It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Electrogravitics: the REAL Reason It Went Into Black Ops

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Would You suggest that We NOT release the tech and end poverty, hunger and war? (15-1 that will go unanswered.)

(see next post)


I think it woudl be a good idea to release that technology. Even if it is all it is cracked up to be, it would not end poverty, hunger and war. A petroleum-based economy of 2000 has immensely more free energy available than an animal based economy of 1 CE, but there's still alot of poverty, some hunger, and plenty of war hanging around. And guess what, we still have money just like then!


FREE energy is an energy source anyOne may tap - petro-fuels are controlled (metered) and leave Us overall energy-scarce. There is poverty as the controllers fix prices, create wars to up cost (and for other reasons), and so... You're right We have all the energy-scarcity problems in this energy-scarce and controlled world.


I just don't believe there is any such technology there, though I wish there were. And even if there were some hidden electrogravitic coupling, what does that have to do with "free energy"? Why wouldn't the normal conservation laws apply to this physics as it does to all other known physics?


Believe as You wish. I KNOW it is there. Did You read the PDF I linked to in the OP? Did You see how My father taught Me about it (as best He could) until it went into black ops? And the reason that the "normal conservation laws" don't seem to apply is because We have a faulty foundation to begin with. There is so much energy in the plenum ("vacuum") that not only is it causing the universe to expand, its causing it to ACCELERATE in its expansion. Electrogravitics merely draws on this energy.

I do recommend reading the free PDF before You post further.


The pdf on 'subquantum kinetics' is a whole load of BS.


Own that. You think the PDF (which is on many things other than subquantum kinetics, the least not being electrogravitics and the fact that subquantum kinetics was developed from chemical kinetics, and worried the scientist who developed it because of the gravitational implications - until He discovered electrogravitics, which behaves fully as subquantum kinetics predicts) is a load of BS.


Let's start really really simple. Can 'subquantum kinetics' explain, quantitatively the spectrum of the hydrogen atom? As in give real numbers.
Actual quantum mechanics can. And just for lulz, how does subquantum kinetics explain the Compton effect?

Where does this "subquantum kinetics" give same answers as quantum mechanics (with derivations, please) and where does it differ and what does the experimental evidence say.


That is not my forte. (Mine is in economics.) But I can grasp enough, between what My father, a CalTech graduate working in electrogravitics at one of the major aerospace contractors in the 1950's mentioned frequently in the PDF of Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion linked in the OP, and what I read therein.

And actually... Quantum mechanics starts with the self-same Einsteinian theories that require One to take on faith, with NO explanation of how or why, that matter "bends" space-time. In fact, subquantum kinetics has made MANY more testable (and tested) predictions than relativity, QM, and string theory combined.

Read the book. You don't have to agree with its content, but at least You will have a clue.
edit on 12/29/2011 by Amaterasu because: I failed tags again




posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aim64C


The reason for this is because you are either delusional and believe your own standpoint; or you are using the debate as a front to advertise a book (to whatever ends). Which really seems to be your only purpose in starting threads these days.

 



Bingo.




Yeah, Boncho. You're right.


Geez.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



I have pointed out where YOU have made claims with nothing to support it. (Something about rainbow unicorn farts...) You CLAIM I use "circular logic" yet You do nothing to show that. I think *I* have *Your* number, dear.


You may be a child by comparison to me, but even you must realize how this game is played.

Most of it boils down to an e-peen competition mounted atop one's faith.


No... You have pointed out that the function of an energy-scarce society does not look like an energy-abundant one. I agree. It doesn't. Your "real-world" examples are ALL taken from an energy-scarce society. How does pointing to an orange and saying it's not red prove that apples cannot be red?


By your reasoning, anything that lessens the scarcity of energy should lead toward the utopian society you place your faith in.

History shows the opposite. With the abundance of energy comes the abundance of power. One family controls the overwhelming majority of the Earth's diamond supply. Something like that was inconceivable prior to the abundance of energy made possible by oil refinement. The situation will not change with the elimination of energy costs.


Lessee... You said, "Curious reasoning." (That was the whole paragraph.) I asked how so. You did not answer.


Because it was not necessary. Any being worth listening to would see it as self-evident.


You said, "I contend, however, that the elite are not suppressing electrogravitics." I offer the book which shows many examples. Have You actually read it?


Twilight was better. And all that amounts to is porn you can sell to teenagers.


Yet the book shows this is wrong. I have substantiation and You do not.


