>> >>>> http://slashdot.org/science/02/03/22/2359231.shtml?tid=159 >>>> >>>> A man by the name of, CAMPBELL JONATHAN W (US) has discovered, >>>> tested, replicated, and has been granted PATENT for an >>>> anti-gravity device. >>>> >>>> Totally incredible. >>>> >>>> I didn't think I'd live to see this day. >>> >>> Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>> You really are off your head. >>> >> >> My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! >> >> But seriously folks, this message was intended for people with >> IQ's higher than 80. > > > The problem with that is that anyone with an IQ over 80 knows > it's BS. Anything can be patented, it doesn't have to work. > Including picture compression/decompression algorithms. http://www.unisys.com/unisys/lzw/default.asp -- ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random picture format here EAC code #191 38d:09h:08m actually running Linux. Be paranoid. Everyone else is.
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rev. Juust E.S. Out <juu...@hetnet.nl> wrote on Sun, 24 Mar 2002 22:32:59 +0100 <#wrU...@net005s.hetnet.nl>: > "Peter Hayes" <pet...@seahaze.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> In article <113j7a.6eg.ln@192.168.1.1>, Mark Kent wrote: [snip for brevity] >> > I don't usually go with the Doc, but on this one, I think he's right. >> >> Yes, this is on the same lines as Charlie's time travellers visiting >> the WTC on September 11th, time travellers that turned out to be birds. > > Gawd, this anti gravity thing was already invented about 6000 years ago, it > is completely written down in the Rig Veda. Can I put a patent on God or > some all powerfull creator gadget, too ? > > "Get a God(tm) at half price with a Big Mac and fries" Nope, prior art plus the fact that a patent can only last 17 years.... :-) [rest snipped] -- ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random misquote here EAC code #191 38d:09h:11m actually running Linux. We are all naked underneath our clothes.
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > > > . wrote: > > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Robert Bowmaker > <rob...@dse.gen.nz> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>It doesn't 'kill' gravity - it just uses electrostatic repulsion to > > > fight > > > > >>against it. Since 20kV of electricity are being used, I think it is > > > likely > > > > >>that the electrostatic replusion will win. Now to finish of the > > > argument: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree completely. The important part in this particular case is > not > > > the > > > > > argument over whether such a device can be described as > "antigravity", > > > but > > > > > rather that we have figured out a way to employ EM fields as > repulsors > > > to > > > > > *any non-ferrous material*. Further, since models of this effect > can be > > > > > constructed cheaply, experimentation is now very much in the hands > of > > > laypeople > > > > > all over the world. > > > > > > > > > > We've all seen what happens when research and development is > suddenly > > > handed > > > > > to tens of thousands of independent minds through cheap materials > and > > > free > > > > > information-trade. This whole thing has alot of potential, imho. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, if I may. What you've just described is what happend to make > > > > Linux or FreeBSD. > > > > > > > > You will see thousands of flying apparatuses with appearently no > thrust > > > > keeping them in the air and a bunch of fuck-headed EE's saying it will > > > > never work. > > > > > > > > http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/22/2359231&mode=thread > > > > > > > > There has been no-one who has given their explaination of what they > > > > believe makes them fly. Only people who have said they can't. > > > > > > It's called the Biefeld-Brown effect. It's interesting, but not very > > > practical. So I think you can't talk about people not having > explanations. I > > > have an explanation, you don't. > > > > How do you do that with a large steel plate?? > > Um... Can you expand the question? What are you asking? How do you do *what* > with a large steel plate??? > I think it was the navy that tried this technique of high voltage applied to a thick steel plate, and there was some form of levitation or apparent levitation back in the 1930's. Awful obscure references on this one anyway, so I was wondering if it can be done on say a 100 lb steel plate.
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > > > >> > > > > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of > what > > > > >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative > to > > > > >>positive poles or the other way around? > > > > >> > > > > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity > for > > > > >>over a hundred years now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal > to > > > the > > > > > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think > > > you're > > > > > a little behind. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use > it. We > > > > > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the > > > time! > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > > > > > It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. > > > > URL please. > > > > > The theory seems to fit > > > electricity's properties perfectly. Maybe it's not absolutely proven, > but it > > > works so well (i.e. it predicts everything that really happes perfectly) > > > that it doesn't really matter if it's proven or not. The same can not be > > > said for gravity, though. We don't have a clue about gravity at all, no > > > theories that really help explain it. Except of course for Superstring > > > Theory (that's another thread by itself!). Perhaps when Superstring > Theory > > > is 'finished', we'll be able to have anti-gravity things, teleporters, > time > > > travel (!)... But until then, it might be best to leave all the serious > > > speculating to the scientist. > > > > > > Also, the lifter needs ~15,000V (from memory) of electricity to work. If > you > > > scaled this 'lifter' up by a factor of 10 in all directions, would you > still > > > only need 15,000V? Or would you need 150,000V? Or even 15,000,000V? It > > > starts to get impractical. > > > > > So? What makes you think that 15megavolts is impractical? > > Tesla did this a long time ago. > > The 15000V was produced by a large power supply, which is quite heavy > (~500g - 1kg - even more???). It managed to lift just a few grams of > aluminium foil and balsa wood. For it to become self-sufficient (i.e. can > lift up its own power source), it will need to produce a lot more voltage (I > think lifting power is proportional to voltage). For it to produce more > voltage, it will need to be even heavier, which in turn will need more > voltage to lift, etc... etc... - and that's before it's started to lift any > cargo of any sort! > Why not use a van-de-graph generator??
"GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > > So? What makes you think that 15megavolts is impractical? > > > Tesla did this a long time ago. > > > > The 15000V was produced by a large power supply, which is quite heavy > > (~500g - 1kg - even more???). It managed to lift just a few grams of > > aluminium foil and balsa wood. For it to become self-sufficient (i.e. can > > lift up its own power source), it will need to produce a lot more voltage (I > > think lifting power is proportional to voltage). For it to produce more > > voltage, it will need to be even heavier, which in turn will need more > > voltage to lift, etc... etc... - and that's before it's started to lift any > > cargo of any sort! > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? Shall we make floating planes, MachineGhost ? If I remember correctly, Nicola Tesla was also an occult student, and had access to the Rig Veda. His research was confiscated and destroyed when he died, I believe. Hint : 230 crystal forms, 231 kaballah paths, 230 stanza's in the Rig Veda dealing with the creation of a floating air vessel, using lead, copper, iron and mercury. The usage of lead indicates radiation. Copper is used as a conductor/coil ( the snake). The usage of Iron is also mentioned in the bible and in the Qur'an, possibily for it's magnetic properties. Mercury, with it's rather volatile nature and connection with air (ionization ?), is specifically mentioned as a source of enormous power. You may want to check the effect of applying a magnetic field on mercury to create heat for propulsion and a local gravity field for levitation, using electricity derived from the air by using the appropriate crystals (like in a crystal radio). Look for the number 5 : Platonic solids Lattices (5dimensional crystals are not allowed) Related topics : Quantum converter (vogel crystal, based on zefiroth) Unified field & weak force Fifth dimension of good/evil -- Reverend J.E.S. Out Universal Life Church
"Rev. Juust E.S. Out" wrote: > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator??> > Shall we make floating planes, MachineGhost ? > > If I remember correctly, Nicola Tesla was also an occult student, and had > access to the Rig Veda. I have not heard of this part about Tesla. > His research was confiscated and destroyed when he died, I believe. > That much is true, especially in Serbia after WWII. > Hint : > 230 crystal forms, 231 kaballah paths, 230 stanza's in the Rig Veda dealing > with the creation of a floating air vessel, using lead, copper, iron and > mercury. > > The usage of lead indicates radiation. Copper is used as a conductor/coil > ( the snake). The usage of Iron is also mentioned in the bible and in the > Qur'an, possibily for it's magnetic properties. > > Mercury, with it's rather volatile nature and connection with air > (ionization ?), is specifically mentioned as a source of enormous power. You > may want to check the effect of applying a magnetic field on mercury to > create heat for propulsion and a local gravity field for levitation, using > electricity derived from the air by using the appropriate crystals (like in > a crystal radio). > > Look for the number 5 : > Platonic solids > Lattices (5dimensional crystals are not allowed) > > Related topics : > Quantum converter (vogel crystal, based on zefiroth) > Unified field & weak force > Fifth dimension of good/evil Not sure what to make of this. But like I've posted else where I was taught to not reject any ideas or leads, but to shelve them until more information is handy.
> Why not use a van-de-graph generator??
Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs a power
source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into static
electricity)
-- Robert
"GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > > >> > > > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > > > >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > > > >>positive poles or the other way around? > > > >> > > > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for > > > >>over a hundred years now. > > > > > > > > > > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal to > > the > > > > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think > > you're > > > > a little behind. > > > > > > > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use it. We > > > > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the > > time! > > > > > > > > > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > > > It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. > > URL please. A Van de Graaf generator doesn't work backwards - that a least proves that electricity is negative particles going from the negative terminal to the positive terminal. -- Robert
GreyCloud wrote: > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > > news:3C9...@cumulus.com.. > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com.. > > > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of > > what > > > > > >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative > > to > > > > > >>positive poles or the other way around? > > > > > >> > > > > > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity > > for > > > > > >>over a hundred years now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal > > to > > > > the > > > > > > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think > > > > you're > > > > > > a little behind. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use > > it. We > > > > > > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the > > > > time! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > > > > > > > It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. > > > > > > URL please. > > > > > > > The theory seems to fit > > > > electricity's properties perfectly. Maybe it's not absolutely proven, > > but it > > > > works so well (i.e. it predicts everything that really happes perfectly) > > > > that it doesn't really matter if it's proven or not. The same can not be > > > > said for gravity, though. We don't have a clue about gravity at all, no > > > > theories that really help explain it. Except of course for Superstring > > > > Theory (that's another thread by itself!). Perhaps when Superstring > > Theory > > > > is 'finished', we'll be able to have anti-gravity things, teleporters, > > time > > > > travel (!)... But until then, it might be best to leave all the serious > > > > speculating to the scientist. > > > > > > > > Also, the lifter needs ~15,000V (from memory) of electricity to work. If > > you > > > > scaled this 'lifter' up by a factor of 10 in all directions, would you > > still > > > > only need 15,000V? Or would you need 150,000V? Or even 15,000,000V? It > > > > starts to get impractical. > > > > > > > So? What makes you think that 15megavolts is impractical? > > > Tesla did this a long time ago. > > > > The 15000V was produced by a large power supply, which is quite heavy > > (~500g - 1kg - even more???). It managed to lift just a few grams of > > aluminium foil and balsa wood. For it to become self-sufficient (i.e. can > > lift up its own power source), it will need to produce a lot more voltage (I > > think lifting power is proportional to voltage). For it to produce more > > voltage, it will need to be even heavier, which in turn will need more > > voltage to lift, etc... etc... - and that's before it's started to lift any > > cargo of any sort! > > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? A comb and a piece of fur.
