Anti Gravity Acheived And Confirmed

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

Mate please. I have seen no proof or evidence of this bold claim you made.

Anti gravity achieved and confirmed???

Confirmed by whom? And please provide some proof. Why would you make such a claim, knowing you are gonna get flamed and trolled for this, yet you have no proof?

VVV

Hey Mate, have been away for a while, but how ignoramus can you get.
Let me give you a hint. Just look at the progressive Time Negation on the link
and you have the proof of AG acheived and confirmed.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Hey Mate, have been away for a while, but how ignoramus can you get.

First, ignoramus is a noun, not an adjective; so your insult sounds ridiculous.

Second, you don't really have room to toss around insults when you bump a thread to toss them regarding a post you already addressed over a month ago.

Show some class.

Please stop hurting animals!
"Although the live chicken turned blind and died"
and a fish? just kill tomatos.
you show No evidence at all.
show us some proof, some pictures.

he adds a warning.
dont try this at home.
it can send things in time to?
see Links in his sig.
and I thought I was mad!...........

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


You just dont get it do you. Your papers mean squat to us. You left out information on purpose, its not laid out in an easy to read manner (most of whats on there is random numbers and results, which are random till you explain them).

Let's just face it, until you have a complete paper with all the information shown on there (im tired of your patent excuses, thats all they are EXCUSES), we are all gonna yell hoax. Ive seen better explained papers from grade 8's.

Here is a helpful link on the basics of writing a scientific paper (this is grade school stuff): www.unc.edu...

Heres something a bit more advanced and more particularly suited to your physics based experiment since I think your experiment should include some (it breaks the laws doesnt it? SHOW IT): www.nku.edu...

I await your typical response in how you can't do that or how we are ignorant, or something else other then the fact that your hypothesis is wrong and your work VERY incomplete.

Originally posted by redmage
.

a post you already addressed over a month ago

Show some class.

Hey classy lass. isn't it obvious that, it was only to point out the
singularity, that, every1 onhere missed, which proves the validity of my claims ( as ats members like to regard it )

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


What singularity? Please explain for us ignorant folk here. What drew you to the conclusion it was a singularity? How did you prove those two things in your results shown on this thread? If we missed the important defining results that make this a gravitational singularity please point it out to us, we arent so adept at physics as yopu seem to be as to be able to determine such results.

Originally posted by topherman420

 

You just dont get it do you. Your papers mean squat to us.
Heres something a bit more advanced and more particularly suited to your physics based experiment since I think your experiment should include some (it breaks the laws doesnt it? SHOW IT): www.nku.edu...

I await your typical response in how you can't do that or how we are ignorant, or something else other then the fact that your hypothesis is wrong and your work VERY incomplete.

And you certainly get it. is that it?
KNOWN laws of physics are all man made laws and are neither adequate, correct or complete.
They only pertain to a set hitherto known model.
Beside mine is not an hypothesis but a fully working technology.
My research is complete and concluded. Chapter closed.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by topherman420

 

You just dont get it do you. Your papers mean squat to us.
Heres something a bit more advanced and more particularly suited to your physics based experiment since I think your experiment should include some (it breaks the laws doesnt it? SHOW IT): www.nku.edu...

I await your typical response in how you can't do that or how we are ignorant, or something else other then the fact that your hypothesis is wrong and your work VERY incomplete.

And you certainly get it. is that it?
KNOWN laws of physics are all man made laws and are neither adequate, correct or complete.
They only pertain to a set hitherto known model.
Beside mine is not an hypothesis but a fully working technology.
My research is complete and concluded. Chapter closed.

Your research is complete according to YOU, and there are many whom disagree with you, yet you still wont explain it. WE DONT GET IT that is the point, and yet describing how it works, making your paper seem actually complete, you come back with witty pet names for us and some clever sentencing avoiding explaining anything...sentences like "KNOWN laws of physics are all man made laws and are niether adequate, correct or complete."
That sentence to me (between the lines) reads: "i know nothing of the physics involved in how my machine works therefore I will try to discredit their validity with this one sentence by simply saying they are not correct or complete"
And yes I do agree that your research is concluded. I think your conclusion is that it works on your belief and our belief (and we have no first hand experience with your device like you do) which is that with what we were shown, and the lack of any sort of effort to explain your results as well as purposely leaving out information (your reasons to are silly as well) leaves us to the conclusion that you're full of hot air. We have demonstrated why we have come to our conclusions yet you can't with yours.
What a successful way to share such a magnificent discovery

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Hey classy lass. isn't it obvious that, it was only to point out the
singularity, that, every1 onhere missed, which proves the validity of my claims ( as ats members like to regard it )

You're just failing left, and right. A "lass" is a young female, not the way to address an adult male.

I'm sure some here are waiting for actual proof of your claimed "fully working technology"; however, you've repeatedly shown your intuition and assumptions to be highly flawed on multiple occasions; so try sticking with facts, and avoid your continually failing presumptions.

What are the light bulbs for? do they help collapse of the state vector?