I would fill up ten thread pages giving a point-by-point dissection of the contents of the 'book' and why/how it is predicated on fallacious arguments and logic.

If you want to use the book in defense of your own arguments - you need to learn to use quotes that substantiate your drivel.

I am not going to get drawn into an analysis of the 'book' with a mere "the book says I'm right!"


You said, "Your claim is as absurd as the claims that layman literacy would destroy the Catholic Church, or that the internet would bring about the end of school... because it's founded on the same fundamentally flawed reasoning." I asked for substantiation of this claim - and You skipped over it in Your next response.


I pick my battles. This one, I really didn't care about.

However. I will take four posts to respond to you. You and I, obviously, have nothing better to do with our time.

The Catholic Church, for many decades, frowned upon translating the Bible and what it meant to layman literacy. Their fears culminated with the Protestant Reformation lead, largely, by Martin Luther (an interesting case study of a man). Obviously - the Catholic Church still exists and the Bible is the most heavily translated and published books on the planet.

If anything - literacy only made the Catholic Church more powerful, in spite of the fears that it would destroy it.

We still, also, have schools. We will always have them, and instructors. The internet has been incorporated into many course curricula, but it is not going to replace what once was.


You said, "You, really, are in over your head in this conversation." I asked for an effort to show HOW this is so, and You left THAT unanswered. (You said, "Have you not been paying attention?" That is no answer and led to this list.)


You have no grasp of physics. When presented with a challenge to the physics of your device - you defer to the 'book.' It's, really, not very gratifying. Which is why I dropped that angle a long time ago, and simply decided to focus on the sociological facets of your argument.

You really weren't prepared for that. You were anticipating an argument about physics - the 'book' being your main trump card. Since you know few people who don't believe in this stuff are going to read it - you will always exploit that point in the debate.

Which is why you are having difficulty keeping your wits about you - and why you are displaying visible anger in your posts.

You're having difficulty along this front, and it shows.


You said, "You think war is crazy, now. Just wait until people have the whole of human engineering in their pocket and at their personal disposal." I responded with, "And They will war over...what, exactly?" You never responded.


This was, actually, addressed in that same post.

People like myself will use unlimited energy in attempts to process a finite amount of resources. I already said I want to create structures that dwarf the asteroid belt. People will want to do other stuff with that, I would presume - and someone out there is willing to fight for it.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Bonchizing initiated: You're right.


Enjoy Your life.



posted on Dec, 29 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



The cycle of You making claims, Me asking for support of those claims and You ignoring Me? I hope You get tired and leave.


I'm constantly amazed with how much freedom prisoners are given, these days. You've, honestly, got nothing better to do than create three whole posts of replies?

You would think that something meaningful would be said in that amount of space....

Anyway - you should have a better understanding of how this debate is going than you are acting. You are proclaiming to the world how a technology (that doesn't exist) will create a utopian society (that doesn't exist) and behave according to mechanics that cannot exist or be at all relative to existing and known mechanics because... well... it doesn't exist.

Magichanics. Imagineering. Doesn't really matter what you call it - it's the same thing. It is like me debating with George Lucas over the workings of the Jedi or the socio-political environment of his creation. Ultimately - the fictitious universe he created is predicated upon facts of his choosing and discretion.

The same, here. We can go 'round-and-'round all day about what is and isn't a valid point. At the end of the day - we are debating a work of fiction. It is like my debates on anime forums about why Naruto -must- belong with Hinata; come hell or high water. Ultimately - it's predicated on my choices of facts and reasoning that are not always shared with others (perhaps even the creator of the series - who has been DBZ-ing the plot up, lately...)


What would My reason be to "advertize" a free PDF? The better thought is that I use it to substantiate My claims. Clearly You have been ignoring Me again. I have said, over and over, that a) I KNOW this tech exists and functions, and b) My motive is to free Humanity from slavery and poverty through the release of the tech.


Do you know why I write fan-fiction?

Because I'm better than their creators, and can write a better plot, for one. For another - it's to refine my writing skills and character perception (basically, I have to learn how to use my schizophrenia and split personalities for constructive purposes). For, yet another, it's to develop something of a reputation and a base of people who appreciate my work. If ever they search my name - my original works that I would receive commissions from show up.

There are two main market motivators. Fear, and Hope. Fear drives markets like Organic labeling of foods, Alternative Energy (solar panels and the like), and most "green" technology. Buy it - or destroy the planet/die.