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs a power > source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into static > electricity) > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no difference. Or is that science says that electricity is the flow of electrons , but static electricity is not? Static electricity has other oddities to it that don't make much sense yet to a lot of people.
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > > > >> > > > > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of > what > > > > >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative > to > > > > >>positive poles or the other way around? > > > > >> > > > > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity > for > > > > >>over a hundred years now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal > to > > > the > > > > > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think > > > you're > > > > > a little behind. > > > > > > > > > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use > it. We > > > > > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the > > > time! > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > > > > > It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. > > > > URL please. > > A Van de Graaf generator doesn't work backwards - that a least proves that > electricity is negative particles going from the negative terminal to the > positive terminal. > Or it could represent a large deficit of electrons as well and turns the idea around 180.
"GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > "Rev. Juust E.S. Out" wrote: > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator??> > > Shall we make floating planes, MachineGhost ? > > > > If I remember correctly, Nicola Tesla was also an occult student, and had > > access to the Rig Veda. > > I have not heard of this part about Tesla. Well, have fun then, and don't lose your head. (I tried not to mention Philadelphia, it's like mentioning Hitler in a discussion :) Tesla, mercury, crystals, unified field, the occult. http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html Nikola Tesla used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of natural phenomena. As early as 1891 Tesla described the universe as a kinetic system filled with energy which could be harnessed at any location. His concepts during the following years were greatly influenced by the teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda was the first of a succession of eastern yogi's who brought Vedic philosophy and religion to the west. After meeting the Swami and after continued study of the Eastern view of the mechanisms driving the material world, Tesla began using the Sanskrit words Akasha, Prana, and the concept of a luminiferous ether [note : Einstein used the same terms in his Leyden speech ] to describe the source, existence and construction of matter. This paper will trace the development of Tesla's understanding of Vedic Science, his correspondence with Lord Kelvin concerning these matters, and the relation between Tesla and Walter Russell and other turn of the century scientists concerning advanced understanding of physics. Finally, after being obscured for many years, the author will give a description of what he believes is the the pre-requisite for the free energy systems envisioned by Tesla. "There manifests itself in the fully developed being , Man, a desire mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to work himself the wonders he perceives.... Long ago he recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance." - Nikola Tesla, 1907 ============ http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue10/ar10ancientavi.html In the Manusa, the most elaborate details for building aerial machines are set down. The Samarangana Sutradhara says that they were made of light material, with a strong, well-shaped body. Iron, copper, mercury and lead were used in their construction. They could fly to great distances and were propelled through air by motors. The Samarangana Sutradhara text devotes 230 stanzas to the building of these machines, and their uses in peace and war. In this book are described in 8 pregnant and captivating chapters, the arts of manufacturing various types of Aeroplanes of smooth and comfortable travel in the sky, as a unifying force for the Universe, contributive to the well-being of mankind. That which can go by its own force, like a bird, on earth, or water, or air, is called Vimana.' That which can travel in the sky, from place to place, land to land, or globe to globe, is called Vimana by scientists in Aeronautics. The ancient manuscript claims to give: The secret of constructing aeroplanes, which will not break, which cannot be cut, will not catch fire, and cannot be destroyed. The secret of making planes motionless. The secret of making planes invisible. The secret of hearing conversations and other sounds in enemy planes. The secret of receiving photographs of the interior of enemy planes. The secret of ascertaining the direction of enemy planes approach. The secret of making persons in enemy planes lose consciousness. The secret of destroying enemy planes. The India of 15,000 years ago is sometimes known as the Rama Empire, a land that was contemporary with Atlantis. A huge wealth of texts still extant in India testify to the extremely advanced civilization that is said by these texts to go back over 26,000 years. Terrible wars and subsequent earth changes destroyed these civilizations, leaving only isolated pockets of civilization. ======================== Tesla and Mercury. http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae324.cfm Mercury (atomic symbol Hg) is a liquid at room temperature. Finding large pools of the element is for all purposes impossible, and finding it in its native state is also fairly rare. The mineraloid is usually found in the ore cinnabar (HgS) where it must go through a heating and condensing process to be obtained. Mercury may also occasionally be found with Silver. Globally, mercury is most commonly "produced" in Spain, particularly from the Almaden mine which is known for its high quality mercury. It may also be obtained from Yugoslavia, the United States (mainly California), and Italy. ============== Mercury :Lunatics There are about 1,501,430,636,558,496,585,414 atoms in 0.5 grams of mercury. Each and every atom of mercury is able to disable an enzyme or other critical protein in your body. Over ten years, if the body fails to remove this mercury, a lot of damage can be done. Unfortunately, mercury has ways of "hiding in the body" and can be quite hard to remove. This 0.5 grams of mercury can produce a potential loss of 4,324,120,233,288,470,165,993,719,156,572 chemical reactions in your body. (Based on our lab example / over 10 years) 0.5 gram in a 180 lb. body produces a concentration of 6.168 PPM. Psychiatric Disturbances Social deficits, shyness, social withdrawal (1,2,130,131; 21,31,45,53,132 Repetitive, preservative, stereotypic behaviors; obsessive-compulsive tendencies (1,2,43,48,133; 20,33-35,132) Depression/depressive traits, mood swings, flat affect; impaired face recognition (14,15,17,103, 134,135; 19,21,24,26,31) Anxiety; schizoid tendencies; irrational fears (2,15,16; 21,27,29,31) Irritability, aggression, temper tantrums (12,13,43; 18,21,22,25) Lacks eye contact; impaired visual fixation (HgP)/ problems in joint attention (ASD) (3,36,136,137; 18,19,34) =============== Tesla was known for always dressing impeccably, and being quite solitaire. A hermit of sorts. Always wore a hat, hatmakers were known sufferers from mercury poisoning due to the use of buttons and application of mercury in hats. Possibly Tesla has been suffering from mercury poisoning, much like many people who have mercery amalgmate fillings in their mouth (which sometimes produces 'voices' in the head, much like our Good Friend Dore seems to be suffering from :) > > His research was confiscated and destroyed when he died, I believe. > > > > That much is true, especially in Serbia after WWII. > > > Hint : > > 230 crystal forms, 231 kaballah paths, 230 stanza's in the Rig Veda dealing > > with the creation of a floating air vessel, using lead, copper, iron and > > mercury. > > > > The usage of lead indicates radiation. Copper is used as a conductor/coil > > ( the snake). The usage of Iron is also mentioned in the bible and in the > > Qur'an, possibily for it's magnetic properties. > > > > Mercury, with it's rather volatile nature and connection with air > > (ionization ?), is specifically mentioned as a source of enormous power. You > > may want to check the effect of applying a magnetic field on mercury to > > create heat for propulsion and a local gravity field for levitation, using > > electricity derived from the air by using the appropriate crystals (like in > > a crystal radio). > > > > Look for the number 5 : > > Platonic solids > > Lattices (5dimensional crystals are not allowed) > > > > Related topics : > > Quantum converter (vogel crystal, based on zefiroth) > > Unified field & weak force > > Fifth dimension of good/evil > > Not sure what to make of this. But like I've posted else > where I was taught to not reject any ideas or leads, but to > shelve them until more information is handy. Where do you think "inspiration" come from ? Tunguska. On with Tesla, ebergy, magnetism and fields: http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm It was a Pierce Arrow, one of the luxury cars of the period. The engine had been removed, leaving the clutch, gearbox and transmission to the rear wheels undisturbed. The gasoline engine had been replaced with a round, completely enclosed electric motor of approximately 1 meter in length and 65 cm in diameter, with a cooling fan in front. Reputedly, it had no distributor. Tesla was not willing to say who had manufactured the engine. It was possibly one of the divisions of Westinghouse. The "energy receiver" (gravitational energy converter) had been built by Nikola Tesla himself. The dimensions of the converter housing were approximately 60 X 25 X 15 cm. It was installed in front of the dashboard. Among other things, the converter contained 12 vacuum tubes, of which three were of the 70-L-7 type. A heavy antenna, approximately 1.8 meters long, came out of the converter. This antenna apparently had the same function as that on the Moray converter (see below). Furthermore, two thick rods protruded approximately 10 cm from the converter housing. Tesla pushed them in, saying "Now we have power." the motor achieved a maximum of 1,800 rpm. Tesla said it was fairly hot when operating, and therefore a cooling fan was required. For the rest, he said there was enough power in the converter to illuminate an entire house, besides running the car engine. The car was tested for a week, reaching a top speed of 90 miles per hour effortlessly. Its performance data were at least comparable to those of an automobile using gasoline. At a stop sign, a passerby remarked that there were no exhaust gases coming from the exhaust pipe. Petar answered "We have no motor." ============================ http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/new/hudson.htm These arrangements, only possible with mono-atoms, are found uniquely in the transition group elements, which can remain stable and naturally in the monoatomic state. Mono-atoms of other elements, are unable to remain stable in the monoatomic state because they do not have "soft", and superdeformed nuclei, nor can they enter then, into the high spin state. Therefore, since there is not sufficient repulsion between atoms, they naturally aggregate and can only interact with each other in the three dimensions of the metal-metal bonded states, and will eventually grow into the cubic cluster size of thirty-three atoms or more. (See special case of copper below.) When many single atoms are proximate to each other in the monoatomic state, the screening potentials of each atom will now respond to an external applied magnetic field by joining and producing a phenomenon which allows the formation of a special magnetic field called a "Meisner field". This field has been observed in atoms of metals by researchers at two and three degrees Kelvin, i.e., at extremely cold temperatures, but these atoms will always return to a normal metallic state once the temperature is raised. Until Hudson's work, the Meisner