Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
> > Do you have any idea whether the inactive one would frequently be made > active by variations in display setttings? Not very likely. There are various difficulties, not that it should stop you but you should be aware of them. Aetheric energy can couple over large distances, additionally it can remain in an area or an object once disturbed. Coupling over large distances can occur sometimes when there is resonance between 2 similar things, much like radio's tuned to resonance, or the aforementioned twin effect. So even if one image is inactive, if it is too close it may 'couple' and take energy from the active one. Not that it can't be studied in such ways successfully, but ignoring the way it functions serves the likes of Randi, but it does not serve genuine interest in reclaiming extraordinary science from the fringe. John On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 12:08 PM, James Bowery wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:57 AM, James Bowery wrote: >>> >>> So, let me ask you again for an acceptable control experiment but in >>> different terms: >>> >>> What sort of picture does your theory predict will be very similar to >>> the experimental treatment picture, but lack the essential aspects that >>> produce the amplification of the placebo, or other hypothesized effect? >>> >> >> Well I did already post an image that has 2 very similar 'devices', one >> which works well and another that is almost lifeless, just split them up. >> >> http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png >> >> > Thanks! > > That's a good start. > > Do you have any idea whether the inactive one would frequently be made > active by variations in display setttings? > > >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:02 PM, John Berry wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 2:57 AM, James Bowery wrote: >> >> So, let me ask you again for an acceptable control experiment but in >> different terms: >> >> What sort of picture does your theory predict will be very similar to the >> experimental treatment picture, but lack the essential aspects that produce >> the amplification of the placebo, or other hypothesized effect? >> > > Well I did already post an image that has 2 very similar 'devices', one > which works well and another that is almost lifeless, just split them up. > > http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png > > Thanks! That's a good start. Do you have any idea whether the inactive one would frequently be made active by variations in display setttings?
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same >>>>>>> principles would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, >>>>>>> but it works fine. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a >>>>>>> try. >>>>>>> Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? >>>>>>> Really by definition it must. Well, it does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is not made to effect the eye or brain. >>>>>>>> It works with eyes closed. >>>>>>>> As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still >>>>>>>> work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side >>>>>>>> of the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> still be felt. >>>>>>>> Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. >>>>>>>> Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter >>>>>>>> image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a >>>>>>>> cool, a >>>>>>>> warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the >>>>>>>> image. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >>>>>>>> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of >>>>>>>>> light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I >>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>> not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting >>>>>>>>> subject but >>>>>>>>> I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Fran >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>>>>>>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists >>>>>>>>> here? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Harry, thanks for your appreciation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But it isn't about drawings. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo >>>>>>>>> easy to replicate. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt.** >>>>>>>>> ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And programs >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And videos, but the easiest to share is images. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much >>>>>>>>> more extraordinary technology possible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So who is interested? >>>>>>>>> So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough >>>>>>>>> discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder < >>>>>>>>> hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for positing this. >>>>>>>>> It is about drawing the world into existence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry >>>>>>>>> and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but >>>>>>>>> that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and >>>>>>>>> demonstrates >>>>>>>>> the art of measuring." --from the preface to Principia >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices >>>>>>>>> when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Harry >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry < >>>>>>>>> berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development >>>>>>>>> with some previous ones. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they >>>>>>>>> don't feel anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Again, best in a dark room (but not required). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Feel for any sensations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry < >>>>>>>>> berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A worthwhile improvement for both images: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry < >>>>>>>>> berry.joh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been >>>>>>>>> this one: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png*** >>>>>>>>> * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
On Fri 4/19 Alex said [snip] I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference.[/snip]. Alex, That is not what I am saying, in fact the velocities are so different below the Planck scale we have wormholes forming to relieve the differentials throughout the quantum foam..but by the time we reach the physical scale all this turbulence has averaged out to an isotropic value that can only vary slowly with gravitational changes. The point I was trying to make is that we are never aware of the variations because out time quantum is based on our local value..the twin Paradox being the extreme case but it indicates 2 things, first-- that we are obviously unaware of "our" local vector angle between time and space [always perceiving our selves at 0 degrees in the spatial plane], and second-- that this 4th dimension is still physical space regardless of dilation factor [matter doesn't suddenly come unglued]. It makes a case for catalytic action and gas loading based on accessing this additional volume of space and is what ZPE proponents are seeking to exploit. In the macro world it would equate to exploiting Lorentzian contraction which is difficult from practical considerations of both velocity and only ONE spatial direction/dimension being contracted..it is a spatial vector in a trig relationship with C where the ether is moving through our plane at the rate we always perceive of as "C". ["compressing" the raindrops against the windshield from the Haisch Rueda analogy]...BUT in "suppression" via geometry you don't need velocity and the effect suppresses the ether on all 3 spatial axis.. My posit is that virtual particles grow into and shrink out of existence via symmetrical Lorentzian- like contraction on all 3 axis. I say "Lorentzian Like" because there are 3 key differences, One-- the "velocity" is "equivalent" like an alternative Paradox where the Twin stands at the bottom of a deep gravity well instead of accelerating to near luminal velocities. Two-- The equivalent velocity is negative from our perspective because we are still experiencing the full average "rate" of ether passing through our plane [we experience the isotropic "average" at the macro scale] while inside the Casimir geometry the rate is suppressed ... so from the perspective inside the cavity we outside in the macro world are equivalent to that twin standing at the bottom of a gravity well and we slow down in time [age slowly] while from our perspective the observers in the cavity appear to accelerate [age rapidly]. Three-the occupants of the cavity appear to shrink in all 3 dimensions allowing us to load much more into them than would seem plausible for their available volume... they use pressure and temperature to try and explain gas loading but my posit remains that this is due to a relativistic interpretation of Casimir effect and likewise the hydrino is actually relativistic hydrogen exactly as Jan Naudts wrote in 2005. There really is more room inside these cavities than we perceive from the outside and as more hydrogen poors into the cavities they see the walls shrink away as they migrate out onto the temporal axis. Fran From: itsat...@gmail.com [mailto:itsat...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexander Hollins Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 12:44 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? I apologize, I just started reading these posts. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference. Really? I'm going to have to delve into this, because my primary issue with relativity and physics in general as I've learned more and more about the relations between time, mass, and velocity is the statement that there is not. To my mind, I cannot conceive of a universe in which there is not a single center point, either "stationary" or moving, but by moving causing everything to move in relation to it, so appearing to be "stationary" that we can relate too. A specific velocity that matches that ground state that, once reached, mass should approach zero and the effects caused by increasing mass (time dilation) vanish. Thank you for another interesting line of discussion VO! On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: John, Fran, I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space around us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference. Just about everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else that is not directly, and physically attached to it. It makes more sense
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
I think you should also do a version where "passive" images are printed paper and kept in sealed envelopes. A video image is an "active" image in the sense that it requires an electrical power source to be present. As a result a video image might channel or focus EM fields and radiation in such a way that they may become sensible by a hand. Harry On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > > You do a double blind trial by automating the process and covering the > screen. > > Program a computer to randomly display one of your images or a blank > screen every minute of so. The computer will keep a record of what was > displayed during each time interval. > During the interval test subjects will report if they sensed anything. > > You can then look for correlations in the data. > > Harry > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> First off, thank you for at least considering this. >> >> Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these >> images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect. >> >> There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must >> be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests. >> >> You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel >> balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of >> the mind on the results. >> You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic >> particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind. >> >> There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical >> energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called >> energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released. >> >> Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and >> her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts >> being things. >> >> Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many >> treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double! >> >> So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase >> the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind). >> >> Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you >> to feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can >> experience but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional >> detail, your beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a >> degree. >> >> That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make >> for a possibility of some confusing results. >> >> I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and >> sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real. >> But I know you can't take it on faith. >> >> You could just humor me. >> Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of >> it. >> >> Of course you could ignore it as being too far out. >> >> But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us >> from recognizing a part of reality. >> >> My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various >> other distractions. >> My interest does lie in creating physical effects. >> >> Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or >> clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of >> understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of >> interest. >> >> I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be >> effected by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would >> have to be given. >> >> >> John >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact >>> that I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own >>> control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an >>> acceptable control experiment. >>> >>> If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something >>> like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they "felt >>> anything". I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying >>> the egos of a bunch of "skeptics" that they had the strength of numbers on >>> their side. >>> >>> So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what >>> YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment? >>> >>> >>> >>
