"It Just Keeps Running and Running"

Mary Rose
My issue is that there is suppression of inventors and scientific and technological information

So far that is a claim, with no proof at all to back it up. Do you have anything to back it up?

there is the use of ridicule by ordinary people who I classify as minions of the powers that be. Minions are people who have invested their time, effort, money, and ego into a university education - which is largely controlled by those powers that be - and they don't want the perceived value of that education diminished. So they're content to use the fallacy of ridicule, which only helps the powers that be keep things the way they are.

They "ridicule" by pointing out why the claims made by some people are wrong, and also "ridicule" that none of the devices made by the people actually work as claimed.

hellobruce
So far that is a claim, with no proof at all to back it up. Do you have anything to back it up?

I'm tempted to use the ridicule on you that has often been used on me to answer your question.

But I will control myself.

There is much information on the internet detailing the life stories of inventors over the decades. Some of them have been merely harassed or had their labs ransacked or had their families threatened. Some of them have been killed.

Hellobruce, do your own research. You have the same internet I have. I'm not going to spoon-feed you.

Mary Rose

Arbitrageur
Mary did you ever answer this? How should science treat theories that have been proven wrong?

Any time you say something has been proven wrong you are stating what you believe to be true from the information you have.

So going back to my example of the theory that says the arrow is moving because it's being pushed by the air; we can launch the arrow in a vacuum chamber and show that it keeps moving even when in a vacuum. How can we possibly misinterpret that? Doesn't that prove the theory false?

oh dear, and there is the 'go look it up'

It is pretty funny how people ask questions and then expect answers, of scientists. If those answers do not suit one's predisposition they just refute them. Or out right claim the scientist knows nothing.

Someone else asks questions and rather than offering the same, the question is batted aside with "go look it up" exactly the kind of response that actually is worse than trying to move anything forward.

Some of the posts iv given as answers to questions are quite long, and I apologize for that, but many of the answers are long, multifaceted and take a little more than 2 lines to explain. I am somewhat unhappy with the level of "Go look it up" responses, and not only that but when responses try to be good, they are simply a mish mash of meaningless word salad.

Please enlighten us o prophet

Use the internet.

Do your homework. Take the time to do your homework.

Connect dots on your own.



We need to help along that act of God by educating ourselves and demanding better things.

Mary Rose
Use the internet.

We need to help along that act of God by educating ourselves and demanding better things.

You can't verify he actually said that, can you?

It seems to me like the game of "telephone" you play in elementary school where the teacher whispers something to one student, and it's whispered around the classroom person to person. By the time the last student says what he heard, it's not much like what the teacher actually said. I believe that your quote is like what the last student said, not much resembling the original statement by Ben Rich. Here are some insights posted to ATS about that:

Can anyone find the source of this quote from Ben Rich Re: hidden advanced technology

Shadowhawk
As I pointed out in an earlier post, there was no "deathbed" confession. His comments, many of which have ben misquoted, were taken from presentations he gave long before his death. Ben Rich gave his speeches using a standard script. The content varied a bit over the years; he added new material whenever something was declassified, but from 1983 on he always ended with his joke, "We just got a contract to take E.T. back home."

No matter how many years had passed since the last time he said it, it was always "we just got a contract" of "a few weeks ago we received a contract." That was part of the gag, making it sound like a current Skunk Works project. Rich kept copies of his scripts, which he reused according to the needs of his audience, along with photocopies of all of his slides (including the "flying saucer"), so these details are easy to verify.

Jan Harzan, now executive director of Mutual UFO Network (MUFON), attended the March 1993 lecture at the University of California, Los Angeles, with fellow UCLA engineering alumnus and UFO enthusiast Tom Keller. Keller, an aerospace engineer who has worked as a computer systems analyst for NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, wrote about it in the May 2010 issue of "MUFON UFO Journal" and Harzan recently shared his story in a January 2012 interview with Web Talk Radio Network, and another with Alejando Rojas of Open Minds UFO News and Investigations in July 2013.

Harzan says that after the lecture ended a few people remained behind to ask questions. Some wanted to know more about the technology to “take E.T. home.” Harzan says Rich initially brushed off these queries but allegedly told one engineer, “We now know how to travel to the stars. We found an error in the equations and it won’t take a lifetime to do it.” I have also heard Rich's statement quoted as, “First, you have to understand that we will not get to the stars using chemical propulsion. Second, we have to devise a new propulsion technology. What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong.” Unfortunately, neither quote is verifiable but the second one sounds more like the words of an engineer, especially one with Rich's stated views as outlined in his letter to John Andrews.