field has never been seen in atoms at room temperatures. It has been extremely expensive to produce these atoms in this superconductive state with existing technology, and therefore not commercially viable. (This phenomena can be utilized to levitate vehicles capable of transporting humans or heavy loads with a minimum of energy. This phenomenon accounts for rapid train systems world wide, but their energy savings in propelling the vehicle are offset by the refrigeration costs of cooling their superconductors.) The Meisner field is a special magnetic field , that is unique. It has no North or South polarity. The magnitude of the Meisner field is determined by the amount of initially applied external magnetic field to the superconductor. Once activated, it acts as a protective barrier and resists any further entry of applied magnetic field into the sample. (When a sample absorbs a magnetic field, it can react paramagnetically, i.e., it will assume the identical magnetic qualities, or it can react ferromagnetically, i.e. it will orient itself to the magnetic field and return to its former state once the magnetic field is removed. With the Meisner field, the sample becomes perfectly diamagnetic, i.e., it will expel all magnetic fields. Magnetic fields, no longer absorbed, are forced to go around the sample, and the sample will be unaffected and keep its unique superconductive qualities.) ================== .... This effect is believed by Andre Sacharov, Harold Putoff and others to be caused by a universal energy , called Zero Point Vacuum Energy ( Super Light, Ether, Tachyons). It is the natural free energy of the vacuum which is the stimulus, which acts as a natural applied external magnetic field, and makes it possible for these, and only these, natural perfect superconductors to respond as they do. Indeed, these pure single element superconductors are extremely sensitive to external magnetic fields, and can respond to those of extremely low potential. A single element superconductor can respond to a magnetic field of 2 times 10 to the minus 15th (2-15) power ergs. (That is .0000000000000002 of 1 erg!) The earth's magnetic field is approximately 0.78 gauss. There are 10 to the 18th power (1018) ergs in a gauss. Therefore, these perfect superconductors will respond dramatically to the earth's magnetic field, as well as to fields surrounding the human body. (This is important to understand to explain their role in biological processes.) We now have individual atoms running in perfect unison with each other producing a quantal wave upon which energy can flow as long as the atom can derive its energy from the vacuum. Therefore, it is no longer necessary for a manmade system to keep the flow alive, i.e., in a superconductive state. ====================== Vogel built a crystal based on the structure of the Sefiroths, the Tree of Life, it's specifc crystal shape and structure does seem to be able to channel a small amount of 'chi'. http://www.vogelcrystals.com/quantumconverter.htm Through intuitively guided efforts, an instrument of quartz crystal was created with which experimental results could be replicated. The faceted crystal has the ability to cohere energy, unlike its unfaceted predecessor. These crystals can be duplicated precisely so that multiple crystals can be tested. Each crystal must, however, meet the exacting specifications. A simple physical copy of a Vogel-cutT crystal does not necessarily meet the required standards. This can be determined through the use of the Omega 5, a psychotronic instrument used for measuring extremely subtle energies. Many people have found themselves in possession of an imitation of a Vogel-cutT crystal and wondered why it doesn't function as expected. Although similar in appearance, it is not at all the same precision instrument. Beyond this, the most profound effect of the faceted crystal has to do with its relationship and resonance to water. A crystal that is faceted and tuned to the water molecule will hold a charge or information that when transferred to the body of person will link to the H2O molecule. This charge is stored within the interlattice space of the crystal. Because more than 75% of the physical body is water, the VogelT crystal, with its resonance with water, is the perfect delivery mechanism for the introduction of subtle energies to an individual. It was also thought that the various subtle energy bodies described in metaphysical literature are gradations of a field that is anchored to the physical body via the water molecule. The crystal is a quantum converter that is able to store and transmit energy in a form that has discreet biological effects. Our speculation is that because of the cohering capability of the Vogel-cutT crystal it can used to affect "reality" at the quantum or subatomic level. The imprint of thoughtforms or coding is stored on and within the particles or wave packets at the quantum level. This is most likely a resonant effect. The human body, on an energetic level, is an array of oscillating points that are layered and have a definite symmetry and structure at both the macro and micro dimensions =================== http://euch3i.chem.emory.edu/proposal/1e_new_system.htm ... In a similar way one can use 2D-Penrose Tilings to approximate a decagonal quasicrystal, which in a simple case consists of two layers with local 5-fold symmetry, which are rotated by 18 degrees so that the projection along the rotation axis gives a 10-fold symmetry. As stated above it is also possible to derive the vertices of such tilings using the nD-space approach (n>3). In this case we can obtain such a tiling by a projection of a nD periodic lattice (eg. hypercubic lattice). ======================== The announcement of 'a metallic phase with long-range orientational order and no translational symmetry' (Schechtman, 1984) may not seem like the kind of news that makes headlines, but it did in November of 1984. The reason being that for the first time there was direct evidence (in the form of a clear diffraction pattern) that five-fold rotational symmetry was present in an ordered solid state material. This observation is significant because it questions the definition of what a crystal is according to our current academic methods.... Five-fold rotation is forbidden for the same reasons that you cannot tile a plane with regular pentagons. They leave spaces or holes and cannot be arranged in a regular pattern. ======================= single grains of quasicrystals: (a) an Aluminum - Copper - Iron alloy which crystallizes in the shape of a dodecahedron. Its symmetry is the same as that of the icosahedron, with 20 faces of equilateral triangles. ======================= The IUCr commission on Aperiodic Crystals proposed a new definition in 1992: A crystal is any solid with an essentially discrete diffraction diagram.The symmetry of a crystal is implied by its diffraction image. Potential new mechanisms for space group organization Theorem 1.3 from Delone (Senechal): If the configuration of points about each point of an (r,R) system which lie within a sphere of radius Mn are congruent, then the system is regular. This allows us to use either a single lattice or the union of a finite number of translationally related lattices. If this general definition of a point set were adopted as a mathematical root, the classical and nonclassical crystals could be related. Alternatively, the derivation of the Bravais lattices can be restructured to include the icosahedral point group. Then the space groups can be derived again. =============== According to AL Mackay, there are four ways to include five fold symmetry in the crystallographic definition: 1. Hierarchy By systematically filling the gaps left in a pentagonal tessellation, we can create non periodic order. Penrose Tiling is an example of this. 2. Curved Space Reducing the coordination number from 6 to less than 6, Fuller was able to create the Gaussian curvature of his domes while retaining icosaheral symmetry. 3. Higher Dimensions N-dimensional crystallography has become highly developed over the last 10 years. It is typically visualized as projections on a plane. Quasi crystals "can be represented as three-dimensional shadows of higher-dimensional lattice structures" (p 10 Hargittai). Icoahedral Quasicrystals are periodic in 6 dimensions. 4. Abandonment of Atomicity Fractal structures with five fold axes everywhere require that atoms of finite size be abandoned. This is not a rational assumption to the crystallographers of the world, but the mathematicians are free to explore it. ===================== Plato originally proposed that the five perfect solids, when disaccociated and regrouped, would form the building blocks of all matter. There is still some truth to this, but his organization found little practical use as the centuries went by: Tetrahedron : Fire Octahedron : Air Cube : Earth Icosahedron : Water Dodecahedron : The Universe In the pentagram, the 'universe' is named 'spirit'. Spirit, unifying field, source. "Smells like teen spirit" =================== Iron, copper, mercury and lead. Lead being a radiation hull. Iron very receptive to magnetic fields, copper being a very strong conductor, and mercury, well, let's say mercury is a very explosive substance, which, when properly controlled and balanced can generate an enormous throughput of 'chi', by using the air as a medium between the earth energy (the base chakra) and the celestial energy (the top chakra), effectively erecting the snake through the copper (king cobra :), creating it's own center of gravity and using the magnetic property of iron to navigate using earth's magnetic fields. The heat can be vented much like ajet engine, adding jet propulsion to the whole system. The mentioning of a 'light' material could point to the usage of Aluminium as a base alloy to create the planes themselves, in which case I gladly refer to te usage of the abovementioned dodecahedron quasicrystal: Aluminum - Copper - Iron. ======================== Sourced from NEN, Vol. 4, No. 8, December 1996, pp. 1-7, this article presents an in-depth review of the more recent scientific controversy surrounding aether theory. This narration surrounds discussion of the history of the development of the Adams Motor and the Adams-Aspden Patent, one of the more renown Over-Unity devices. The author - Dr. Harold Aspden (See Article 38 below), has also published a book entitled Aetheric Science Papers, and the following extract might serve as an introduction to this new area of research: "If the aether delivers energy on loan to you and you use it to run the motor as the poles come together but refuse to give it back, then the aether has to replenish itself by taking power from its own vast pool of energy activity. It merely ripples to find a new level of equilibrium just as the sea will recover if you take a bucket of water from it. Eventually, that energy borrowed finds its way back to the aether as we spend it by generating heat radiation." Mercuric Sulfate (Mercury bisulfate) Use: Filling for galvanic batteries; with NaCl for extracting gold and silver from roasted pyrites; as a reagent for wine coloring, barbital, and cystine. Mercuric Thiocyanate (Mercuric sulfocyanate or sulfocyanide) Use: For ; intensifier in photography. Mercurous Chloride Use: Dark-green Bengal lights; calomel paper; mixed with gold in painting on porcelain; for calomel electrodes. Mercurous Sulfate Use: For making electric batteries; with zinc sulfate in the Clark standard cell and with cadmium sulfate in the standard Weston cell. ========= Mercury is added at even higher levels to marine paint for ships. The object here is to keep barnacles off the hull. The solvents used in these paints continues to "out-gas" for many months, and are very good at carrying mercury into the body via the respiratory tract. (Philadelphia side effect) ============== http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html Article 10 - The Farce of Physics ... Bryan G. Wallace The following is a very short extract from one of the many chapters in this reference: "The translation of Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper [57 p.37] presented the argument that one could explain many electromagnetic actions by fundamental assumptions based on two postulates and that the "introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous", and his paper made no direct reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment or the work of Poincar� and Lorentz. On page 313 of Pais' book we learn that in 1920, after Einstein had become famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address he states: The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events. So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory. On page 467 we find that near the end of his life, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954: I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics. ======================== Article 11 - Aether Theory ... Frank Meno "As an alternative to the current unsatisfactory situation in physics and philosophy, I am proposing a new model of the aether to describe the physical reality. (Yes, aether, but this one is Lorentz invariant, and therefore the Michelson-Morley experiment does not invalidate its existence.) In this model the known extent of the physical universe is filled with the aether, which is a highly compressed very hot gas. The particles that make up this gas are called gyrons because the necessary physical properties of the aether emerge from the gyroscopic behavior of these fundamental particles that have a special identical oblong form. The length of each gyron is assumed to correspond to the Planck length which is 1.616 X 10(-35) meter. Thus, for example, the proton, with a size on the order of 10(-15) m, which is considered to be a rotational dynamic state in the aether, is of galactic proportion relative to the gyron. Thus, such entities as the electron and proton, that are currently termed "fundamental particles", are viewed as particular rotational flows (vortices) involving large numbers of gyrons. Due to the special shape of the gyrons, the aether, as a fluid, has very complicated properties that account for all such phenomena as charge, magnetism, spin, gravitation, and neutrinos. Photons and DeBroglie waves in turn correspond to spin and compressional waves in this fluid. - Frank Meno. ====================== Article 20 - Quantum fluctuations of empty space ... Stochastic Electrodynamics - Dr Harold Puthoff & others The following article provides an introduction to the work of Puthoff and others in relation to what is termed, in quantum physics, the zero point field or ZPF. It is interesting to note that the word "aether" is not mentioned in any of these works, but that the quantum physics term "zero point field" might easily be a general substitute for the concept in this context. These papers reference a branch of physics termed Stochastic Electrodynamics (or SED). A second ZPF article, originally published in THE SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 6, November / December 1994, pp. 26-31, and authored by Bernhard Haisch, Alfonso Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, provides a first glimpse of a postmodern physics, in which mass, inertia and gravity arise from underlying electromagnetic processes: "Our work suggests inertia is a property arising out of the vast, all-pervasive electromagnetic field we mentioned earlier, which is called the zero-point field (ZPF). The name comes from the fact that the field is held to exist in a vacuum-what is commonly thought of as "empty" space-even at the temperature of absolute zero, at which all thermal radiation is absent. The background energy of the vacuum serves as the reference, or zero point, for all processes. To understand how the ZPF might give rise to inertia, one must understand something about the nature of the field itself. Theoretical considerations indicate that the ZPF should be a background sea of electromagnetic radiation that is both uniform and isotropic (the same in all directions). Another article by Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda, entitled The Quantum Broom Sweeps Clean, originally published in MERCURY, Vol. 25, No. 2, March / April 1996, pp. 12-15, deals with further research and theoretical considerations of the nature of the ZPF. Again, although the term aether is not locatable within the text, the concept of this Ocean of Energy is really in complete harmony with the metaphysical considerations of the aether. In this further article we read: The second theory is our proposed mechanism for inertia. Einstein's principle of equivalence tells us that inertial and gravitational mass are the same. If gravitation is electromagnetic, inertia must be, too. This implies a complete rethinking of what matter really is. The zero-point field is completely uniform for observers in uniform motion. But it is asymmetric for observers in accelerated motion. In 1994, we and Puthoff examined a phenomenon no one had thought to investigate before: how the magnetic component of the zero-point field interacts with matter during acceleration. The result was surprising, to say the least. The magnetic Lorentz force opposed acceleration with a strength that varied in direct proportion to the magnitude of the acceleration (see figure). It looked like a derivation of Newton's second law, F=ma, heretofore considered an underivable postulate." One final article, entitled Inertia theory - Magic roundabout, and authored by Paul Davies, on the meaning of Mach's principle, provides further commentary concerning the emergence of theory about the Zero Point Field, and its relationship to the common day experience of inertia: Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc above your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force seems to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still unsure about where this force comes from. =========== Alan Pendleton presents an evolving compendium of issues surrounding the questionability of SR (Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity) which include some extremely interesting information, observations, commentary and analysis from many different sources. Perhaps one of the most interesting articles is entitled "The 20th century Michelson-Morley" in which the 1979 experiment of Brillet and Hall is examined with a critical eye by a number of parties. The following snippets appear from the 20th century Michelson-Morley page: "They also found a frequency shift of 17 Hz at twice the table rotation rate, which they could not explain, dependent on direction of the interferometer with respect to the lab. It is this effect which is predicted by an entrained ether theory. Brillet and Hall called it a "persistent spurious signal." And extracted from the work of Aspden (1981): "Interpreting the 17 Hz signal at the second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in relation to the laser frequency 8.85 x 10^13 Hz we find the ratio 1.92 x 10^-13 and, as this is 0.131(v/c)^2, we find that v/c is 1.21 x 10^-6, giving v as 363 m/s. If our theory is correct then, within the errors of measurement, this should be the west-east speed of earth rotation at Boulder, Colorado. Being at 40 N, Boulder has, in fact, an earth rotation speed of 355 m/s." =================
> > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs a power > > source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into static > > electricity) > > > > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you > discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no > difference. So what you are saying is, put a power supply onto the ship, plug it into the Van De Graaf generator, and then discharge the Van De Graff generator into the levitating device? Basically you are turning normal electricity into static electricity, and then turning it right back into normal electricity again - why not just use the electricity from the power supply plugged straight into the levitating device? > Or is that science says that electricity is the > flow of electrons , but static electricity is not? Static > electricity has other oddities to it that don't make much > sense yet to a lot of people.
"GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:3CA...@cumulus.com... > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > > news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > > > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > > > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > >>They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > > > > > >> > > > > > >>Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of > > what > > > > > >>makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative > > to > > > > > >>positive poles or the other way around? > > > > > >> > > > > > >>They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity > > for > > > > > >>over a hundred years now. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Electricity happens when electrons travel from the negative terminal > > to > > > > the > > > > > > positive terminal. Millions of people know that for certain; I think > > > > you're > > > > > > a little behind. > > > > > > > > > > > > The fact that we haven't seen electricity means that we can't use > > it. We > > > > > > haven't seen covalent chemical bonding happen, yet we use it all the > > > > time! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This has NEVER been proven. Thanks for playing. > > > > > > > > It's been proven BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. > > > > > > URL please. > > > > A Van de Graaf generator doesn't work backwards - that a least proves that > > electricity is negative particles going from the negative terminal to the > > positive terminal. > > > > Or it could represent a large deficit of electrons as well > and turns the idea around 180. Um... not really. -- Robert
gummy <gy...@um.muy> spake thus: news:MPG...@news.alt.net: > In article <rLXn8.1151$sO2...@news.xtra.co.nz>, > rob...@dse.gen.nz says... >> > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? >> > > >> > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs >> > > a power source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity >> > > into static electricity) >> > > >> > >> > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you >> > discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no >> > difference. >> >> So what you are saying is, put a power supply onto the ship, plug it >> into the Van De Graaf generator, and then discharge the Van De Graff >> generator into the levitating device? Basically you are turning >> normal electricity into static electricity, and then turning it right >> back into normal electricity again - why not just use the electricity >> from the power supply plugged straight into the levitating device? > > Hey, Bob, why don't you stuff your power supplies, Van De Graaf > generators, and all the other crap strewn about your little hobby shop > as far up your rectum as it will go? Then maybe you'll have something > to do besides bore Usenet with crap that maybe two people on the > planet give a shit about. > Ahhh, such subtlety from friend Gummy, Bob. He is suggesting you remove alt.flame.jesus.christ from the header. I concur with my colleague. -- Rev Phylter ULC Ordained minister Denizen of Darkness #44 AFJC Antipodean Attach� http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html Pray. To ask the laws of the universe to be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy. Ambrose Bierce (1842-1914)
In article <rLXn8.1151$sO2...@news.xtra.co.nz>, rob...@dse.gen.nz says... > > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > > > > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs a power > > > source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into static > > > electricity) > > > > > > > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you > > discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no > > difference. > > So what you are saying is, put a power supply onto the ship, plug it into > the Van De Graaf generator, and then discharge the Van De Graff generator > into the levitating device? Basically you are turning normal electricity > into static electricity, and then turning it right back into normal > electricity again - why not just use the electricity from the power supply > plugged straight into the levitating device? Hey, Bob, why don't you stuff your power supplies, Van De Graaf generators, and all the other crap strewn about your little hobby shop as far up your rectum as it will go? Then maybe you'll have something to do besides bore Usenet with crap that maybe two people on the planet give a shit about.