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
You do a double blind trial by automating the process and covering the screen. Program a computer to randomly display one of your images or a blank screen every minute of so. The computer will keep a record of what was displayed during each time interval. During the interval test subjects will report if they sensed anything. You can then look for correlations in the data. Harry On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:07 PM, John Berry wrote: > First off, thank you for at least considering this. > > Yes I a bit frustrated that no one new has reported even trying these > images, but I did not mean to show any disrespect. > > There is an issue I didn't really want to get to yet, but I think it must > be considered if we are going to get into the area of blind tests. > > You are likely aware of the small but positive results that tiny steel > balls falling one side or another in a contraption showed an influence of > the mind on the results. > You may or may not be aware that certain experiments with subatomic > particles and SQUID's show a very strong influence of the mind. > > There is of course other 'fringe' evidence of various non-physical > energies being effected by the mind, additionally there is a field called > energy psychology where energy structured with emotions is released. > > Rupert Shaldrake's research, links between identical twins and mother and > her children are sometime inexplicable without some degree of thoughts > being things. > > Indeed the placebo effect can not only be more effective than many > treatments, it is becoming more effective than it used to be, about double! > > So the problem is that devices that manipulate the aether act to increase > the energy available to the Placebo effect (available to the mind). > > Now you see why I didn't want to get into this, I am already asking you to > feel a something I can only poorly define which most people can experience > but in different ways, and now I have to add the additional detail, your > beliefs and thoughts can effect the aetheric energy to a degree. > > That doesn't mean a placebo controlled test can't work, but it does make > for a possibility of some confusing results. > > I know it is real, I feel it as a physical sensation on my palms and > sometimes other places on my body and it is very very strong and real. > But I know you can't take it on faith. > > You could just humor me. > Or you could try to feel it yourself, hopefully enough to be convinced of > it. > > Of course you could ignore it as being too far out. > > But consider that the rules of scientific evidence may actually stop us > from recognizing a part of reality. > > My interest does not lie in how this interacts with the mind, or various > other distractions. > My interest does lie in creating physical effects. > > Physics has been ignoring a rather significant (albeit seldom reliable or > clear) portion of reality, and this does open up the possibility of > understanding these areas for those interested, just not my prime area of > interest. > > I am not sure how to run a blind test well when the aether can be effected > by thoughts. It might be possible but real consideration would have to be > given. > > > John > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM, James Bowery wrote: > >> You know, John, if I were an amazing Randi type, aside from the fact that >> I wouldn't be caught dead posting to vortex-l, I would propose my own >> control experiment rather than asking you what you considered to be an >> acceptable control experiment. >> >> If I were the Amazing Randi, my control experiment would be something >> like show a bunch of people random images and ask them if they "felt >> anything". I would then proceed to lead a monkey beat upon you satisfying >> the egos of a bunch of "skeptics" that they had the strength of numbers on >> their side. >> >> So how about showing me the respect that I showed you by asking you what >> YOU would consider to be an acceptable control experiment? >> >> >> >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
I apologize, I just started reading these posts. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference. Really? I'm going to have to delve into this, because my primary issue with relativity and physics in general as I've learned more and more about the relations between time, mass, and velocity is the statement that there is not. To my mind, I cannot conceive of a universe in which there is not a single center point, either "stationary" or moving, but by moving causing everything to move in relation to it, so appearing to be "stationary" that we can relate too. A specific velocity that matches that ground state that, once reached, mass should approach zero and the effects caused by increasing mass (time dilation) vanish. Thank you for another interesting line of discussion VO! On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, David Roberson wrote: > John, Fran, > > I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space > around us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult > time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a > reference. Just about everything in the universe is moving relative to > everything else that is not directly, and physically attached to it. It > makes more sense to me to just accept the fact that there is no absolute > reference frame about which everything develops. > > On many occasions I find it quite advantageous to visualize myself > residing within a certain chosen frame to understand what is taking place > during collisions, etc. When chosen carefully, the observations that can > be made reveal behavior that is hidden by the complexity normally > encountered when a convenient one is randomly picked. The same laws of > physics must be followed for each observer so one that chooses wisely can > obtain a great advantage. > > When you speak of time variations that each observer encounters you are > getting into a truly exciting subject that is endlessly interesting. Of > course, each observer detects nothing unusual about the way time unfolds in > his constant velocity world. It is only when he observes others living in > other reference frames that are moving relative to him that he notices > strange behavior. I suspect that taking this aspect into consideration > might unlock some of the mysteries that keep us asking questions about > nature. For instance, I have mentally adjusted my frame of reference on > occasions to include moving at nearly the speed of light relative to some > experimental setups to see if it can be used to explain what occurs. So > far I have hit difficult barriers but I hope to one day gain information > that clarifies these events. > > I suppose that our main task is to continue to ask questions and not > accept the current descriptions of physics without adequate proof. It is > safe to assume that there is much left to be learned in the sciences and > that new understanding begins with good questions. We should encourage > discussions about the behavior of time, ethers, and whatever else comes > into focus even if they do not agree with our current understanding. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Roarty, Francis X > To: vortex-l > Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 10:57 am > Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? > > John, > I think Ed Storm coined the NAE as a Nuclear Active > environment.. not really defining how the lattice geometry does what it > does but rather just defining the area where it occurs.. these hot spots do > sometimes produce trace amounts of nuclear ash but not enough to account > for the anomalous energy claimed… I am a neo Lorentzian theorist, IMHO the > ether is moving through our 3D plane at a rate that defines our basic unit > of time and is why we will always experience C as 300 million m/s –if the > ether were to vary we would be blissfully unaware of it as our “awareness” > will always match the rate of the ether passing through our plane..in > effect it is our time base and is why we have the odd time dilation effects > where the paradox twins are unaware of each others differences in inertial > frames until they get back together and realize they were living at > different rates. > Fran > > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:42 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? > > NAE is not an acronym I am familiar with. > I see it can mean nuclear active environment. > > Have you tried the image? > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
, 2013 at 5:57 PM, John Berry wrote: >>> >>>> It is funny that not a single new person has reported even testing the >>>> images. >>>> Both Jones Bennee and Gibson Elliot had tested and reported back with >>>> positive results before I posted this to Vortex. >>>> >>>> So before everyone tries to debunk it, find fault. >>>> How about actually testing it and reporting back what if anything you >>>> got from it? >>>> >>>> For me the intensity of the energy is far far beyond anything that my >>>> imagination alone can conjure up. >>>> But I accept that may not be the case for most. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery wrote: >>>> >>>>> What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish >>>>> between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual >>>>>> effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. >>>>>> >>>>>> It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very >>>>>> very faintly at first feel something in my hand. >>>>>> It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more >>>>>> apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found >>>>>> it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. >>>>>> >>>>>> I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I >>>>>> tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. >>>>>> >>>>>> I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a >>>>>> sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage >>>>>> feel >>>>>> it, but always a majority). >>>>>> >>>>>> I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to >>>>>> get computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound >>>>>> but >>>>>> the EM from the speakers that effects the aether). >>>>>> >>>>>> And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the >>>>>> aether just fine, but have many many advantages. >>>>>> >>>>>> So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles >>>>>> would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it >>>>>> works >>>>>> fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. >>>>>> Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? >>>>>> Really by definition it must. Well, it does. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is not made to effect the eye or brain. >>>>>>> It works with eyes closed. >>>>>>> As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still >>>>>>> work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of >>>>>>> the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can >>>>>>> still >>>>>>> be felt. >>>>>>> Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. >>>>>>> Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter >>>>>>> image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a >>>>>>> cool, a >>>>>>> warmth,
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