Hope governs many markets - but is often one for appliances and utilities. "Buy this, and you will be able to make picture-perfect salads in minutes!" - despite the fact it will end up in your version of kitchen purgatory. It also drives the investment market. There are also visionary/inspirational markets - "Buy this book, and learn how to get out of debt forever!" "Click here and learn how to grow your manhood!" (Install spyware).


What has bliss got to do with this?


What doesn't it have to do with this?

You can't even comprehend the vision I have for the future and what I would be attempting to accomplish. Hell - one of my ambitions -is- to achieve entropic nullification and/or over-unity (two slightly different concepts). That is required for me to even 'begin' engineering. It's a tiny, insignificant little baby-step of an accomplishment.

I don't even consider the planet in terms of resources - I would consume all of its mass on a whimsical project. I will need to acquire resources on a celestial scale - and I'm not the only one with such over-arching ambitions that require those same resources.


Scarcity of a few elements is irrelevant to feeding and housing Humanity and ending war.


How quaint.

Feeding and housing humanity is a simple task. I've already mapped out how to do it within the confines of existing technology and engineering principles. The problem is that it is a very select few of the population that are not stupid, lazy, or both. My plan would, after some time, sit in ruin - the same as tenant housing projects did in the 60s. Now, those areas serve as bastions of criminal activity and represent a true absence of law enforcement.

I've already solved the world's energy, food, housing, and health problems. Energy isn't a problem. People are.


Why are You arguing against abundant energy???


I'm not. I'm simply telling you what the reality will be.

There are 7 billion people on this planet. You propose a system where they all have their personal source of limitless energy and a cabal of individuals has an army of robots.... is going to be a utopia free of oppression.

It would be amusing to see you listen to yourself.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 



And this is an argument to keep electrogravitics secret why? (Einstein is wrong about many things - see subquantum kinetics.)


No, Einstein was not wrong. Energy-mass equivalence is the founding principle of all modern physics and has been demonstrated countless times to be accurate.


Wow.


You'll learn. There is a place for you, and it is not in the S&T forum.


That is assuming We will not find better ways, and better locations (space is vast and easy to get to with electrogravitics - You would know that if You read the book...) - not to mention that the power needs to transmute are far lower than to create outright.


Zoom - right over your head. Predictably deferring to a book.

What... better way... is there to create matter from energy?

What you are proposing is not a true method of over-unity - but a method of entropic nullification; energy is drawn in reference to an absolute ground state, not created (if you were truly talking about over-unity, then the idea of exploiting a similar phenomena in the case of matter would be plausible from a theoretical standpoint). Thus, we can only presume that we are only voiding entropic principles, not the conservation of energy. Which means that the amount of mass we wish to create must have an equivalent energy input.

Which means, to create any substantial amount of mass, one needs to be able to guide, direct, and control energy on the scale of nuclear weaponry. One gram of mater has as much energy as a tactical yield nuclear warhead (about 27-28 kilotons); or 25 million killowatt-hours, depending upon which way you want to look at it.

To produce a kilogram of material in one hour will require you to channel and control the power of a 28 megaton nuclear warhead over the duration of 3,600 seconds - or the equivalent of a 7.8 kiloton nuclear warhead every second. Think Hiroshima going off once a second for an hour.

Which is why I talk of hideously sized constructs to be able to produce anything of meaningful amounts. And those things aren't going to build themselves or simply appear in an effort to yield to my creative "bliss."

When you want to discuss transmutation - the issue changes, only slightly. The fission products of uranium release massive amounts of energy. To transmute them back into uranium would require an equal application of energy. The same would be to transmute a helium atom into two hydrogen atoms.

You're looking at slightly less energy, but not by much - when you consider a few hundred kilograms of weapons grade uranium released the energy equivalent of one gram - and the mass-per-nucleon of the Uranium atom is only slightly higher than the elements it decays into (particularly compared to the steep gradient between hydrogen, helium, and the lighter elements).


Own that, sir. YOU THINK I am deluded.


No, you most certainly are. Though, I will take ownership of my deducing this fact.


No I accept the terms offered. I may try to negotiate, but in this poverty-ridden, hunger-filled world, They'll find someOne else who WILL take Their terms and slave to Their enrichment. Hardly ME in control.


You are in control. You make the decision to accept an offer or to refuse it. You make the decision to enter into debt, and you make the decision to purchase.


Yeah, if I don't want to eat and have a place to live...