"Rev. Juust E.S. Out" wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:3C9...@cumulus.com... > > "Rev. Juust E.S. Out" wrote: > > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator??> > > > Shall we make floating planes, MachineGhost ? > > > > > > If I remember correctly, Nicola Tesla was also an occult student, and > had > > > access to the Rig Veda. > > > > I have not heard of this part about Tesla. > > Well, have fun then, and don't lose your head. (I tried not to mention > Philadelphia, it's like mentioning Hitler in a discussion :) > > Tesla, mercury, crystals, unified field, the occult. > > http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html > Nikola Tesla used ancient Sanskrit terminology in his descriptions of > natural phenomena. As early as 1891 Tesla described the universe as a > kinetic system filled with energy which could be harnessed at any location. > His concepts during the following years were greatly influenced by the > teachings of Swami Vivekananda. Swami Vivekananda was the first of a > succession of eastern yogi's who brought Vedic philosophy and religion to > the west. After meeting the Swami and after continued study of the Eastern > view of the mechanisms driving the material world, Tesla began using the > Sanskrit words Akasha, Prana, and the concept of a luminiferous ether > > [note : Einstein used the same terms in his Leyden speech ] > > to describe the source, existence and construction of matter. This paper > will trace the development of Tesla's understanding of Vedic Science, his > correspondence with Lord Kelvin concerning these matters, and the relation > between Tesla and Walter Russell and other turn of the century scientists > concerning advanced understanding of physics. Finally, after being obscured > for many years, the author will give a description of what he believes is > the the pre-requisite for the free energy systems envisioned by Tesla. > > "There manifests itself in the fully developed being , Man, a desire > mysterious, inscrutable and irresistible: to imitate nature, to create, to > work himself the wonders he perceives.... Long ago he recognized that all > perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond > conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is > acted upon by the life giving Prana or creative force, calling into > existence, in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary > substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes > gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, > reverting to the primary substance." - Nikola Tesla, 1907 > ============ > > http://www.atlantisrising.com/issue10/ar10ancientavi.html > In the Manusa, the most elaborate details for building aerial machines are > set down. The Samarangana Sutradhara says that they were made of light > material, with a strong, well-shaped body. Iron, copper, mercury and lead > were used in their construction. They could fly to great distances and were > propelled through air by motors. The Samarangana Sutradhara text devotes 230 > stanzas to the building of these machines, and their uses in peace and war. > In this book are described in 8 pregnant and captivating chapters, the arts > of manufacturing various types of Aeroplanes of smooth and comfortable > travel in the sky, as a unifying force for the Universe, contributive to the > well-being of mankind. > > That which can go by its own force, like a bird, on earth, or water, or air, > is called Vimana.' That which can travel in the sky, from place to place, > land to land, or globe to globe, is called Vimana by scientists in > Aeronautics. The ancient manuscript claims to give: > > The secret of constructing aeroplanes, which will not break, which cannot be > cut, will not catch fire, and cannot be destroyed. > The secret of making planes motionless. > The secret of making planes invisible. > The secret of hearing conversations and other sounds in enemy planes. > The secret of receiving photographs of the interior of enemy planes. > The secret of ascertaining the direction of enemy planes approach. > The secret of making persons in enemy planes lose consciousness. > The secret of destroying enemy planes. > The India of 15,000 years ago is sometimes known as the Rama Empire, a land > that was contemporary with Atlantis. A huge wealth of texts still extant in > India testify to the extremely advanced civilization that is said by these > texts to go back over 26,000 years. Terrible wars and subsequent earth > changes destroyed these civilizations, leaving only isolated pockets of > civilization. > ======================== > Tesla and Mercury. > > http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae324.cfm > Mercury (atomic symbol Hg) is a liquid at room temperature. Finding large > pools of the element is for all purposes impossible, and finding it in its > native state is also fairly rare. The mineraloid is usually found in the ore > cinnabar (HgS) where it must go through a heating and condensing process to > be obtained. Mercury may also occasionally be found with Silver. > > Globally, mercury is most commonly "produced" in Spain, particularly from > the Almaden mine which is known for its high quality mercury. It may also be > obtained from Yugoslavia, the United States (mainly California), and Italy. > ============== > Mercury :Lunatics > > There are about 1,501,430,636,558,496,585,414 atoms in 0.5 grams of mercury. > Each and every atom of mercury is able to disable an enzyme or other > critical protein in your body. Over ten years, if the body fails to remove > this mercury, a lot of damage can be done. Unfortunately, mercury has ways > of "hiding in the body" and can be quite hard to remove. > This 0.5 grams of mercury can produce a potential loss of > 4,324,120,233,288,470,165,993,719,156,572 chemical reactions in your body. > (Based on our lab example / over 10 years) 0.5 gram in a 180 lb. body > produces a concentration of 6.168 PPM. > > Psychiatric Disturbances > > Social deficits, shyness, social withdrawal (1,2,130,131; 21,31,45,53,132 > Repetitive, preservative, stereotypic behaviors; obsessive-compulsive > tendencies (1,2,43,48,133; 20,33-35,132) > Depression/depressive traits, mood swings, flat affect; impaired face > recognition (14,15,17,103, 134,135; 19,21,24,26,31) > Anxiety; schizoid tendencies; irrational fears (2,15,16; 21,27,29,31) > Irritability, aggression, temper tantrums (12,13,43; 18,21,22,25) > Lacks eye contact; impaired visual fixation (HgP)/ problems in joint > attention (ASD) (3,36,136,137; 18,19,34) > =============== > > Tesla was known for always dressing impeccably, and being quite solitaire. A > hermit of sorts. Always wore a hat, hatmakers were known sufferers from > mercury poisoning due to the use of buttons and application of mercury in > hats. Possibly Tesla has been suffering from mercury poisoning, much like > many people who have mercery amalgmate fillings in their mouth (which > sometimes produces 'voices' in the head, much like our Good Friend Dore > seems to be suffering from :) > > > > His research was confiscated and destroyed when he died, I believe. > > > > > > > That much is true, especially in Serbia after WWII. > > > > > Hint : > > > 230 crystal forms, 231 kaballah paths, 230 stanza's in the Rig Veda > dealing > > > with the creation of a floating air vessel, using lead, copper, iron and > > > mercury. > > > > > > The usage of lead indicates radiation. Copper is used as a > conductor/coil > > > ( the snake). The usage of Iron is also mentioned in the bible and in > the > > > Qur'an, possibily for it's magnetic properties. > > > > > > Mercury, with it's rather volatile nature and connection with air > > > (ionization ?), is specifically mentioned as a source of enormous power. > You > > > may want to check the effect of applying a magnetic field on mercury to > > > create heat for propulsion and a local gravity field for levitation, > using > > > electricity derived from the air by using the appropriate crystals (like > in > > > a crystal radio). > > > > > > Look for the number 5 : > > > Platonic solids > > > Lattices (5dimensional crystals are not allowed) > > > > > > Related topics : > > > Quantum converter (vogel crystal, based on zefiroth) > > > Unified field & weak force > > > Fifth dimension of good/evil > > > > Not sure what to make of this. But like I've posted else > > where I was taught to not reject any ideas or leads, but to > > shelve them until more information is handy. > > Where do you think "inspiration" come from ? Tunguska. > > On with Tesla, ebergy, magnetism and fields: > > http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/new/tesla.htm > It was a Pierce Arrow, one of the luxury cars of the period. The engine had > been removed, leaving the clutch, gearbox and transmission to the rear > wheels undisturbed. The gasoline engine had been replaced with a round, > completely enclosed electric motor of approximately 1 meter in length and 65 > cm in diameter, with a cooling fan in front. Reputedly, it had no > distributor. Tesla was not willing to say who had manufactured the engine. > It was possibly one of the divisions of Westinghouse. > > The "energy receiver" (gravitational energy converter) had been built by > Nikola Tesla himself. The dimensions of the converter housing were > approximately 60 X 25 X 15 cm. It was installed in front of the dashboard. > Among other things, the converter contained 12 vacuum tubes, of which three > were of the 70-L-7 type. A heavy antenna, approximately 1.8 meters long, > came out of the converter. This antenna apparently had the same function as > that on the Moray converter (see below). Furthermore, two thick rods > protruded approximately 10 cm from the converter housing. Tesla pushed them > in, saying "Now we have power." the motor achieved a maximum of 1,800 rpm. > Tesla said it was fairly hot when operating, and therefore a cooling fan was > required. For the rest, he said there was enough power in the converter to > illuminate an entire house, besides running the car engine. The car was > tested for a week, reaching a top speed of 90 miles per hour effortlessly. > Its performance data were at least comparable to those of an automobile > using gasoline. At a stop sign, a passerby remarked that there were no > exhaust gases coming from the exhaust pipe. Petar answered "We have no > motor." > > ============================ > http://www.luminet.net/~wenonah/new/hudson.htm > > These arrangements, only possible with mono-atoms, are found uniquely in the > transition group elements, which can remain stable and naturally in the > monoatomic state. Mono-atoms of other elements, are unable to remain stable > in the monoatomic state because they do not have "soft", and superdeformed > nuclei, nor can they enter then, into the high spin state. Therefore, since > there is not sufficient repulsion between atoms, they naturally aggregate > and can only interact with each other in the three dimensions of the > metal-metal bonded states, and will eventually grow into the cubic cluster > size of thirty-three atoms or more. (See special case of copper below.) > > When many single atoms are proximate to each other in the monoatomic state, > the screening potentials of each atom will now respond to an external > applied magnetic field by joining and producing a phenomenon which allows > the formation of a special magnetic field called a "Meisner field". This > field has been observed in atoms of metals by researchers at two and three > degrees Kelvin, i.e., at extremely cold temperatures, but these atoms will > always return to a normal metallic state once the temperature is raised. > Until Hudson's work, the Meisner field has never been seen in atoms at room > temperatures. It has been extremely expensive to produce these atoms in this > superconductive state with existing technology, and therefore not > commercially viable. (This phenomena can be utilized to levitate vehicles > capable of transporting humans or heavy loads with a minimum of energy. This > phenomenon accounts for rapid train systems world wide, but their energy > savings in propelling the vehicle are offset by the refrigeration costs of > cooling their superconductors.) > > The Meisner field is a special magnetic field , that is unique. It has no > North or South polarity. The magnitude of the Meisner field is determined by > the amount of initially applied external magnetic field to the > superconductor. Once activated, it acts as a protective barrier and resists > any further entry of applied magnetic field into the sample. (When a sample > absorbs a magnetic field, it can react paramagnetically, i.e., it will > assume the identical magnetic qualities, or it can react ferromagnetically, > i.e. it will orient itself to the magnetic field and return to its former > state once the magnetic field is removed. With the Meisner field, the sample > becomes perfectly diamagnetic, i.e., it will expel all magnetic fields. > Magnetic fields, no longer absorbed, are forced to go around the sample, and > the sample will be unaffected and keep its unique superconductive > qualities.) > > ================== > .... > This effect is believed by Andre Sacharov, Harold