gt;>>> >>>>> It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very >>>>> faintly at first feel something in my hand. >>>>> It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more >>>>> apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. >>>>> >>>>> I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found >>>>> it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. >>>>> >>>>> I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I >>>>> tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. >>>>> >>>>> I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a >>>>> sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel >>>>> it, but always a majority). >>>>> >>>>> I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get >>>>> computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but >>>>> the >>>>> EM from the speakers that effects the aether). >>>>> >>>>> And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the >>>>> aether just fine, but have many many advantages. >>>>> >>>>> So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles >>>>> would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works >>>>> fine. >>>>> >>>>> So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. >>>>> Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? >>>>> Really by definition it must. Well, it does. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> This is not made to effect the eye or brain. >>>>>> It works with eyes closed. >>>>>> As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still >>>>>> work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). >>>>>> >>>>>> If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of >>>>>> the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can >>>>>> still >>>>>> be felt. >>>>>> Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. >>>>>> >>>>>> Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. >>>>>> Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter >>>>>> image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a >>>>>> cool, a >>>>>> warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the >>>>>> image. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >>>>>> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> John, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of >>>>>>> light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I >>>>>>> would >>>>>>> not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory.** >>>>>>> ** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fran >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ** ** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] >>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>>>>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists >>>>>>> here? >>>>&g
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
ee if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, >>>>> a >>>>> warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the >>>>> image. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >>>>> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John, >>>>>> >>>>>> Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of >>>>>> light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I >>>>>> would >>>>>> not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject >>>>>> but >>>>>> I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory.*** >>>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> >>>>>> Fran >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] >>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM >>>>>> >>>>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>>>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists >>>>>> here? >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> Harry, thanks for your appreciation. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> But it isn't about drawings. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo >>>>>> easy to replicate. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> And programs >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> And videos, but the easiest to share is images. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more >>>>>> extraordinary technology possible. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> So who is interested? >>>>>> So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough >>>>>> discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however >>>>>> that >>>>>> there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water.** >>>>>> ** >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for positing this. >>>>>> It is about drawing the world into existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry >>>>>> and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. >>>>>> >>>>>> "...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but >>>>>> that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and >>>>>> demonstrates >>>>>> the art of measuring." --from the preface to Principia >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices >>>>>> when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Harry >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development >>>>>> with some previous ones. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they >>>>>> don't feel anything. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, best in a dark room (but not required). >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> Feel for any sensations. >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> A worthwhile improvement for both images: >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been >>>>>> this one: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>>> ** ** >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Running a control experiment is "debunking"? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:57 PM, John Berry wrote: > It is funny that not a single new person has reported even testing the > images. > Both Jones Bennee and Gibson Elliot had tested and reported back with > positive results before I posted this to Vortex. > > So before everyone tries to debunk it, find fault. > How about actually testing it and reporting back what if anything you got > from it? > > For me the intensity of the energy is far far beyond anything that my > imagination alone can conjure up. > But I accept that may not be the case for most. > > John > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery wrote: > >> What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish >> between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual >>> effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. >>> >>> It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very >>> faintly at first feel something in my hand. >>> It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more >>> apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. >>> >>> I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it >>> worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. >>> >>> I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I >>> tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. >>> >>> I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a >>> sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel >>> it, but always a majority). >>> >>> I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get >>> computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the >>> EM from the speakers that effects the aether). >>> >>> And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the >>> aether just fine, but have many many advantages. >>> >>> So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles >>> would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works >>> fine. >>> >>> So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. >>> Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? >>> Really by definition it must. Well, it does. >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry wrote: >>> >>>> This is not made to effect the eye or brain. >>>> It works with eyes closed. >>>> As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work >>>> (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). >>>> >>>> If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of >>>> the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still >>>> be felt. >>>> Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. >>>> >>>> Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. >>>> >>>> If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. >>>> Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image >>>> and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a >>>> warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. >>>> >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >>>> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John, >>>>> >>>>> Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light >>>>> patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not >>>>> qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I >>>>> disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> >>>>> Fran >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> ** ** >>>>> >>>>> *From:* John Berry [mai
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
It is funny that not a single new person has reported even testing the images. Both Jones Bennee and Gibson Elliot had tested and reported back with positive results before I posted this to Vortex. So before everyone tries to debunk it, find fault. How about actually testing it and reporting back what if anything you got from it? For me the intensity of the energy is far far beyond anything that my imagination alone can conjure up. But I accept that may not be the case for most. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 10:44 AM, James Bowery wrote: > What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish > between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? > > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual >> effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. >> >> It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very >> faintly at first feel something in my hand. >> It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more >> apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. >> >> I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it >> worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. >> >> I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I >> tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. >> >> I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a >> sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel >> it, but always a majority). >> >> I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get >> computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the >> EM from the speakers that effects the aether). >> >> And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the >> aether just fine, but have many many advantages. >> >> So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles >> would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works >> fine. >> >> So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. >> Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? >> Really by definition it must. Well, it does. >> >> >> John >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> This is not made to effect the eye or brain. >>> It works with eyes closed. >>> As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work >>> (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). >>> >>> If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the >>> screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be >>> felt. >>> Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. >>> >>> Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. >>> >>> If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. >>> Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image >>> and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a >>> warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >>> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light >>>> patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not >>>> qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I >>>> disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> Fran >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM >>>> >>>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? >>>> >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> Harry, thanks for your appreciation. >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> But it isn't about drawings. >>>> >>>> Sur
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