But you only eat organic food and are homeless.

Sounds to me like you have them by the balls. What more are they going to do to you?


True, but that does not equate to buyers unless I sell Myself very short in this economy. Did You know that if the 1964 minimum wage was HONESTLY adjusted for inflation (one of the slavemasters' tools), minimum wage would be about $18 an hour? They have severely devalued the worth of every Human's energy.


You don't really understand economics, do you?

Inflation and minimum wage are both two sides of the same coin. Both result in the elimination of the middle class and the growth of poverty rates.

Factory wages have not adjusted much over the past 15 years. This area was known for $9.50-$12.00 dollar factory positions, starting, with benefits. That was back when Minimum was still $5 or less. Minimum is now $7.50. Their wages are still the same, and yet - food prices and housing prices have gone up with the increase in minimum wage. I remember when I could buy a combo meal for $4 - now I'm lucky to get away under $7 because of the increased costs associated with minimum wage and higher transportation fees.

Those working in factories used to be well within the middle class. Minimum wage changed, and factories cannot pay greater wages to adjust because of foreign competition. They now live closer to poverty.

I'm off to do other things for a while.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Bonchizing initiated: You're right.


Enjoy Your life.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Bonchizing initiated: You're right.


Enjoy Your life.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 



This is where you have already won the argument, but because there is nothing to say back, she tells you to enjoy life, or "have a nice life".

As though you would never communicate again. False advertising really.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


I thought I give it a read and as a electronics technician while reading, there were many "red flags" that turned up. One thing to mentoin would be the 0,7V wich is also the break through voltage for silicium transistors wich were invented some years later. This in turn adds up to something I was shown with diodes (wich are also made (not all but many) from silicium (SI). A diode gets some tiny extra voltage from nowhere when the electrons break through and the diode is conducting. You can simulate it with Pspice, too and its in the uA range.

Some months ago I read something about a guy who used about 120 selected diodes in serial and parallel to produce voltage and current. He shielded his diodes several ways to be sure its not some frequency from outside but he got trouble finding a osziloscope with sufficient GHZ range to look closer at it.

Then again, I read something in JohnDeSalvos pyramid book about the guy that placed a pyramid on a centrifuge and at one time it got destroid by a unknown force. later on he found out that every year between 13-16 Dec. there were some unusual effects to the pyramid. He concluded that there is some type of radiation coming from a star near the center of the galaxy.

coincidence?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aim64C
 



This is where you have already won the argument, but because there is nothing to say back, she tells you to enjoy life, or "have a nice life".

As though you would never communicate again. False advertising really.


Hm maybe its because I -as a user that joined the thread now- am already sick of reading pagelong discussions and ignorant statements that were made without even reading 20 pages of this book. Doing that is anoying and a troll knows this. See, I added to the thread read some 38 pages of the book and then decided to make a little stop in the thread. NO ONE IN THIS THREAD read the book to the end. at least I will do.

Thank you OP for this piece of information.
edit on 30-12-2011 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by verschickter

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aim64C
 



This is where you have already won the argument, but because there is nothing to say back, she tells you to enjoy life, or "have a nice life".

As though you would never communicate again. False advertising really.


Hm maybe its because I -as a user that joined the thread now- am already sick of reading pagelong discussions and ignorant statements that were made without even reading 20 pages of this book. Doing that is anoying and a troll knows this. See, I added to the thread read some 38 pages of the book and then decided to make a little stop in the thread. NO ONE IN THIS THREAD read the book to the end. at least I will do.

Thank you OP for this piece of information.


Most welcome. Yes, I respond to everything said by these two, and They pick and choose through My response, ignoring completely My questions. Where's the point in responding to that disingenuous behavior. It is clear They have some sort of agenda, though why and who for is unclear. They are NOT here to actually discuss these things, but to disparage without real content.

Rather than waste My energy, I tell them They're right. They can hardly argue with that, I figure.

Thanks most kindly for reading the information I provided.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by verschickter

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aim64C
 



This is where you have already won the argument, but because there is nothing to say back, she tells you to enjoy life, or "have a nice life".

As though you would never communicate again. False advertising really.


Hm maybe its because I -as a user that joined the thread now- am already sick of reading pagelong discussions and ignorant statements that were made without even reading 20 pages of this book. Doing that is anoying and a troll knows this. See, I added to the thread read some 38 pages of the book and then decided to make a little stop in the thread. NO ONE IN THIS THREAD read the book to the end. at least I will do.