Putoff and others to be > caused by a universal energy , called Zero Point Vacuum Energy ( Super > Light, Ether, Tachyons). It is the natural free energy of the vacuum which > is the stimulus, which acts as a natural applied external magnetic field, > and makes it possible for these, and only these, natural perfect > superconductors to respond as they do. > > Indeed, these pure single element superconductors are extremely sensitive to > external magnetic fields, and can respond to those of extremely low > potential. A single element superconductor can respond to a magnetic field > of 2 times 10 to the minus 15th (2-15) power ergs. (That is > .0000000000000002 of 1 erg!) The earth's magnetic field is approximately > 0.78 gauss. There are 10 to the 18th power (1018) ergs in a gauss. > Therefore, these perfect superconductors will respond dramatically to the > earth's magnetic field, as well as to fields surrounding the human body. > (This is important to understand to explain their role in biological > processes.) > > We now have individual atoms running in perfect unison with each other > producing a quantal wave upon which energy can flow as long as the atom can > derive its energy from the vacuum. Therefore, it is no longer necessary for > a manmade system to keep the flow alive, i.e., in a superconductive state. > > ====================== > > Vogel built a crystal based on the structure of the Sefiroths, the Tree of > Life, it's specifc crystal shape and structure does seem to be able to > channel a small amount of 'chi'. > > http://www.vogelcrystals.com/quantumconverter.htm > > Through intuitively guided efforts, an instrument of quartz crystal was > created with which experimental results could be replicated. The faceted > crystal has the ability to cohere energy, unlike its unfaceted predecessor. > These crystals can be duplicated precisely so that multiple crystals can be > tested. Each crystal must, however, meet the exacting specifications. A > simple physical copy of a Vogel-cutT crystal does not necessarily meet the > required standards. This can be determined through the use of the Omega 5, a > psychotronic instrument used for measuring extremely subtle energies. Many > people have found themselves in possession of an imitation of a Vogel-cutT > crystal and wondered why it doesn't function as expected. Although similar > in appearance, it is not at all the same precision instrument. > > Beyond this, the most profound effect of the faceted crystal has to do with > its relationship and resonance to water. A crystal that is faceted and tuned > to the water molecule will hold a charge or information that when > transferred to the body of person will link to the H2O molecule. This charge > is stored within the interlattice space of the crystal. Because more than > 75% of the physical body is water, the VogelT crystal, with its resonance > with water, is the perfect delivery mechanism for the introduction of subtle > energies to an individual. It was also thought that the various subtle > energy bodies described in metaphysical literature are gradations of a field > that is anchored to the physical body via the water molecule. > > The crystal is a quantum converter that is able to store and transmit > energy in a form that has discreet biological effects. Our speculation is > that because of the cohering capability of the Vogel-cutT crystal it can > used to affect "reality" at the quantum or subatomic level. The imprint of > thoughtforms or coding is stored on and within the particles or wave packets > at the quantum level. This is most likely a resonant effect. The human body, > on an energetic level, is an array of oscillating points that are layered > and have a definite symmetry and structure at both the macro and micro > dimensions > =================== > http://euch3i.chem.emory.edu/proposal/1e_new_system.htm > > ... In a similar way one can use 2D-Penrose Tilings to approximate a > decagonal quasicrystal, which in a simple case consists of two layers with > local 5-fold symmetry, which are rotated by 18 degrees so that the > projection along the rotation axis gives a 10-fold symmetry. As stated above > it is also possible to derive the vertices of such tilings using the > nD-space approach (n>3). In this case we can obtain such a tiling by a > projection of a nD periodic lattice (eg. hypercubic lattice). > ======================== > The announcement of 'a metallic phase with long-range orientational order > and no translational symmetry' (Schechtman, 1984) may not seem like the kind > of news that makes headlines, but it did in November of 1984. The reason > being that for the first time there was direct evidence (in the form of a > clear diffraction pattern) that five-fold rotational symmetry was present in > an ordered solid state material. This observation is significant because it > questions the definition of what a crystal is according to our current > academic methods.... > Five-fold rotation is forbidden for the same reasons that you cannot tile a > plane with regular pentagons. They leave spaces or holes and cannot be > arranged in a regular pattern. > > ======================= > single grains of quasicrystals: (a) an Aluminum - Copper - Iron alloy which > crystallizes in the shape of a dodecahedron. Its symmetry is the same as > that of the icosahedron, with 20 faces of equilateral triangles. > ======================= > The IUCr commission on Aperiodic Crystals proposed a new definition in 1992: > A crystal is any solid with an essentially discrete diffraction diagram.The > symmetry of a crystal is implied by its diffraction image. > > Potential new mechanisms for space group organization > Theorem 1.3 from Delone (Senechal): If the configuration of points about > each point of an (r,R) system which lie within a sphere of radius Mn are > congruent, then the system is regular. This allows us to use either a single > lattice or the union of a finite number of translationally related lattices. > If this general definition of a point set were adopted as a mathematical > root, the classical and nonclassical crystals could be related. > Alternatively, the derivation of the Bravais lattices can be restructured to > include the icosahedral point group. Then the space groups can be derived > again. > =============== > > According to AL Mackay, there are four ways to include five fold symmetry in > the crystallographic definition: > > 1. Hierarchy > By systematically filling the gaps left in a pentagonal tessellation, we > can create non periodic order. Penrose Tiling is an example of this. > > 2. Curved Space > Reducing the coordination number from 6 to less than 6, Fuller was able > to create the Gaussian curvature of his domes while retaining icosaheral > symmetry. > > 3. Higher Dimensions > N-dimensional crystallography has become highly developed over the last > 10 years. It is typically visualized as projections on a plane. Quasi > crystals "can be represented as three-dimensional shadows of > higher-dimensional lattice structures" (p 10 Hargittai). > Icoahedral Quasicrystals are periodic in 6 dimensions. > > 4. Abandonment of Atomicity > Fractal structures with five fold axes everywhere require that atoms of > finite size be abandoned. This is not a rational assumption to the > crystallographers of the world, but the mathematicians are free to explore > it. > ===================== > Plato originally proposed that the five perfect solids, when disaccociated > and regrouped, would form the building blocks of all matter. There is still > some truth to this, but his organization found little practical use as the > centuries went by: > > Tetrahedron : Fire > Octahedron : Air > Cube : Earth > Icosahedron : Water > Dodecahedron : The Universe > In the pentagram, the 'universe' is named 'spirit'. Spirit, unifying field, > source. "Smells like teen spirit" > > =================== > Iron, copper, mercury and lead. Lead being a radiation hull. Iron very > receptive to magnetic fields, copper being a very strong conductor, and > mercury, well, let's say mercury is a very explosive substance, which, when > properly controlled and balanced can generate an enormous throughput of > 'chi', by using the air as a medium between the earth energy (the base > chakra) and the celestial energy (the top chakra), effectively erecting the > snake through the copper (king cobra :), creating it's own center of gravity > and using the magnetic property of iron to navigate using earth's magnetic > fields. The heat can be vented much like ajet engine, adding jet propulsion > to the whole system. > > The mentioning of a 'light' material could point to the usage of Aluminium > as a base alloy to create the planes themselves, in which case I gladly > refer to te usage of the abovementioned dodecahedron quasicrystal: > Aluminum - Copper - Iron. > > ======================== > Sourced from NEN, Vol. 4, No. 8, December 1996, pp. 1-7, this article > presents an in-depth review of the more recent scientific controversy > surrounding aether theory. This narration surrounds discussion of the > history of the development of the Adams Motor and the Adams-Aspden Patent, > one of the more renown Over-Unity devices. The author - Dr. Harold Aspden > (See Article 38 below), has also published a book entitled Aetheric Science > Papers, and the following extract might serve as an introduction to this new > area of research: > > "If the aether delivers energy on loan to you and you use it to run the > motor as the poles come together but refuse to give it back, then the aether > has to replenish itself by taking power from its own vast pool of energy > activity. It merely ripples to find a new level of equilibrium just as the > sea will recover if you take a bucket of water from it. Eventually, that > energy borrowed finds its way back to the aether as we spend it by > generating heat radiation." > > Mercuric Sulfate (Mercury bisulfate) > Use: Filling for galvanic batteries; with NaCl for extracting gold and > silver from roasted pyrites; as a reagent for wine coloring, barbital, and > cystine. > > Mercuric Thiocyanate (Mercuric sulfocyanate or sulfocyanide) > Use: For ; intensifier in photography. > > Mercurous Chloride > Use: Dark-green Bengal lights; calomel paper; mixed with gold in painting on > porcelain; for calomel electrodes. > > Mercurous Sulfate > Use: For making electric batteries; with zinc sulfate in the Clark standard > cell and with cadmium sulfate in the standard Weston cell. > ========= > Mercury is added at even higher levels to marine paint for ships. The object > here is to keep barnacles off the hull. The solvents used in these paints > continues to "out-gas" for many months, and are very good at carrying > mercury into the body via the respiratory tract. > > (Philadelphia side effect) > ============== > > http://www.magna.com.au/~prfbrown/aether.html > > Article 10 - The Farce of Physics ... Bryan G. Wallace > > The following is a very short extract from one of the many chapters in this > reference: > > "The translation of Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper [57 p.37] > presented the argument that one could explain many electromagnetic actions > by fundamental assumptions based on two postulates and that the > "introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be superfluous", and > his paper made no direct reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment or the > work of Poincar� and Lorentz. On page 313 of Pais' book we learn that in > 1920, after Einstein had become famous, he made an inaugural address on > aether and relativity theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address > he states: > > The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without > mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and > electromagnetic events. > So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that > this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! > This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and > for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that > relativity is not an ether theory. On page 467 we find that near the end of > his life, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954: > > I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field > concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my > entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of > modern physics. > ======================== > Article 11 - Aether Theory ... Frank Meno > > "As an alternative to the current unsatisfactory situation in physics and > philosophy, I am proposing a new model of the aether to describe the > physical reality. (Yes, aether, but this one is Lorentz invariant, and > therefore the Michelson-Morley experiment does not invalidate its > existence.) > In this model the known extent of the physical universe is filled with the > aether, which is a highly compressed very hot gas. The particles that make > up this gas are called gyrons because the necessary physical properties of > the aether emerge from the gyroscopic behavior of these fundamental > particles that have a special identical oblong form. The length of each > gyron is assumed to correspond to the Planck length which