What would be an acceptable control experiment that could distinguish between placebo and real effect? What about double blind? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 5:13 PM, John Berry wrote: > Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual > effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. > > It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very > faintly at first feel something in my hand. > It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more apparent > as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. > > I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it > worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. > > I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I tested > it on people and found a majority could feel it. > > I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a > sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel > it, but always a majority). > > I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get > computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the > EM from the speakers that effects the aether). > > And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the aether > just fine, but have many many advantages. > > So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles > would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works > fine. > > So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. > Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? > Really by definition it must. Well, it does. > > > John > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry wrote: > >> This is not made to effect the eye or brain. >> It works with eyes closed. >> As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work >> (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). >> >> If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the >> screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be >> felt. >> Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. >> >> Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. >> >> If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. >> Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image >> and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a >> warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. >> >> >> John >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X < >> francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: >> >>> John, >>> >>> Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light >>> patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not >>> qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I >>> disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> Fran >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM >>> >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?* >>> *** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> Harry, thanks for your appreciation. >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> But it isn't about drawings. >>> >>> Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy >>> to replicate. >>> >>> >>> >>> I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> And programs >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> And videos, but the easiest to share is images. >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more >>> extraordinary technology possible. >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> So who is interested? >>> So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakth
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Let me add that I also know that this has nothing to do with visual effects because this is only one form I have used to effect the aether. It started when I made a coil a bit over a year ago, I could very very faintly at first feel something in my hand. It was near the level of imagination at first, but it became more apparent as the energy gathered in my hand until it was undeniable. I thought it might have had a conventional explanation until I found it worked for a few minutes after turning the power off. I learnt more and made one that needed no power and was stronger, I tested it on people and found a majority could feel it. I have since made many more coils and had about 200+ people feel a sensation (over 90%, often about 97%, occasionally a lower percentage feel it, but always a majority). I have made audio files that use some of the principles I found to get computer speakers to make the energy (sometimes it is not the sound but the EM from the speakers that effects the aether). And I have done a lot of work with images since they can effect the aether just fine, but have many many advantages. So if it was just an effect with the mind, then these same principles would not work when in coil form hidden from sight in a tube, but it works fine. So before you write this off as some bio-sensory trick, give it a try. Why wouldn't light effect the medium in which it has it's existence? Really by definition it must. Well, it does. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:14 AM, John Berry wrote: > This is not made to effect the eye or brain. > It works with eyes closed. > As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work > (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). > > If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the > screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be > felt. > Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. > > Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. > > If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. > Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image > and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a > warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. > > > John > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X < > francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > >> John, >> >> Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light >> patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not >> qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I >> disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. >> >> Regards >> >> Fran >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM >> >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?** >> ** >> >> ** ** >> >> Harry, thanks for your appreciation. >> >> ** ** >> >> But it isn't about drawings. >> >> Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy >> to replicate. >> >> >> >> I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. >> >> ** ** >> >> And programs >> >> ** ** >> >> And videos, but the easiest to share is images. >> >> ** ** >> >> I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. >> >> ** ** >> >> It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more >> extraordinary technology possible. >> >> ** ** >> >> So who is interested? >> So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. >> >> ** ** >> >> I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough >> discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that >> there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. >> >> ** ** >> >> ** ** >> >> John >> >> ** ** >> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder >> wrote: >> >> Thanks for positing this. >> It is about drawing the world into existence. >> >> >> >> Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the >> tools of a mechanical draftsmen. >> >> "...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
This is not made to effect the eye or brain. It works with eyes closed. As do images that look like a solid colour to the eyes, they still work (due to subtle colour variation the eye can't make out). If you put the 'shooter' image on screen and feel the right side of the screen from the back or not looking at the screen, the energy can still be felt. Having said that, it depends on the persons sensitivity. Some people can't feel it in their palms, but enough can. If you don't believe me, here is a radical idea, try it. Stick the image on screen and feel at the 'output' of the shooter image and see if you can feel something (likely subtle, a breeze, a cool, a warmth, a tingle, something), then try without being able to see the image. John On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:31 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > John, > > Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light > patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not > qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I > disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. > > Regards > > Fran > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM > > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?*** > * > > ** ** > > Harry, thanks for your appreciation. > > ** ** > > But it isn't about drawings. > > Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to > replicate. > > > > I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. > > ** ** > > And programs > > ** ** > > And videos, but the easiest to share is images. > > ** ** > > I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. > > ** ** > > It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more > extraordinary technology possible. > > ** ** > > So who is interested? > So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. > > ** ** > > I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough > discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that > there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. > > ** ** > > ** ** > > John > > ** ** > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder > wrote: > > Thanks for positing this. > It is about drawing the world into existence. > > > > Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the > tools of a mechanical draftsmen. > > "...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that > part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the > art of measuring." --from the preface to Principia > > > > Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when > drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. > > > > > > > > Harry > > > > > > > > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry > wrote: > > And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with > some previous ones. > > http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png > > ** ** > > All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't > feel anything. > > ** ** > > Again, best in a dark room (but not required). > > ** ** > > Feel for any sensations. > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry > wrote: > > A worthwhile improvement for both images: > > ** ** > > http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png > > ** ** > > http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png > > ** ** > > ** ** > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry > wrote: > > I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this > one: > > http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
how about this? http://singularityhub.com/2013/03/11/brains-of-two-rats-linked-half-way-across-the-world/ On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 4:04 AM, John Berry wrote: > Harry, thanks for your appreciation. > > But it isn't about drawings. > Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to > replicate. > > I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. > > And programs > > And videos, but the easiest to share is images. > > I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. > > It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more > extraordinary technology possible. > > So who is interested? > So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. > > I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough > discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that > there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. > > > John > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> Thanks for positing this. >> It is about drawing the world into existence. >> >> Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the >> tools of a mechanical draftsmen. >> "...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that >> part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the >> art of measuring." --from the preface to Principia >> >> >> Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when >> drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. >> >> >> >> Harry >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with >>> some previous ones. >>> http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png >>> >>> All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't >>> feel anything. >>> >>> Again, best in a dark room (but not required). >>> >>> Feel for any sensations. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry wrote: >>> A worthwhile improvement for both images: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry wrote: > I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been > this one: > http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png > >>> >> >
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