Thank you OP for this piece of information.


Most welcome. Yes, I respond to everything said by these two, and They pick and choose through My response, ignoring completely My questions. Where's the point in responding to that disingenuous behavior. It is clear They have some sort of agenda, though why and who for is unclear. They are NOT here to actually discuss these things, but to disparage without real content.

Rather than waste My energy, I tell them They're right. They can hardly argue with that, I figure.

Thanks most kindly for reading the information I provided.


What questions did you ask?

I asked this...




Back up what you say then. You are a stone cold lier. Either show that hemp can produce every solvent that petrochemicals can, or don't speak further on the matter.


After you said...




Yes, yes You can. And FYI... HEMP oil makes better plastics than petro-oil. We can easily eliminate all petro-oil use and miss it not at all.



Where did you get this opinion that we could do away with oil products "and not miss it at all". I suppose if I had that idea in my head, I would have combed through thousands of papers, each one offering a substitution for each use that oil has.

And you go on to say...



Still, it is irrelevant in that if the energy to extract, refine, and transport the oil were free, the oil would be free.


Claiming that oil would be free in an "energy abundant" world. You repeatedly counter social arguments with your idea, by saying "That's in a scarcity paradigm."

That's why we think the way we do right? Because we are in a "scarcity paradigm"?

Except that... Oil is limited. And in your "energy abundant" world. Even if it were no cost
to harvest, there would be limited reserves. Making it scarce. Making it not a world of abundance....

In other words, the whole idea is bunk off this one account.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by verschickter

Originally posted by boncho
reply to post by Aim64C
 



This is where you have already won the argument, but because there is nothing to say back, she tells you to enjoy life, or "have a nice life".

As though you would never communicate again. False advertising really.


Hm maybe its because I -as a user that joined the thread now- am already sick of reading pagelong discussions and ignorant statements that were made without even reading 20 pages of this book. Doing that is anoying and a troll knows this. See, I added to the thread read some 38 pages of the book and then decided to make a little stop in the thread. NO ONE IN THIS THREAD read the book to the end. at least I will do.

Thank you OP for this piece of information.
edit on 30-12-2011 by verschickter because: (no reason given)


I did one better a long time ago. I posted a paper on "electrogravitics"

Here

Also known as ion wind. Also known not to work in a vaccuum

In other words, you can remove the "gravitics" from "electro".
edit on 30-12-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Bonch, get a clue. I'm through with You. (OWN Your statement that YOU think I am a liar, for one.)

But just for Your edification:

www.rense.com...

hempcar.org...

From: naihc.org...


INDUSTRY FACTS

*Henry Ford experimented with hemp to build car bodies. He wanted to build and fuel cars from farm products.

*BMW is experimenting with hemp materials in automobiles as part of an effort to make cars more recyclable.

*Much of the bird seed sold in the US has hemp seed (it's sterilized before importation), the hulls of which contain about 25% protein.

*Hemp oil once greased machines. Most paints, resins, shellacs, and varnishes used to be made out of linseed (from flax) and hemp oils.

*Rudolph Diesel designed his engine to run on hemp oil.

*Kimberly Clark (on the Fortune 500) has a mill in France which produces hemp paper preferred for bibles because it lasts a very long time and doesn't yellow.

*Construction products such as medium density fiber board, oriented strand board, and even beams, studs and posts could be made out of hemp. Because of hemp's long fibers, the products will be stronger and/or lighter than those made from wood.

*The products that can be made from hemp number over 25,000.


www.fuelandfiber.com...

relegalize.info...

www.hempplastic.com...

www.hemp.com...

www.hemp.com...

But... You're right.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Here is an interesting one on Ford's car:

here


Soy meal is what is left after soy-beans are crushed or ground into flakes and the soy oil extracted with a hydrocarbon solvent.


What does soy have to do with Ford's Hemp? It was one of needed ingredients:


The condensation took place in the presence of the cellulose and other carbohydrates that were part of the soy meal. Fillers, up to 50 to 60 percent, provided additional cellulose fibres, from HEMP, wood flour or pulp from sprice or pine, cotton, flax, ramie even wheat. The final mix was about 70 percent cellulose and 10 to 20 percent soy meal.


I'm sure you know where we get hydrocarbons from right?

The manufacture of hemp plastic has of course evolved since Ford's time, but I don't know why you would post that in the first place.



But... You're right.