is 1.616 X 10(-35) > meter. Thus, for example, the proton, with a size on the order of 10(-15) m, > which is considered to be a rotational dynamic state in the aether, is of > galactic proportion relative to the gyron. Thus, such entities as the > electron and proton, that are currently termed "fundamental particles", are > viewed as particular rotational flows (vortices) involving large numbers of > gyrons. > > Due to the special shape of the gyrons, the aether, as a fluid, has very > complicated properties that account for all such phenomena as charge, > magnetism, spin, gravitation, and neutrinos. Photons and DeBroglie waves in > turn correspond to spin and compressional waves in this fluid. - Frank Meno. > ====================== > Article 20 - Quantum fluctuations of empty space ... Stochastic > Electrodynamics - Dr Harold Puthoff & others > > The following article provides an introduction to the work of Puthoff and > others in relation to what is termed, in quantum physics, the zero point > field or ZPF. It is interesting to note that the word "aether" is not > mentioned in any of these works, but that the quantum physics term "zero > point field" might easily be a general substitute for the concept in this > context. These papers reference a branch of physics termed Stochastic > Electrodynamics (or SED). > A second ZPF article, originally published in THE SCIENCES, Vol. 34, No. 6, > November / December 1994, pp. 26-31, and authored by Bernhard Haisch, > Alfonso Rueda & H.E. Puthoff, provides a first glimpse of a postmodern > physics, in which mass, inertia and gravity arise from underlying > electromagnetic processes: > > "Our work suggests inertia is a property arising out of the vast, > all-pervasive electromagnetic field we mentioned earlier, which is called > the zero-point field (ZPF). The name comes from the fact that the field is > held to exist in a vacuum-what is commonly thought of as "empty" space-even > at the temperature of absolute zero, at which all thermal radiation is > absent. The background energy of the vacuum serves as the reference, or zero > point, for all processes. To understand how the ZPF might give rise to > inertia, one must understand something about the nature of the field itself. > Theoretical considerations indicate that the ZPF should be a background sea > of electromagnetic radiation that is both uniform and isotropic (the same in > all directions). > > Another article by Bernard Haisch and Alfonso Rueda, entitled The Quantum > Broom Sweeps Clean, originally published in MERCURY, Vol. 25, No. 2, March / > April 1996, pp. 12-15, deals with further research and theoretical > considerations of the nature of the ZPF. Again, although the term aether is > not locatable within the text, the concept of this Ocean of Energy is really > in complete harmony with the metaphysical considerations of the aether. In > this further article we read: > > The second theory is our proposed mechanism for inertia. Einstein's > principle of equivalence tells us that inertial and gravitational mass are > the same. If gravitation is electromagnetic, inertia must be, too. This > implies a complete rethinking of what matter really is. > The zero-point field is completely uniform for observers in uniform motion. > But it is asymmetric for observers in accelerated motion. In 1994, we and > Puthoff examined a phenomenon no one had thought to investigate before: how > the magnetic component of the zero-point field interacts with matter during > acceleration. The result was surprising, to say the least. The magnetic > Lorentz force opposed acceleration with a strength that varied in direct > proportion to the magnitude of the acceleration (see figure). It looked like > a derivation of Newton's second law, F=ma, heretofore considered an > underivable postulate." > > One final article, entitled Inertia theory - Magic roundabout, and authored > by Paul Davies, on the meaning of Mach's principle, provides further > commentary concerning the emergence of theory about the Zero Point Field, > and its relationship to the common day experience of inertia: > > Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc above > your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force seems > to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still unsure > about where this force comes from. > =========== > Alan Pendleton presents an evolving compendium of issues surrounding the > questionability of SR (Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity) which > include some extremely interesting information, observations, commentary and > analysis from many different sources. Perhaps one of the most interesting > articles is entitled "The 20th century Michelson-Morley" in which the 1979 > experiment of Brillet and Hall is examined with a critical eye by a number > of parties. The following snippets appear from the 20th century > Michelson-Morley page: > > "They also found a frequency shift of 17 Hz at twice the table rotation > rate, which they could not explain, dependent on direction of the > interferometer with respect to the lab. It is this effect which is predicted > by an entrained ether theory. Brillet and Hall called it a "persistent > spurious signal." > And extracted from the work of Aspden (1981): "Interpreting the 17 Hz signal > at the second harmonic of table rotation found by Brillet and Hall in > relation to the laser frequency 8.85 x 10^13 Hz we find the ratio 1.92 x > 10^-13 and, as this is 0.131(v/c)^2, we find that v/c is 1.21 x 10^-6, > giving v as 363 m/s. If our theory is correct then, within the errors of > measurement, this should be the west-east speed of earth rotation at > Boulder, Colorado. Being at 40 N, Boulder has, in fact, an earth rotation > speed of 355 m/s." > ================= I'll look into these urls. :-)
Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > > > > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs a power > > > source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into static > > > electricity) > > > > > > > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you > > discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no > > difference. > > So what you are saying is, put a power supply onto the ship, plug it into > the Van De Graaf generator, and then discharge the Van De Graff generator > into the levitating device? Basically you are turning normal electricity > into static electricity, and then turning it right back into normal > electricity again - why not just use the electricity from the power supply > plugged straight into the levitating device? > But where are we going to get a self contained power unit that can generate enough power to raise our unit up by its own bootstraps?? So far, current technology is either batteries or the newer nuclear powered batteries on some of our space probes. > > Or is that science says that electricity is the > > flow of electrons , but static electricity is not? Static > > electricity has other oddities to it that don't make much > > sense yet to a lot of people.
> Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc above > your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force seems > to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still unsure > about where this force comes from. It's called centrifugal force - unless I read the text wrongly. -- Robert
"GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:3CA...@cumulus.com... > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > > > > > > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs a power > > > > source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into static > > > > electricity) > > > > > > > > > > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you > > > discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no > > > difference. > > > > So what you are saying is, put a power supply onto the ship, plug it into > > the Van De Graaf generator, and then discharge the Van De Graff generator > > into the levitating device? Basically you are turning normal electricity > > into static electricity, and then turning it right back into normal > > electricity again - why not just use the electricity from the power supply > > plugged straight into the levitating device? > > > > But where are we going to get a self contained power unit > that can generate enough power to raise our unit up by its > own bootstraps?? > So far, current technology is either batteries or the newer > nuclear powered batteries on some of our space probes. I'm not saying that we can get a powersupply light and powerful enough, I'm just saying that a Van de Graaf generator is a complete waste of time for this... I agree with you - I've been saying that getting a sufficient power supply has been the major problem all the time! -- Robert
Rob Bowmaker wrote: >> Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc > above >> your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force >> seems to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still >> unsure about where this force comes from. > > It's called centrifugal force - unless I read the text wrongly. You read rightly, although it's not actually a force. The effects of inertia are often labelled the centrifugal force, but it's not a real force. (ie. The water isn't pushed up, it just doesn't fall fast enough to leave the bucket.) -- - Blaine http://www.bureau42.com ICQ: 24893016 XFW # 299792458, WM, SW, WNS, NRMTPB, FPSSG Koopa TROoPA #42
In article <MPG...@news.alt.net>, Gummy wrote: > In article <u_ao8.1374$sO2...@news.xtra.co.nz>, > rob...@dse.gen.nz says... >> > Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc >> above >> > your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force seems >> > to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still unsure >> > about where this force comes from. >> >> It's called centrifugal force - unless I read the text wrongly. > > What's the name of the force that compels you post this trivia to five > newsgroups filled mostly with people who give less than a shit? Whatever > it is, it clearly has nothing to do with intelligence, decency, or > courtesy. Ah, We get alot of BENT Microsoft systems administers in here who do this kind of shit all the time. Just pay em back by insisting you use the FREE, not in COURT, Linux OS at your place of business for all your servers. That will shut-em up. Thanks Charlie
W. Blaine Dowler wrote: > > Rob Bowmaker wrote: > > >> Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc > > above > >> your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force > >> seems to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still > >> unsure about where this force comes from. > > > > It's called centrifugal force - unless I read the text wrongly. > > You read rightly, although it's not actually a force. The effects of > inertia are often labelled the centrifugal force, but it's not a real > force. (ie. The water isn't pushed up, it just doesn't fall fast enough to > leave the bucket.) Conservation of angular momentum. The water wants to keep moving in a straight line. The bucket doesn't. The bucket wins.
Rob Bowmaker wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:3CA...@cumulus.com... > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > > > > > > > > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs a > power > > > > > source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into > static > > > > > electricity) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you > > > > discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no > > > > difference. > > > > > > So what you are saying is, put a power supply onto the ship, plug it > into > > > the Van De Graaf generator, and then discharge the Van De Graff > generator > > > into the levitating device? Basically you are turning normal electricity > > > into static electricity, and then turning it right back into normal > > > electricity again - why not just use the electricity from the power > supply > > > plugged straight into the levitating device? > > > > > > > But where are we going to get a self contained power unit > > that can generate enough power to raise our unit up by its > > own bootstraps?? > > So far, current technology is either batteries or the newer > > nuclear powered batteries on some of our space probes. > > I'm not saying that we can get a powersupply light and powerful enough, I'm > just saying that a Van de Graaf generator is a complete waste of time for > this... > > I agree with you - I've been saying that getting a sufficient power supply > has been the major problem all the time! It seems that Boeing has solved the problem, or Martin-Marietta. There is a rumour mind you going around about the Nautilus... a large triangular shaped craft that moves rather slowly and noisely. An awful lot of people in Seattle have seen it a few times. The best description I've heard of was it was flat black, had a large bubble turret underneath that was lit up and corner marker lights. This was even reported twice in our local papers up here, but for intents and purposes a big mystery. I find it interesting to look into, but as always I never get to see any of these things.