John, Eye candy, vertigo and mood alteration are certainly examples of light patterns affecting the brain through optical stimulation but I would not qualify this as engineering the ether. It is an interesting subject but I disagree with you titling this subject as based on ether theory. Regards Fran From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:05 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? Harry, thanks for your appreciation. But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. And programs And videos, but the easiest to share is images. I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote: Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. "...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring." --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com>> wrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. Again, best in a dark room (but not required). Feel for any sensations. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com>> wrote: A worthwhile improvement for both images: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com>> wrote: I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Harry, thanks for your appreciation. But it isn't about drawings. Sure, that is the option I have selected to share since it is sooo easy to replicate. I can also make sound files that create energy that can be felt. And programs And videos, but the easiest to share is images. I can share coils, I can share electrical circuits. It is about breaking into a new realm of physics that makes much more extraordinary technology possible. So who is interested? So far no one new has apparently tried to feel the energy. I thought the only reason to be here was interests in breakthrough discoveries in science that change what is possible, it seems however that there are very very few even willing to dip their toe in the water. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Harry Veeder wrote: > Thanks for positing this. > It is about drawing the world into existence. > > Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the > tools of a mechanical draftsmen. > "...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that > part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the > art of measuring." --from the preface to Principia > > > Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when > drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. > > > > Harry > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry wrote: > >> And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with >> some previous ones. >> http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png >> >> All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't >> feel anything. >> >> Again, best in a dark room (but not required). >> >> Feel for any sensations. >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> A worthwhile improvement for both images: >>> >>> http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png >>> >>> http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry wrote: >>> I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Thanks for positing this. It is about drawing the world into existence. Newton drew a clock-work universe into existence using geometry and the tools of a mechanical draftsmen. "...geometry is founded in mechanical practice, and is nothing but that part of universal mechanics which accurately proposes and demonstrates the art of measuring." --from the preface to Principia Today, we don't have to confine ourselves to mechanical practices when drawing geometry so we can draw different worlds into existence. Harry On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Berry wrote: > And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with > some previous ones. > http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png > > All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't > feel anything. > > Again, best in a dark room (but not required). > > Feel for any sensations. > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> A worthwhile improvement for both images: >> >> http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png >> >> http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this >>> one: >>> http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
I replied to Gibson in private with various details, but wrote this part for the group: For me more interesting is to work out what is required to make this interact with matter. Consider that dark matter and mirror matter and dark energy is considered to exist by conventional science and all effectively undetectable. Neutrinos and virtual particles are only vaguely detectable by very specialized equipment (nothing I have access to obviously) This means that there can be a lot of very real stuff that just doesn't exist in the right form to interact with matter. Charge is quantanized, so what if a particle could be made with a charge that was not 1, what if such a particle can and does exist, but we can't interact with it? So there might be many ways to make something that can't be detected readily by most most instrumentation. But there will also be ways to ensure that the energy converges on the physical, and as such it may produce a host of anomalies, or useful effects. I am sharing this with Vo in order to get some suggestions on how to turn this into a hard science. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Gibson Elliot wrote: > John > > You may want to start collecting information from those that do respond to > you. Blue sky, but If you could get Genetic information you might be able > to identify certain correlations between images/structures and the people > who feel them. Or focus on those with strong reactions. I suspect that you > have developed quite a few images, could you send me all you have > available? No indications of active or inactive, just numbered. I'll set > things up at my lab to do a blind study. If you could give pantone numbers > for the colors you use, I could have them printed by a local printer to > exact specification, and checked "blind" across as many people as I can > expose to them. > > Do you have any data regarding how far away a person can feel effects of > various images? Any that can be felt further away? My thinking here is that > piling them one on top of the other might affect each other. Aether > does permeate everything and so shielding or isolating them could be an > issue. Hence the questions about distance. I may have to bring cards into > range one at a time. > > Gibson > -- > *From:* John Berry > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:09 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? > > Subtle changes in the image and it would be very different. > > Ok, here, I made 2 images, I wanted them to look almost identical, one is > active and one isn't, I just went ahead and labeled them, so if you wanted > a blind test no luck. > > http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png > > I was limited as to what I could do to keep the images similar in form, > but make one strong and the other off. > > If the effects was simply due to seeing some vague representation of an > Ahnk then both images have that. > > Now this is not the best image to start with, and not the best if your > ability to feel any effect is marginal, but worth a shot. > > The image is very sensitive to any manipulation of colours, so if your > monitor or videocard is set to vivid, or has a gamma correction, brightness > or contrast or other manipulation so the exact colour values aren't > delivered, this entire image could be quite relatively inactive. > > I will work on an image suitable for scale testing, face up and face down > might be imperfect especially because once energized it can retain some > activity despite reduced lighting. but a boost is observed from turning a > light on. > > John > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > > These are very unusual images. They do elicit emotion. > ** ** > Some of that could be based on similarities to known symbolism as opposed > to an aether effect, but then again, that symbolism itself may derive from > some kind of primitive understanding of the way that optical images > interact with brain neutrons. The “shooter” is reminiscent of Navaho art > and the latest/strongest to Egyptian imagery. > ** ** > I shrunk the second one down to get 9 on a page, then printed cut and > stacked the images to see if there was anything which showed up on a gram > scale (comparing face up to face down). There was nothing objective, but I > am using a laser printer so the color did not contribute. > ** ** > Jones > ** ** > *From:* John Berry > ** ** > Has no one tried it yet? > ** ** > ** ** > And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with > some previous ones. > http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
John You may want to start collecting information from those that do respond to you. Blue sky, but If you could get Genetic information you might be able to identify certain correlations between images/structures and the people who feel them. Or focus on those with strong reactions. I suspect that you have developed quite a few images, could you send me all you have available? No indications of active or inactive, just numbered. I'll set things up at my lab to do a blind study. If you could give pantone numbers for the colors you use, I could have them printed by a local printer to exact specification, and checked "blind" across as many people as I can expose to them. Do you have any data regarding how far away a person can feel effects of various images? Any that can be felt further away? My thinking here is that piling them one on top of the other might affect each other. Aether does permeate everything and so shielding or isolating them could be an issue. Hence the questions about distance. I may have to bring cards into range one at a time. Gibson From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? Subtle changes in the image and it would be very different. Ok, here, I made 2 images, I wanted them to look almost identical, one is active and one isn't, I just went ahead and labeled them, so if you wanted a blind test no luck. http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png I was limited as to what I could do to keep the images similar in form, but make one strong and the other off. If the effects was simply due to seeing some vague representation of an Ahnk then both images have that. Now this is not the best image to start with, and not the best if your ability to feel any effect is marginal, but worth a shot. The image is very sensitive to any manipulation of colours, so if your monitor or videocard is set to vivid, or has a gamma correction, brightness or contrast or other manipulation so the exact colour values aren't delivered, this entire image could be quite relatively inactive. I will work on an image suitable for scale testing, face up and face down might be imperfect especially because once energized it can retain some activity despite reduced lighting. but a boost is observed from turning a light on. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote: These are very unusual images. They do elicit emotion. > >Some of that could be based on similarities to known symbolism as opposed to an aether effect, but then again, that symbolism itself may derive from some kind of primitive understanding of the way that optical images interact with brain neutrons. The “shooter” is reminiscent of Navaho art and the latest/strongest to Egyptian imagery. > >I shrunk the second one down to get 9 on a page, then printed cut and stacked the images to see if there was anything which showed up on a gram scale (comparing face up to face down). There was nothing objective, but I am using a laser printer so the color did not contribute. > >Jones > >From:John Berry > >Has no one tried it yet? > > >And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. >http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png > >All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. > >Again, best in a dark room (but not required). > >Feel for any sensations. > >http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png > >http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png > > >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