Originally posted by topherman420
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection

 

What singularity? Please explain for us ignorant folk here. What drew you to the conclusion it was a singularity? How did you prove those two things in your results shown on this thread? If we missed the important defining results that make this a gravitational singularity please point it out to us, we arent so adept at physics as yopu seem to be as to be able to determine such results.

edit on 14-6-2011 by topherman420 because: (no reason given)

Hey Folks. I wont be getting into any Phd level physics on Time and Gravity entanglement, here on ats.
Google it and you may find something to enlighten you.
BTW I am fully aware of the physics behind the working of my technology,
But google manipulating electron spin and you may find something to enlighten you.
Over and out.

Cheers

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection


Hey Folks. I wont be getting into any Phd level physics on Time and Gravity entanglement, here on ats.
Google it and you may find something to enlighten you.
BTW I am fully aware of the physics behind the working of my technology,
But google manipulating electron spin and you may find something to enlighten you.
Over and out.

Cheers

If you are so well versed then why are you unable to go into detail about the physics behind it....It couldn't be because you have no idea, could it?

You can't expect us to do your research for you...If you have done research and can explain it, then do so, otherwise. Go away.

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth
If you are so well versed then why are you unable to go into detail about the physics behind it....It couldn't be because you have no idea, could it?

Exactly, he has no clue.

One day "physics is flawed" and can't possible explain his "results", and the next day a simple Google search regarding physics will provide all the answers.

He's a formerly banned member who enjoys making bold claims, providing nothing independently verifiable to back them up, just for the joy of hearing himself type.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


So i guess we wont see you for another month, you will come back here to see if anyone fell for your lies. Until you explain your device and stop evading the question on how it works, thats what you are, a bold face liar. You can't tell me you are otherwise, cause you have not shown it.
I think the mods are enjoying our banter, I really do not understand how something so unexplained and an obvious hoax is still in science and technology, especially when the science of it cant (is refused to be) explained.

Fine you are versed in physics....what fields of physics does the manipulation of electron spin encompass? What field do you excel in?

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


If you have a working anti-gravity spaceship....

Can you deliver me a Pizza?

I'm guessing it would be faster than the guys on the road and.... I love steaming hot 'za.

I'm interested in seeing the video of floating tomatoes
and the patent papers.
otherwise, YAWN.

Originally posted by Scoriada
I'm interested in seeing the video of floating tomatoes
and the patent papers.
otherwise, YAWN.

edit on 15-6-2011 by Scoriada because: (no reason given)

Click on his link in the signature, you can see his "paper" and "patents". You can feast your eyes on before and after pictures of fruit and tomatoes, not levitating unfortunately, but hey hes got BEFORE AND AFTERS!

If you want to see some physics OP there are some here in this paper Manipulating Quantum Coherence in Solid State Systems

Are you trying to replicate this work OP? Do you see the equations in that paper? I do not understand the equations, but from what you have omitted in your paper, without explaining or proving the effects you had gotten, I concluded that this is the closest thing to what you are talking about in your paper. This is all from my understanding.

Originally posted by topherman420

Click on his link in the signature, you can see his "paper" and "patents". You can feast your eyes on before and after pictures of fruit and tomatoes, not levitating unfortunately, but hey hes got BEFORE AND AFTERS!

Are you trying to replicate this work OP? Do you see the equations in that paper? I do not understand the equations, but from what you have omitted in your paper, without explaining or proving the effects you had gotten, I concluded that this is the closest thing to what you are talking about in your paper. This is all from my understanding.

Correction here. These are not Before and Afters, But they are of 2 samples which were placed one in AG envirionment and One in Non AG environment simultaneously ( For Comparison purposes ).
Besudes I am not replicating any1s work or paper. Mine is totally original.
The Physics underlying is my own paradigm shifting physics , not yet
in the public domain and you will not find it anywhere on the internet,

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Correction here. These are not Before and Afters, But they are of 2 samples which were placed one in AG envirionment and One in Non AG environment simultaneously ( For Comparison purposes ).
Besudes I am not replicating any1s work or paper. Mine is totally original.
The Physics underlying is my own paradigm shifting physics , not yet
in the public domain and you will not find it anywhere on the internet,

So finally thank you for being honest and saying this is not based on reality (you cannot say it is without real science to back it) but it is Pseudoscience, which means you do not have a scientific leg to stand on. And since you really have no clue about physics (you're lying if you say you do) you can't claim your own brand of physics whatsoever.

Originally posted by topherman420

So finally thank you for being honest and saying this is not based on reality (you cannot say it is without real science to back it) but it is Pseudoscience, which means you do not have a scientific leg to stand on. And since you really have no clue about physics (you're lying if you say you do) you can't claim your own brand of physics whatsoever.

My word. You are such a load of poppycock, its unbelievable. For starters Define real science and pseudoscience,
that is if you have any scientific qualification of consequence. Otherwise stfu.
It is also poinless to egg me on to reveal anymore than that I have already done.
Now whether I am lying being a Christian, is entirely your opinion however dubious and you are entitled to it..
Moreover My Phd thesis is bound and has to be My own brand of Physics.
Do you know, what it takes to have any reputed university to accept your thesis? I guess not.
I dont think Eglish is your first language though.