As things began to wind down after the UCLA speech, Rich said, “I’ve got to go now,” and started to walk out of the room. Harzan pursued him, and continued to ask him about the workings of interstellar propulsion systems. it was an unanswerable question in light of our current scientific knowledge.

Rich did say something about taking ET home, as part of his "contract gag", but that was kind of a joke and the people that were there said the audience laughed at it as they were supposed to.

I can also find quotes about Neil Armstrong talking about aliens on the moon, but those quotes are also not verifiable, and he probably never said them.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Yes you do have to use your judgment in who to believe.

There are tons of things we can't know from first-hand experience.

Most of what you learn in university you can't verify from first-hand experience.

All of this is the art of living, isn't it?

The point is, broaden your horizon by eliminating the knee-jerk reaction of ridicule as a first step in opening up the mind to what is possible.

Its similar to the other claims from interviews, which seriously sound more like someone having fun with a reporter and an audience so desperate to believe. Where Bushman talks about strong magnetic fields reducing the gravitational field, it is a test that is so easily done by random people these days that It really makes you wonder why no one has repeated it to verify it.

There will be 100 and 1 excuses, but all of them boil down to the following 'It is not reproducible and what is described does not do anything of the sort claimed'

I hear this thing of "military tech is x years ahead of consumer tech" and again I quite frankly doubt it, these comments were very common when I was growing up during the cold war, and I think it was the sign of the times. Make people think that we are actually more advanced and powerful than we are. It makes the enemy cautious.

It reminds me of the F19, an aircraft that apparently existed if you as some people, but didn't exist if you ask others. And yet, you could buy airfix models of them (two different shapes even) they featured in toys, videogames. For their prominence in media and memory of the time, you might wonder... Where are these things? Again, it was likely more about propaganda than actual reality.

Mary Rose
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

Most of what you learn in university you can't verify from first-hand experience.

In Physics, you would be surprised that first hand experience is quite readily available for a enormous chunk of subject matter

ErosA433
The obvious existence of UFOs is not as obvious as their actual nature. Besides, everyone carries with them a camera these days and the amount of actual evidence that is credible is really not increased at the same rate.

And besides, apparent suppression of UFO subject material does not necessarily have any causal value with what is being discussed here. It is not an absolute means to an end, but more over a logical plausibility but no reason to be the case

The big bang is defined as an expansion OF space, not IN space. So what you suggest is that this field exited both without physical space before and was not perturbed by it as physical space expanded through it.

edit on 5-2-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

At the moment of expansion, the catalyst was the aether upon which everything is contained. Absent physical reality or the moment prior to expansion everything was not in current existence. It could have been coming into this reality from another reality and the point of expansion was like a hole from that place to this. But, it's anybody's gues because no one alive today was there to witness the event.

reply to post by Fromabove


The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid.

As an object moves through the aether the object displaces the aether. As the aether fills-in where the object had been the aether displaces the object. There is no loss of energy in the interaction of an object and the aether and the object moves throught the aether forever.

You are in a bowling alley filled with a supersolid. You roll the bowling ball. The bowling ball displaces the aether. The aether displaces the bowling ball as the aether fills in where the bowling ball had been. The bowling ball rolls on forever through the supersolid.

A supersolid, by definition, means there is no loss of energy in the interaction of.

Q. Is the Earth displacing the aether or is the aether displacing the Earth?
A. Both are occurring simultaneously with equal force.

Mianeye
Magnets are not forever lasting, they run out of energy.

It can't run forever.

Also, I assume it would have to be kickstarted in some way, the magnets merely keeping that kinetic momentum in a closed system. Will turn as long as nothing slows it down. Like a dynamo or generator.

On the other hand, magnets is an interesting power source. Make this big enough and using let's say a river or waterfall to sustain momentum, more excess power could be harvested, perhaps making traditional hydro power more effective.

intrptr
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Theres this old adage…

"something from nothing…"

I really wish it were true. It would have to violate the known laws of Physics, though.

As soon as he puts a load on the shaft to produce power enough to turn a generator that gets more energy out than is put in, let me know.