John My big HP monitor is too hot at even 4 inches for me to feel anything with my palm but the heat coming off the thing. Part of it may in fact be that I have to force my hand at an odd angle to do this and that causes stresses in the hand, ligaments, vessels blood flow etc... Are you using a CRT or flat display? Keep in mind what allows people to "feel" a sensation from these is going to differ from person to person as you have observed. In my case, visually, and what I feel inside my head is I suppose my sensitivity. I have felt CSE effects from various structures when nobody with me could. Those I could feel with my palm. So some people will likely be attuned to different effects. Gibson From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:09 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? Subtle changes in the image and it would be very different. Ok, here, I made 2 images, I wanted them to look almost identical, one is active and one isn't, I just went ahead and labeled them, so if you wanted a blind test no luck. http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png I was limited as to what I could do to keep the images similar in form, but make one strong and the other off. If the effects was simply due to seeing some vague representation of an Ahnk then both images have that. Now this is not the best image to start with, and not the best if your ability to feel any effect is marginal, but worth a shot. The image is very sensitive to any manipulation of colours, so if your monitor or videocard is set to vivid, or has a gamma correction, brightness or contrast or other manipulation so the exact colour values aren't delivered, this entire image could be quite relatively inactive. I will work on an image suitable for scale testing, face up and face down might be imperfect especially because once energized it can retain some activity despite reduced lighting. but a boost is observed from turning a light on. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote: These are very unusual images. They do elicit emotion. > >Some of that could be based on similarities to known symbolism as opposed to an aether effect, but then again, that symbolism itself may derive from some kind of primitive understanding of the way that optical images interact with brain neutrons. The “shooter” is reminiscent of Navaho art and the latest/strongest to Egyptian imagery. > >I shrunk the second one down to get 9 on a page, then printed cut and stacked the images to see if there was anything which showed up on a gram scale (comparing face up to face down). There was nothing objective, but I am using a laser printer so the color did not contribute. > >Jones > >From:John Berry > >Has no one tried it yet? > > >And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. >http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png > >All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. > >Again, best in a dark room (but not required). > >Feel for any sensations. > >http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png > >http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png > > >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Subtle changes in the image and it would be very different. Ok, here, I made 2 images, I wanted them to look almost identical, one is active and one isn't, I just went ahead and labeled them, so if you wanted a blind test no luck. http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png I was limited as to what I could do to keep the images similar in form, but make one strong and the other off. If the effects was simply due to seeing some vague representation of an Ahnk then both images have that. Now this is not the best image to start with, and not the best if your ability to feel any effect is marginal, but worth a shot. The image is very sensitive to any manipulation of colours, so if your monitor or videocard is set to vivid, or has a gamma correction, brightness or contrast or other manipulation so the exact colour values aren't delivered, this entire image could be quite relatively inactive. I will work on an image suitable for scale testing, face up and face down might be imperfect especially because once energized it can retain some activity despite reduced lighting. but a boost is observed from turning a light on. John On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > These are very unusual images. They do elicit emotion. > > ** ** > > Some of that could be based on similarities to known symbolism as opposed > to an aether effect, but then again, that symbolism itself may derive from > some kind of primitive understanding of the way that optical images > interact with brain neutrons. The “shooter” is reminiscent of Navaho art > and the latest/strongest to Egyptian imagery. > > ** ** > > I shrunk the second one down to get 9 on a page, then printed cut and > stacked the images to see if there was anything which showed up on a gram > scale (comparing face up to face down). There was nothing objective, but I > am using a laser printer so the color did not contribute. > > ** ** > > Jones > > ** ** > > *From:* John Berry > > ** ** > > Has no one tried it yet? > > ** ** > > ** ** > > And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with > some previous ones. > > http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png > > ** ** > > All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't > feel anything. > > ** ** > > Again, best in a dark room (but not required). > > ** ** > > Feel for any sensations. > > ** ** > > http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png > > ** ** > > http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
RE: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
From: Gibson Elliot Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? John I think you should read this http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm, I believe you'll see as I did that the authors story suggests creating aether/gravity circuitry, a bit like what you're doing. I have a feeling this stuff is related somehow. I see what you mean. Check out the honeycomb "pain killer." I bet it works for most everyone but Bob Park and Randi ... The native American "dream catcher" has a strong placebo effect on many natives and non-natives alike. Look for this to be an Obama-Care option on the new budget. Most doctors will tell you that the cure of a placebo is no less real than the cure from some of the newest medications ... which are now pushing $1000 for a 30 day supply. Heck, I think I will re-weigh John's images under the dream catcher... <>
RE: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
These are very unusual images. They do elicit emotion. Some of that could be based on similarities to known symbolism as opposed to an aether effect, but then again, that symbolism itself may derive from some kind of primitive understanding of the way that optical images interact with brain neutrons. The "shooter" is reminiscent of Navaho art and the latest/strongest to Egyptian imagery. I shrunk the second one down to get 9 on a page, then printed cut and stacked the images to see if there was anything which showed up on a gram scale (comparing face up to face down). There was nothing objective, but I am using a laser printer so the color did not contribute. Jones From: John Berry Has no one tried it yet? And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. Again, best in a dark room (but not required). Feel for any sensations. http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
John I examined your images in series from your last post, and I have to say at the very least I could feel sensations in my head as I gazed upon them. Mind you, as I initially just skimmed your emails, I didn't see the part about your expectations before I wrote the following, and it appears I felt what you had indicated, unprompted no less! The first seemed to affect my auditory center in the right brain, the second, seemed to give me the feeling of a flow left to right cross hemispheric, and the final (most recent) a slight twisting sensation. It would be interesting to see what might be revealed in a P.E.T. scan. I tend to be hyper-sensitive so to feel something in my head does not entirely surprise me . I will say I have not tried them in a dark room yet. Just so I know, should these be viewed from the screen or from a printed paper. Big difference there. Screen = emitted columnar light flowing at a right angle to the earths gravity/aether flow, whereas printed is reflected/absorbed wavelengths and diffuse light in line with the aether flow. Each would have differing effects on local aether. I would expect that, if printed, the best application would be to place a hand below the page to allow gravity flow to pass through and modify aether flow like a filter, the hand or head even, located below the image would feel something as a result. I think you should read this http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm, I believe you'll see as I did that the authors story suggests creating aether/gravity circuitry, a bit like what you're doing. I have a feeling this stuff is related somehow. His would be more of a 3D circuit made of matter voids akin to microwave circuitry, whereas yours seems to be a bit more on the end of the relationship between aether and photon in a 2D sort of way. All very intriguing John! Gibson From: John Berry To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? Has no one tried it yet? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:56 AM, John Berry wrote: And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. >http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png > > >All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel >anything. > > >Again, best in a dark room (but not required). > > >Feel for any sensations. > > > > >On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry wrote: > >A worthwhile improvement for both images: >> >> >>http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png >> >> >>http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png >> >> >> >> >>On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: >>>http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png >> >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
No replies, hmmm. I have sent this to 5 people on this list privately. 2 have repoted back, they both felt something. (one of those took a while before I made one he could feel) And 3 failed to reply all together, ignoring me outright. So I can image some peoples minds might be too limited to try this. But I'd like to encourage everyone to give it a try. It isn't unscientific, although it is prone to being subjective. But the idea that a tangible energy might come from a pattern of light is merely 'exotic' and not actually implausible. Light is a thing, as is space even according to modern physics. So if it isn't even contracting any tenets of physics, then it is merely 'New'. And extraordinary. Is that any reason to ignore it? John
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Has no one tried it yet? On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:56 AM, John Berry wrote: > And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with > some previous ones. > http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png > > All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't > feel anything. > > Again, best in a dark room (but not required). > > Feel for any sensations. > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> A worthwhile improvement for both images: >> >> http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png >> >> http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry wrote: >> >>> I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this >>> one: >>> http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png >>> >> >> >
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Eric, I am not sure why Michaelson and Morely expected to find any drift in a “spatial” direction.. all the relativistic evidence shows that acceleration only results in a temporal displacement..that is to say that time and ether share the same axis at 90 degrees to all 3 spatial axis and have a Pythagorean relationship with space..they should have been testing for time dilation not spatial drift.. This also results in syntax error when it is encountered because time and space are exchanging metrics from our 3d perspective trapped within a single inertial frame. Limiting ether to a spatial axis is naïve and disagrees with how we see a gravity well always pointing “down” regardless of which side of a planet you stand on..it again suggests an orientation of a flow 90 degrees to all 3 spatial directions. The Wave Structure of Matter suggests to me a canoe stuck in a waterfall where only certain vacuum wavelengths have the correct characteristics to get stuck in the waterfall [our physical 3d plane] and get swept along in our spatial plane while other “virtual particles” keep migrating across our plane between future and past, pushing their way through gas atoms to whom they impart HUP [jitter] energy to that accounts for ZPE or the inability of some gases to freeze at 0 kelvin… the nonphysical axis only becoming momentarily solid as it passes through the waterfall we call the Present in the form of virtual particles. John says he wants to engineer the ether but the isotropy is very difficult to break..Just segregating it a little bit with Casimir geometry or other quantum application of London forces seems to be the best science has managed so far.. I think his suggestion of shapes and patterns to form “circuits” should be considered “effect” not “cause” by a very wide margin. I do like his idea of engineering the ether but totally disagree with this suggested implementation. Hopefully he has other alternative suggestions. Fran From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? It seems to me that the idea of an ether is a useful one, albeit not in the form people were anticipating early last century. I believe they expected to find experimental evidence of a general movement in a specific direction if an ether existed. I see no reason to think that an either needs to be like a wind blowing through our part of the cosmos at a speed relative to ours. Assuming for a moment that it exists in a useful sense, it could be stationary in relation to spacetime (i.e., any possible frame of reference allowed by relativity). I like the concept of an ether because it provides something for waves to propagate through. It seems to me that we've already adopted something vaguely along these lines in a practical sense by positing zero point energy; i.e., the void is not really a void. Eric On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, David Roberson mailto:dlrober...@aol.com>> wrote: I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space around us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference.
