--- On Mon, 6/15/09, John Berry <aethe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personally my interest is in the aether and I have much
> evidence for a model I have developed which explains most
> everything and roughly how to do almost anything, but I can
> not imagine trying to wade into that subject here.
I've had an interest in some sort of ether theory to explain the (generally
swept under the rug) superluminal effects that are observed in nature.
Stephen Lawrence suggested that a viable ether theory must explain the
Michelson-Morley experiment, Sagnac, etc., and be different than LET, which
uses the same basic transformation equations as SR.
There is a different formulation of transforms, as per Tangherlini and Selleri,
which give the same results up to c as does SR. Where they differ is in a
regime extending beyond c. Here, SR pulls a freak out, and we've got things
violating causality, being able to arrive back before they left, and so on.
With these different transforms, you don't get into this trouble, causality is
preserved. Unfortunately (or fortunately) relativity of simultaneity is lost.
But you can't measure it anyways, unless you have something that can exceed c,
which by definition in SR, you can't do. So there is no truly compelling reason
to believe it exists in lieu of something else.
> But there is one bit of my research that we could get into,
> it is a Free Energy device that is well replicated and has
> been replicated by a previous list member, it can be
> assembled with off the shelf components.
>
> It seems able to produce useful levels of power far greater
> than the input.
>
> And it also has a secondary quality that "proves"
> that something very novel is occurring.
>
> In theory manufacture of these could be accomplished very
> realistically.
>
> If anyone is genuinely interested I am happy to expand as
> time permits.
I'm very interested. Speak on, speak on.
> Also is anyone here genuinely interested in
> orgne/torsion/aether etc..?
> The evidence that it is the very conditioning of space that
> is key to these more extraordinary technologies and events
> (ball lightening for instance) is overwhelming and they
> actually with nothing but observation produce an extremely
> coherant picture, but in a decade online I have not found
> really anyone interested in such.
I don't know anything about orgone or what it is supposed to be. As to torsion,
are you referring to the stuff Alexander Shpilman and co. were doing? Weren't
they exposed as frauds? If there is experimental evidence of such a thing as
these torsion fields, let me know. If there's experiments to be done, let me
know!
I'm not sure exactly how you're tying ball lightning into this. Care to expand
on this?
--Kyle