In article <u_ao8.1374$sO2...@news.xtra.co.nz>, rob...@dse.gen.nz says... > > Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc > above > > your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force seems > > to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still unsure > > about where this force comes from. > > It's called centrifugal force - unless I read the text wrongly. What's the name of the force that compels you post this trivia to five newsgroups filled mostly with people who give less than a shit? Whatever it is, it clearly has nothing to do with intelligence, decency, or courtesy.
In article <S0bo8.1375$sO2...@news.xtra.co.nz>, rob...@dse.gen.nz says... > > I'm not saying that we can get a powersupply light and powerful enough, I'm > just saying that a Van de Graaf generator is a complete waste of time for > this... Speaking of wastes of time, I'd say that however much time your parents spent raising you and however much time your teachers spent trying to pound knowledge into your solid-wood head also fit that description. Please feel free to fuck off any time, now, you boring toad.
Actually, centrifugal force is the tendency of an object to want to travel in a straight line. Since the bucket is traveling in an arc, it is essentially "pulling" the water away from its straight path. The same thing happens to you when you take a fast turn in a car. You start off traveling in a straight line, but the car keeps on pulling you away from that straight path, hence the perception of being pulled toward one side. Brian "W. Blaine Dowler" <fiz...@burea42.com> wrote in message news:Q4bo8.215863$kb....@news1.calgary.shaw.ca... > Rob Bowmaker wrote: > > >> Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in an arc > > above > >> your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. A mysterious force > >> seems to glue the water into the upside down bucket. Scientists are still > >> unsure about where this force comes from. > > > > It's called centrifugal force - unless I read the text wrongly. > > You read rightly, although it's not actually a force. The effects of > inertia are often labelled the centrifugal force, but it's not a real > force. (ie. The water isn't pushed up, it just doesn't fall fast enough to > leave the bucket.) > > -- > - Blaine > > http://www.bureau42.com > ICQ: 24893016 > XFW # 299792458, WM, SW, WNS, NRMTPB, FPSSG > Koopa TROoPA #42
"GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message news:3CA...@cumulus.com... > Rob Bowmaker wrote: > > > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > > news:3CA...@cumulus.com... > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > > > > > > > > > > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs a > > power > > > > > > source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into > > static > > > > > > electricity) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you > > > > > discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > So what you are saying is, put a power supply onto the ship, plug it > > into > > > > the Van De Graaf generator, and then discharge the Van De Graff > > generator > > > > into the levitating device? Basically you are turning normal electricity > > > > into static electricity, and then turning it right back into normal > > > > electricity again - why not just use the electricity from the power > > supply > > > > plugged straight into the levitating device? > > > > > > > > > > But where are we going to get a self contained power unit > > > that can generate enough power to raise our unit up by its > > > own bootstraps?? > > > So far, current technology is either batteries or the newer > > > nuclear powered batteries on some of our space probes. > > > > I'm not saying that we can get a powersupply light and powerful enough, I'm > > just saying that a Van de Graaf generator is a complete waste of time for > > this... > > > > I agree with you - I've been saying that getting a sufficient power supply > > has been the major problem all the time! > > It seems that Boeing has solved the problem, or > Martin-Marietta. > There is a rumour mind you going around about the > Nautilus... a large triangular shaped craft that moves > rather slowly and noisely. An awful lot of people in > Seattle have seen it a few times. The best description I've > heard of was it was flat black, had a large bubble turret > underneath that was lit up and corner marker lights. This > was even reported twice in our local papers up here, but for > intents and purposes a big mystery. > I find it interesting to look into, but as always I never > get to see any of these things. Vimana ?
"Rev. Juust E.S. Out" wrote: > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > news:3CA...@cumulus.com... > > Rob Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > > > news:3CA...@cumulus.com... > > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Among other things, it produces static electricity, and it needs > a > > > power > > > > > > > source (it doesn't make electricity, it turns electricity into > > > static > > > > > > > electricity) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Static electricity is just stored electrons. When you > > > > > > discharge the storage of the electrons there seems to be no > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > > So what you are saying is, put a power supply onto the ship, plug it > > > into > > > > > the Van De Graaf generator, and then discharge the Van De Graff > > > generator > > > > > into the levitating device? Basically you are turning normal > electricity > > > > > into static electricity, and then turning it right back into normal > > > > > electricity again - why not just use the electricity from the power > > > supply > > > > > plugged straight into the levitating device? > > > > > > > > > > > > > But where are we going to get a self contained power unit > > > > that can generate enough power to raise our unit up by its > > > > own bootstraps?? > > > > So far, current technology is either batteries or the newer > > > > nuclear powered batteries on some of our space probes. > > > > > > I'm not saying that we can get a powersupply light and powerful enough, > I'm > > > just saying that a Van de Graaf generator is a complete waste of time > for > > > this... > > > > > > I agree with you - I've been saying that getting a sufficient power > supply > > > has been the major problem all the time! > > > > It seems that Boeing has solved the problem, or > > Martin-Marietta. > > There is a rumour mind you going around about the > > Nautilus... a large triangular shaped craft that moves > > rather slowly and noisely. An awful lot of people in > > Seattle have seen it a few times. The best description I've > > heard of was it was flat black, had a large bubble turret > > underneath that was lit up and corner marker lights. This > > was even reported twice in our local papers up here, but for > > intents and purposes a big mystery. > > I find it interesting to look into, but as always I never > > get to see any of these things. > > Vimana ? It could be. It was described to be about three football fields in length. I made one mistake on what I said... it would move slowly and noiselessly thru the sky. But this sounds more like the skunk works at Martin than anything else.
Followups. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rev. Juust E.S. Out <juu...@hetnet.nl> wrote on Mon, 25 Mar 2002 23:10:58 +0100 <#Z6d...@net005s.hetnet.nl>: > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message >> Robert Bowmaker wrote: >> > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message >> > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: >> > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message >> > > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... >> > > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > >> > > > >> > > So? What makes you think that 15megavolts is impractical? >> > > Tesla did this a long time ago. >> > >> > The 15000V was produced by a large power supply, which is quite heavy >> > (~500g - 1kg - even more???). It managed to lift just a few grams of >> > aluminium foil and balsa wood. For it to become self-sufficient (i.e. > can >> > lift up its own power source), it will need to produce a lot more > voltage (I >> > think lifting power is proportional to voltage). For it to produce more >> > voltage, it will need to be even heavier, which in turn will need more >> > voltage to lift, etc... etc... - and that's before it's started to lift > any >> > cargo of any sort! > >> >> Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > Shall we make floating planes, MachineGhost ? ?? I'm over here. GreyCloud's the one you're responding to. :-) > > If I remember correctly, Nicola Tesla was also an occult student, and had > access to the Rig Veda. > His research was confiscated and destroyed when he died, I believe. He did get a little weird. [snipped the rest because *it* got a little weird :-) ] -- ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random misquote here EAC code #191 42d:01h:39m actually running Linux. The Internet routes around censorship.
Followups. In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rev. Juust E.S. Out <juu...@hetnet.nl> wrote on Tue, 26 Mar 2002 10:15:27 +0100 <ehz...@net005s.hetnet.nl>: [humoungous snip] > Fill a bucket with water, grab it by the handle and whirl it in > an arc above your head. If you do it right, you will stay dry. > A mysterious force seems to glue the water into the upside down > bucket. Scientists are still unsure about where this force > comes from. That's easy -- muscular contraction and gravity. Were you swinging around the bucket in microgravity (e.g., the space shuttle) and let go, the bucket would go off in a straight line (subject to local space curvature). Even in "normal" gravity, the bucket would go off in a geodesic, which looks approximately like a parabola. The water would go with it -- more or less -- until the bucket hit something: the ground, a barn wall, your computer, your neighbor's sister's lingerie, etc... So...you're spinning the bucket over your head. All you're doing is applying a pulling (accelerating) force to the bucket which is more than the force of gravity. The water more or less stays put. Just to confuse you even more :-) : the force of your arm exerted on the bucket is centripedal force -- and it's a real force, mesurable with e.g. a spring meter (such as those occasionally used for weighing fish). Centrifugal "force" is actually a byproduct of the water's inertia. [rest snipped] -- ewi...@earthlink.net -- insert random misquote here EAC code #191 42d:02h:50m actually running Linux. This space for rent.
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message > Followups. > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rev. Juust E.S. Out > > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > >> Robert Bowmaker wrote: > >> > "GreyCloud" <mis...@cumulus.com> wrote in message > >> > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > >> > > > "Charlie Ebert" <kd5...@mmcable.com> wrote in message > >> > > > news:3C9...@mmcable.com... > >> > > > > Robert Bowmaker wrote: > > <snip> > >> Why not use a van-de-graph generator?? > > > > Shall we make floating planes, MachineGhost ? > ?? > I'm over here. GreyCloud's the one you're responding to. :-) :) I noticed > > If I remember correctly, Nicola Tesla was also an occult student, and had > > access to the Rig Veda. > > His research was confiscated and destroyed when he died, I believe. > > He did get a little weird. > [snipped the rest because *it* got a little weird :-) ] Like Niels Bohr said "Is it crazy enough to be correct ?". From the Tao Teh King : XIV. - Looking at it, you do not see it. You call it invisible. Listening to it, you do not hear it. You call it inaudible Touching it, you do not grasp it. You call it intangible These three cannot be described. But they blend, and are one. --------------------------------------------------
Related ASCII art in the Gallery
Explore these categories from our collection of 11,000+ artworks:
Make your own ASCII art
Turn images, text or 3D into ASCII, or draw your own – right in your browser.
About this thread.
These messages were posted publicly to the newsgroup
alt.ascii-art
in 2002 and are mirrored here unchanged as part of the Historic Archives – only email addresses are masked.
The artwork and text belong to their original authors: if you copy a piece, keep the artist's initials or signature intact and credit them where you can.
Are you one of the authors? Contact us to get your posts attributed, connected to your artist profile, or removed.
Report this message
Help us keep the archive clean and accurate. Reports are reviewed by a person – nothing is changed automatically.