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
And a 3rd image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some previous ones. http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel anything. Again, best in a dark room (but not required). Feel for any sensations. On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry wrote: > A worthwhile improvement for both images: > > http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png > > http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry wrote: > >> I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this >> one: >> http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png >> > >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
A worthwhile improvement for both images: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry wrote: > I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this > one: > http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one: http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
William, please read my previous emails and give feeling the energy a try. Anyway, as to the reference frame debate, if there were an aether that was not entrained by the earth, then a drift should have been detected by now. But the model I am using is of an aether, a substance to space that is dragged by the earth. And additionally it might be possible to effect an aether condensate (as Frank Wilczek calls it in his book: The lightness of being) that may not actually be suitable to overcome the background reference frames for light. Having said that, there are indications that this can be done, but I have no interest in debating this topic. With frame dragging, ZPE, Driac sea, a seething frothy foam of virtual particles, the fine structure constant, bending of the fabric of space, the idea that some parts of the universe may be moving away from us faster than the speed of light which is not meant to break SR since the very fabric of space is moving. So really, there is tons of evidence for an aether by various different names accepted in physics. John On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:07 PM, William Beaty wrote: > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:20:59, John Berry wrote: > > I can probably prove the reality of this to anyone interested with the > > investment of only 2-3 minutes and no materials needed. > > OK. > > No materials, so this sounds like a subjective-perception 'psychic > phenomenon' demo? Much more convincing is to discover an effect which > lacks any human component. Fire aether-balls at a microphone membrane? > > Also: > On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, David Roberson wrote: > > That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time > > accepting the concept that there is one special velocity... > > The old "Luminiferous Aether" implied absolute position and velocity, as > if space was filled with water. The Luminiferous Aether was debunked. > > Beware of semantic problems, since Luminiferous Aether does not equal > "aether" in general. I think Einstein said something like this: "of > course aether exists, did you think that the vacuum possesses no > characteristics at all?" In that case, Alcubierre space warp is "Einstein > Aether" starship propulsion. And perhaps we can build a cutting tool > which shoots out little blobs of cosmic inflation? :) > > > > > > (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) > William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website > billb at amasci com http://amasci.com > EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair > Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci > >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
On Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:20:59, John Berry wrote: > I can probably prove the reality of this to anyone interested with the > investment of only 2-3 minutes and no materials needed. OK. No materials, so this sounds like a subjective-perception 'psychic phenomenon' demo? Much more convincing is to discover an effect which lacks any human component. Fire aether-balls at a microphone membrane? Also: On Tue, 16 Apr 2013, David Roberson wrote: > That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time > accepting the concept that there is one special velocity... The old "Luminiferous Aether" implied absolute position and velocity, as if space was filled with water. The Luminiferous Aether was debunked. Beware of semantic problems, since Luminiferous Aether does not equal "aether" in general. I think Einstein said something like this: "of course aether exists, did you think that the vacuum possesses no characteristics at all?" In that case, Alcubierre space warp is "Einstein Aether" starship propulsion. And perhaps we can build a cutting tool which shoots out little blobs of cosmic inflation? :) (( ( ( ( ((O)) ) ) ) ))) William J. BeatySCIENCE HOBBYIST website billb at amasci com http://amasci.com EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair Seattle, WA 206-762-3818unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Ok, well here we go. Now this may require suspending some disbelief, but here goes. I have found that I can actually engineer the aether, and that while some dynamics of the aether make up matter and EM, other dynamics, speeds etc.. Make up chi, orgone, scalar, dark energy and dark matter. Note: That movements in the aether makes up matter is a case very powerfully made by Nobel prize winning physicist Frank Wilczek, from his research with parcile accelerators and supercomputers. Light is a Terrahertz frequency Electric and Magnetic wave/particle that transmits through the aether. That means that light structures the aether since light is structured aether. This allows for the creation of circuits and 'machines' to be made of mere images! So before you conclude I'm off my rocker, please try to feel some generally subtle sensation from either of these: http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/7294/thelateststrongest.png Feel this one directly over the screen, works better in a darkened room where there aren't interfering light patterns. (energy may also be felt around the image) http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/1438/shooterv53.png Feel the energy coming from the right side of the monitor. The sensations can take time to build up as the device gains energy, and as your palm fills with energy. Some people can only feel the energy occasionally. Now my aim is to get this to a physically detectable energy, or better yet to actually put it to use to create an effect. I would like suggestions, if you accept that there is a fluid/gas aether (primarily entrained by the earth) then what kind of energy would use use to effect it? How would you create an aetheric disturbance that might manifest physically? So please, have a good feel and see if you can detect something (generally subtle, but not always) , a cool, a warmth, a tingle, a pressure, a buzzy feeling, a flow. John On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:08 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Fran, > > Sorry that I missed your explanation. I am not sure that I understand > how one would detect your ether, but perhaps one day it will become clear. > > The twin paradox always blows my mind since from my perspective both > twins would age the same. Choose a frame of reference that is moving at a > speed that is exactly half the relative speed between them. In this frame > one twin moves to the right at a certain speed and the other moves to the > left at the same speed. To me, both age at the same relatively slow rate. > There is no difference except for the acceleration that one twin undergoes > if only his ship is powered. The bottom line is that there would be no > difference in age between them unless it is due to the effect of > acceleration. > > This is an example of how the choice of an observation frame can reveal > interesting results. > > Have you ever asked yourself when a certain event actually occurs? You > know no more about what will happen in the next moment to an object that is > many light years away as you know about one that is next door. Until > energy can find its way to your sensors, there is no information available. > Of course we know how long it takes that energy to reach us from the far > reaches of space and we thus subtract that travel time from the present > observations. Observers there can just as easily look this way and see > the Sun, Earth, and other parts of our solar system being formed and wonder > if one day intelligent life will hail from the mess. If only they could > read the future to which they have little knowledge. > > So, how do you define the present from our perspective? Is it what we > observe happening at this very moment? Why is our observation point any > better than that of the guys across the universe? > > Dave > (with his heretic hat on) > > > -Original Message- > From: Roarty, Francis X > To: vortex-l > Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 2:15 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? > > Dave, > I didn’t say there is one special velocity of ether… only > that the “ambient” / average pressure or rate of ether displacement will > always appear to be 300 million m/s no matter what velocity/ inertial frame > you are in, which is a simple expansion on the Paradox Twin phenomena > where we as 3D observers can never be aware of variations in this rate.. In > the macro world we know that only the square law of gravity wells will > slowly vary the isotropy. Far below the plank scale we know we have > wormholes and broken isotropy occurring all around us in what is termed the > quantum foam but this normally averages out to the macroscopic average we > consider isotropic by the time we get to any real building blocks of > physical matter… IMHO, the Casimir effect, or NAE are exam
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
It seems to me that the idea of an ether is a useful one, albeit not in the form people were anticipating early last century. I believe they expected to find experimental evidence of a general movement in a specific direction if an ether existed. I see no reason to think that an either needs to be like a wind blowing through our part of the cosmos at a speed relative to ours. Assuming for a moment that it exists in a useful sense, it could be stationary in relation to spacetime (i.e., any possible frame of reference allowed by relativity). I like the concept of an ether because it provides something for waves to propagate through. It seems to me that we've already adopted something vaguely along these lines in a practical sense by positing zero point energy; i.e., the void is not really a void. Eric On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 10:30 AM, David Roberson wrote: I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space > around us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult > time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a > reference. >