Posting a few links to website lauding hemp plastic does not answer my question. There are a number of things hemp plastic cannot be used for, or things that cannot come from hemp.

The original question had to do with all the solvents that come from oil, that are used for more than just making plastic.

But of course, include the plastics application that hemp cannot provide...

Here is a short list of hydrocarbon solvents listed by wiki:

here

Also is a list of petroleum products listed by wiki:

Category: Petroleum_products

To start your journey of convincing everyone, you should go through both lists and offer a hemp (or other?) substitute. To further solidify your stance, you can go through all the manufacturing processes that use these products and cover how the substitutes can be used.

Then, you should look at annual agriculture figures, and explain how the world would cope with a monumental increase in non-food stock crops. Offer solutions to the water, fertilizer and pesticide requirements of said increase. Not to mention the changes being made to arable land to meet the new increase in crops.

There would be a mountain of information to go through to consider your idea feasible. And you haven't done anything in that regard. Perhaps in a couple years you may come back with something better than posting links to people selling the latest idea to the masses.

One person saying how great one product is, does not cover anything related to your idea.
edit on 30-12-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-12-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Also known as ion wind. Also known not to work in a vaccuum


You are very wrong. In T. Townsend Brown's experiments, He ran rigs in both oil (to reduce to virtually nil the ionic wind effect) and vacuum, and saw motive behavior that was several orders of magnitude stronger than the ionic wind could produce in atmosphere. You would know this if You had read the PDF I linked to in My OP.

But... Heh. You're right.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by verschickter
 



Hm maybe its because I -as a user that joined the thread now- am already sick of reading pagelong discussions and ignorant statements that were made without even reading 20 pages of this book.


Son, graduated top of my class in my avionics training (with two years of vocational training behind that) and have years of experience in electronics.

You presume I have not read the material. I have. Several different versions of it. Ten years ago, I was self-studying a phenomena known as "logitudinal waves," and attempting to study the works of Hutchison.

Why? Because I was 13.

Now, I do think Hutchison was "onto something" with the concept of electromagnetic and electrostatic fields influencing space and/or matter based on its 3d waveform propagation. However - -IF- any of his results are/were genuine - they were completely random and he has not been able to successfully reproduce them. Likely due to flaws in his theory and/or the difficulty in modeling 3d waveform propagation through a space filled with inductive mass.

Which is where I take up the reigns and have developed a number of experiments I would like to attempt at some point in my life (one of which involving a space forced to contain a positive-interference wave-form that exceeds theorized Planck limitations on energy density; another involving a space with a series of positive interference that oscillates faster than Planck time allows).

Through those experiments - I would be looking for an avenue to 'punch through' the known limitations of our universe - primarily conservation of matter/energy. Or any other potentially useful reaction (basically, I'm looking at building a "wave collider" instead of a "particle collider").

Anyway - I'm already revealing too much of my plan. I currently lack the funding or degree backing necessary to attain the funding I would need... and I'm a little paranoid (hence membership to this site) about people 'stealing my idea.' (though, honestly, I don't see it as all that great of a logical leap).

My point is - I've given these theories and devices their day in the sun. I've even built a few of the more simple ones (the "gravity capacitor," for instance).

Some of them work - just not as advertised (IE - they are ionization devices or manipulate vibrations on a solid surface; but do not manipulate gravity or circumvent the conservation of momentum); others just don't work.

Stop and think about it for a minute - if violating entropy or the law of conservation of energy was as simple as some nifty coiled wire and a voodoo chant over a soldering iron, as so many of these free energy theories would have us believe... don't you think it would be done a little more often?

Certainly, someone would have found out this thing works and fled to some country or region of the world where governments and corporations hold little power (such as South America, Africa, parts of India, and the former USSR). They would have plenty of these devices working and have built their own little empire off of them, almost certainly.

Just rolling with the idea that there are nearly omniscient forces within America (there aren't - but I can rationalize from a number of predicated concepts).



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by boncho
Also known as ion wind. Also known not to work in a vaccuum


You are very wrong. In T. Townsend Brown's experiments, He ran rigs in both oil (to reduce to virtually nil the ionic wind effect) and vacuum, and saw motive behavior that was several orders of magnitude stronger than the ionic wind could produce in atmosphere. You would know this if You had read the PDF I linked to in My OP.

But... Heh. You're right.


You have a copy of his original findings? Just post the related paper...



posted on Jan, 6 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Thank you for this thread, at least i bothered to watch the Recap

Will read it first, then reply.No time now.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join