On Sunday August 3 Jack said [snip] * * * FOR EXAMPLE: Identicle Twins are
QUANTUM-ENTANGLED. . . via Torsion-Wave TRANS HYPERSPACE Spooky Action the
same as nano sub-atomic particles and our QUANTUM-ENTANGLED CEREBRAL CORTEX'S.
[/snip]
Jack, I believe Paradox twins experience the same
Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only 'seem' to
elicite paradox since we are simultaneously(via transtemperal Casimir
destortions) NEEDING TO CROSS CORRELATE seeming 'Through the Looking Glass'
A-Dark Tachyonic Super Fluid.
*Ha* CROSS CORRELATING a hypothesized DARK
Jack,
Take this quiz and get back to me...
http://darkmattersalot.com/2013/11/21/are-you-smarter-than-a-5th-grader-who-is-smarter-than-einstein/
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 1:56 PM, JackHarbach O'Sullivan
alset9te...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes: Paradox indicates that our 3D logic parameters indeed only
AT THE QUANTUM CASIMIR PLASMA-BREACH BORDER: We are indeed observing
QUASI-TESSERACT shifts in nano-geometry which are profoundly
RE-CONSTRUCTING atomic structures. . . sudden seemingly paradoxical
isotopic rearrangements of atomic structures indicate this. . .
Wild card John Hutchison/Hutchison
Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same
force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted.
***Would that be the Asymmetrical Thrust Capacitor proposal that I
submitted?
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 1:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
I was not aware
NASA's The PLASMA-BREACH Torus-Eye sub-singularity reactor is MACRO-QUANTUM
ENTANGLEMENT. NASA's 'IMPOSSIBLE SPACE DRIVE merely proves Trans-Spectrum
Einstein-Rosen TORUS EYE-BREACH bleed through from (PROVEN) AexoDarkEnergy
Parallel-Adjacent hyperspace aka THE~Quantum~BACK OF THE TAPESTRY. . .
vorts that can contribute.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com
To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology
few bad point for the test are :
1- the thrust is much weaker than EmDrive
2- the blank reactor works too.
the 1 is probably linked to the bad Q compares to EmDrive
the 2 maybe is simply that Fetta does not understand well his reactor, and
that it worsk for another reason than the one he imagine.
Alain, where did you read that the blank/dummy control drive also worked?
From what I read it seemed to indicate that it passed (got negative result)
on that drive.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
few bad point for the test are :
1- the thrust is
It looks like I can answer my own question.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf
Thrust was observed on both test
articles, even though one of the test articles was designed with the
expectation that it would not produce
thrust. Specifically, one test article
However, apparently a dummy load produced zero thrust...
And I think the other designs need to be better understood, should they
really be null?
http://i.imgur.com/daNmDty.png
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like I can answer my own
Different, but this made me think of Borbas Miklos, a simple ion free
anomalous thrust experiment:
http://web.archive.org/web/20090902150248/http://bmiklos2000.freeweb.hu/unipolar.htm
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 10:16 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
However, apparently a dummy load
More on the null test...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible_space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 11:21 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote:
Different, but this made me think of Borbas Miklos, a simple ion free
anomalous thrust
From: John Berry
More on the null test...
http://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/2c8xah/nasa_validates_impossible
_space_drive_wired_uk/cjdg3bh
They say the null test was designed to be null, and yet it
still showed thrust.
What a surprise : Jennifer Ouellette comes out against it
Physics Week in Review: August 2, 2014
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cocktail-party-physics/2014/08/02/physics-week-in-review-august-2-2014/
Perhaps your interest was piqued by the news that a Fuel-Less Space Drive with
as the comment says, it rather says that the theory of fetta is wrong...
that fetta cannot design a reactor that don't work by changing what he
consider a key detail.
it is a theory failure, not a practical failure.
the resonance is important, and this enough let me consider something is
real, at
part of the current tragedy of science is all kind of mainstream media
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusion.pdf#page=4
first of all scientific journalists, then science tabloid (science, nature,
Cells), then influential mainstream media (NYT)...
don't look further, consensus is
particles
still occur between the plates but undergo Lorentzian contraction from our
perspective.
Fran
_
From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 7:54 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa
pen itsat...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
See
To: Vortex List vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 7:22 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
this is the 3rd test, done with different metrology, and with many cross
checking documented on EmDrive (like changing turn...)
as Ed Storms says in his books, when
-Original Message-
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 8:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote:
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
They tested the Cannae version
: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic fields.
The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating
-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 9:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic
fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons.
The microwave vibrations
: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I suggested something like negative gravity. The force that NASA has stumbled
onto could be the force produced causing the expansion
, 2014 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I suggested something like negative gravity. The force that NASA has
stumbled onto could be the force produced causing the expansion of the
universe. If there is a process that produces RF all over the universe
I was not aware of Poher, but given that shouldn't Morton be considered a
further and earlier verification of this effect?
Sure it might be harder to directly replicate his results, but the same
force from an asymmetrical spark discharge was noted.
It might also be worth noting Piggot:
Sent: Fri, Aug 1, 2014 12:51 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
I suggested something like negative gravity. The force that NASA has stumbled
onto could be the force produced causing the expansion of the universe. If
there is a process that produces RF all
The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of
production could even be increased by adding NMR active materials to the
structure of the reactor. This current disadvantage in Ni/H technology
might well be turned into an important feature. The Ni/H reaction could
provide a direct
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
See:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive
Eric
Of course microwave RF energy is a form of electrical power.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 3:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
The Ni/H reactor produces
the root of the thrust.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
On Thu, Jul 31
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates 'impossible' space drive
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com
wrote:
See:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07
Axil,
Is there any data to backup your prodigious RF statement of fact?
Spectrum analyzer etc.
Ron
--On Thursday, July 31, 2014 3:45 PM -0400 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com
wrote:
The Ni/H reactor produces prodigious amounts of RF. This level of
production could even be increased by adding
to generate the large
amount of RF must enter the device from somewhere and that is likely the
root of the thrust.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: leaking pen itsat...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, Jul 31, 2014 4:16 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Wired: Nasa validates
There is an intriguing cross-connection between two other controversial
lines of anti-gravity experiment: Eugene Podkletnov (mentioned in the Wired
article) and Claude Poher (not mentioned). Here is a review of Poher’s
superconductor.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1101/1101.2419.pdf
NASA has
At 01:16 PM 7/31/2014, you wrote:
Okay, so can we get them to test the emDrive now?
They tested the Cannae version (as reported by Wired) -- 40
micronewton at 28W , but ALSO a tapered version, which is an
emDrive -- 91 micronewton at 17W.
See page 1 of the Nasa paper
The Eugene Podkletnov anti gravity theory is based on rotating magnetic
fields. The connection might be that RF is produced by rotating electrons.
The microwave vibrations will induce spin rotation in the matter that fills
space and that might include the spins of virtual particles emerging from
Well, since we're talking about NASA impossible space drives...
Excerpt of heavily encrypted PDF file
Proposal by Quantum Potential Corporation in response to 2011 NASA
http://www.quantum-potential.com/ACT%20NASA.pdf
NASA, U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force have commissioned a number of
interesting
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
NASA has reportedly confirmed an effect of reactionless acceleration with
Poher’s device ...
I have to hand it to groups at NASA for being relatively independent of the
opinion of the physics mainstream. Apparently there
Whithout any technical knowledge I agree with you Eric. I wonder how they
could keep the good spirit in this big organization
once Lwerner Brown and Na8sa was the same, was that how much he colored the
culture as he was certaily a contrarian.
On Jul 31, 2014 8:31 PM, Eric Walker
40 matches
Mail list logo