What you are trying to say is it that it violates the three fundamental laws of thermodynamics, they are the reason that perpetual motion machines are "supposed" to be impossible, I say supposed as you never know what new laws in physics are going to be discovered tomorrow, just after the early nineteen hundreds one notable physicist was quoted as saying that evrything to be learned about physics had already been discovered, then came along general relativity!!

DARREN1976just after the early nineteen hundreds one notable physicist was quoted as saying that evrything to be learned about physics had already been discovered, then came along general relativity!!

Well it is kind of ironic to me, because just as proponents of the alternative claim that modern scientists are THAT arrogant to believe we know everything (to which the vast majority such as yourself say... na, we don't know it all at all) The alternative stance quite often gives those guys a big pat on the back and says... they were right. Relativity is a lie and modern science is a lie.

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

On the other hand, magnets is an interesting power source.

They aren't a power source, just a storage device.
Like a battery.

butcherguy
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

On the other hand, magnets is an interesting power source.

They aren't a power source, just a storage device.
Like a battery.

I would not consider a magnetic a storage device. Changes in a magnetic field create power, a magnet at rest is just a brick...

jrod

butcherguy
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

On the other hand, magnets is an interesting power source.

They aren't a power source, just a storage device.
Like a battery.

I would not consider a magnetic a storage device. Changes in a magnetic field create power, a magnet at rest is just a brick...

It takes power to create a magnet and they don't stay magnets forever. The magnet is a storage device for magnetic flux.

If you pass a conductor through a stationary magnetic field, electric current is induced in the conductor. The power is generated by the relative motion between the conductor and the magnetic field.

I've just noticed that scientist and author Paul LaViolette, originator of a unified theory called subquantum kinetics, has commented on the Engel motor:

The Engel permanent magnetic motor, reported on in a news article by Sepp Hasslberger, is a rotary device that has been observed to run continuously for seven months with only a small input of 70 milliwatts needed to operate its speed controlling disc, this being said to be a small fraction of the motor’s total rotary power. No power output figures for the motor, however, have been mentioned.

In explaining the origin of the motor’s excess energy, we might focus on the neodymium iron boron magnets which provide the motive force to keep the motor spinning. The magnetic field in the permanent magnets can be traced to the magnetic moment of unpaired electrons in the magnet’s material. This further leads to the question of what powers the spin of an electron, spin being responsible for its magnetic moment. Standard physics provides no answer and simply claims that spin is an inherent property of electrons. Subquantum kinetics, however, interprets spin as a vortical motion of the X and Y ethers and attributes this vortical motion to the consumption of Y etherons and production of X etherons in the electron’s core. The radial flow of Y into the electron’s core is hypothesized to create a vortical movement, although this must be checked out through future computer simulations of Model G. These ether consumptions and productions in the particle’s core ultimately arise as a result of the underlying etheric transmutative flux. So, the origin of electron spin and magnetic moment may ultimately be traced to the underlying etheric flux. Hence the Engel magnetic motor may be said to derive its energy from this transmutive flux.

It is no use to think of this flux in terms of energy terms since energy (i.e., energy quanta, gravitational potential energy, electrical potential energy, etc.) has meaning only at the physical level. At the subquantum etheric level we need other concepts to describe what drives these reactions forward. Love maybe? An inherent need to react? Or perhaps we should invent a term less anthropomorphic like “subquantum action”.

starburstfound.org...

reply to post by butcherguy


Magnets can be found in nature.

The motion of the conductor is still motion. A vertigo stricken observer on the magnetic would sense the magnet moving and observe the conductor at a fixed point.

All very good but it is no more correct to say "Oh Scientists say Spin is inherent" I say it is because of an interaction with the ether" and it be correct.

Unless it can be proven that this process happens then it gives no real credence to the theory. This also gives no real reflection of how pin manifests itself in other particles and how spin doesnt always have be be 1/2. Just saying "Oh its just twice the throughput"

All of these fall over because they are alot of tall promises and absolutely ZERO material evidence, such a theory should give some clearly predictable, testable phenomenon. The issue here being that these theories are getting pretty fundamental, and if you actually had experience of real QCD calculation, you would know that we are talking about pages and pages of solid formula. Thus far we basically only see people talking about it like its the solution to all problems... but it is little more than a few nice words and empty promises.