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Fran, Sorry that I missed your explanation. I am not sure that I understand how one would detect your ether, but perhaps one day it will become clear. The twin paradox always blows my mind since from my perspective both twins would age the same. Choose a frame of reference that is moving at a speed that is exactly half the relative speed between them. In this frame one twin moves to the right at a certain speed and the other moves to the left at the same speed. To me, both age at the same relatively slow rate. There is no difference except for the acceleration that one twin undergoes if only his ship is powered. The bottom line is that there would be no difference in age between them unless it is due to the effect of acceleration. This is an example of how the choice of an observation frame can reveal interesting results. Have you ever asked yourself when a certain event actually occurs? You know no more about what will happen in the next moment to an object that is many light years away as you know about one that is next door. Until energy can find its way to your sensors, there is no information available. Of course we know how long it takes that energy to reach us from the far reaches of space and we thus subtract that travel time from the present observations. Observers there can just as easily look this way and see the Sun, Earth, and other parts of our solar system being formed and wonder if one day intelligent life will hail from the mess. If only they could read the future to which they have little knowledge. So, how do you define the present from our perspective? Is it what we observe happening at this very moment? Why is our observation point any better than that of the guys across the universe? Dave (with his heretic hat on) -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 2:15 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? Dave, I didn’t say there is one special velocity of ether… only that the “ambient” / average pressure or rate of ether displacement will always appear to be 300 million m/s no matter what velocity/ inertial frame you are in, which is a simple expansion on the Paradox Twin phenomena where we as 3D observers can never be aware of variations in this rate.. In the macro world we know that only the square law of gravity wells will slowly vary the isotropy. Far below the plank scale we know we have wormholes and broken isotropy occurring all around us in what is termed the quantum foam but this normally averages out to the macroscopic average we consider isotropic by the time we get to any real building blocks of physical matter… IMHO, the Casimir effect, or NAE are examples of geometry and conductive metals segregating these sub plank levels of gravity variations between the outside and inside of their plate areas to concentrate a deficit in the cavity while a surplus is spread over the external plates… vacuum engineering as Puthoff coins it. Instead of expending enormous energies to accelerate something near the speed of light to reach relativistic effects..you simply segregate the pressure into compressed and suppressed regions using Casimir geometry and then send the “tiny time travelling observer” to spend most of its time in only one region vs the other. I think this is why you have claims of anomalous radioactive decays in certain nanopowders where the geometry of the radioactive gas has a natural bias based on size and shape to spend more time migrating through one region vs the other. And there are anomalous decays in both directions being advanced or retarded based on the type of gas and material selected. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? John, Fran, I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space around us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference. Just about everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else that is not directly, and physically attached to it. It makes more sense to me to just accept the fact that there is no absolute reference frame about which everything develops. On many occasions I find it quite advantageous to visualize myself residing within a certain chosen frame to understand what is taking place during collisions, etc. When chosen carefully, the observations that can be made reveal behavior that is hidden by the complexity normally encountered when a convenient one is randomly picked. The same laws of physics must be followed for each observer so one that chooses wisely can obtain a great advantage. When you speak of time variations that each observer
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
Dave, I didn’t say there is one special velocity of ether… only that the “ambient” / average pressure or rate of ether displacement will always appear to be 300 million m/s no matter what velocity/ inertial frame you are in, which is a simple expansion on the Paradox Twin phenomena where we as 3D observers can never be aware of variations in this rate.. In the macro world we know that only the square law of gravity wells will slowly vary the isotropy. Far below the plank scale we know we have wormholes and broken isotropy occurring all around us in what is termed the quantum foam but this normally averages out to the macroscopic average we consider isotropic by the time we get to any real building blocks of physical matter… IMHO, the Casimir effect, or NAE are examples of geometry and conductive metals segregating these sub plank levels of gravity variations between the outside and inside of their plate areas to concentrate a deficit in the cavity while a surplus is spread over the external plates… vacuum engineering as Puthoff coins it. Instead of expending enormous energies to accelerate something near the speed of light to reach relativistic effects..you simply segregate the pressure into compressed and suppressed regions using Casimir geometry and then send the “tiny time travelling observer” to spend most of its time in only one region vs the other. I think this is why you have claims of anomalous radioactive decays in certain nanopowders where the geometry of the radioactive gas has a natural bias based on size and shape to spend more time migrating through one region vs the other. And there are anomalous decays in both directions being advanced or retarded based on the type of gas and material selected. Fran From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 1:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? John, Fran, I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space around us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference. Just about everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else that is not directly, and physically attached to it. It makes more sense to me to just accept the fact that there is no absolute reference frame about which everything develops. On many occasions I find it quite advantageous to visualize myself residing within a certain chosen frame to understand what is taking place during collisions, etc. When chosen carefully, the observations that can be made reveal behavior that is hidden by the complexity normally encountered when a convenient one is randomly picked. The same laws of physics must be followed for each observer so one that chooses wisely can obtain a great advantage. When you speak of time variations that each observer encounters you are getting into a truly exciting subject that is endlessly interesting. Of course, each observer detects nothing unusual about the way time unfolds in his constant velocity world. It is only when he observes others living in other reference frames that are moving relative to him that he notices strange behavior. I suspect that taking this aspect into consideration might unlock some of the mysteries that keep us asking questions about nature. For instance, I have mentally adjusted my frame of reference on occasions to include moving at nearly the speed of light relative to some experimental setups to see if it can be used to explain what occurs. So far I have hit difficult barriers but I hope to one day gain information that clarifies these events. I suppose that our main task is to continue to ask questions and not accept the current descriptions of physics without adequate proof. It is safe to assume that there is much left to be learned in the sciences and that new understanding begins with good questions. We should encourage discussions about the behavior of time, ethers, and whatever else comes into focus even if they do not agree with our current understanding. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> To: vortex-l mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>> Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 10:57 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? John, I think Ed Storm coined the NAE as a Nuclear Active environment.. not really defining how the lattice geometry does what it does but rather just defining the area where it occurs.. these hot spots do sometimes produce trace amounts of nuclear ash but not enough to account for the anomalous energy claimed… I am a neo Lorentzian theorist, IMHO the ether is moving through our 3D plane at a rate that defines our basic unit of time and is why we will always experience C as 300 million m/s –
Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
John, Fran, I see that you two believe in some form of ether that modifies the space around us. That is an interesting idea, but I continue to have a difficult time accepting the concept that there is one special velocity to use as a reference. Just about everything in the universe is moving relative to everything else that is not directly, and physically attached to it. It makes more sense to me to just accept the fact that there is no absolute reference frame about which everything develops. On many occasions I find it quite advantageous to visualize myself residing within a certain chosen frame to understand what is taking place during collisions, etc. When chosen carefully, the observations that can be made reveal behavior that is hidden by the complexity normally encountered when a convenient one is randomly picked. The same laws of physics must be followed for each observer so one that chooses wisely can obtain a great advantage. When you speak of time variations that each observer encounters you are getting into a truly exciting subject that is endlessly interesting. Of course, each observer detects nothing unusual about the way time unfolds in his constant velocity world. It is only when he observes others living in other reference frames that are moving relative to him that he notices strange behavior. I suspect that taking this aspect into consideration might unlock some of the mysteries that keep us asking questions about nature. For instance, I have mentally adjusted my frame of reference on occasions to include moving at nearly the speed of light relative to some experimental setups to see if it can be used to explain what occurs. So far I have hit difficult barriers but I hope to one day gain information that clarifies these events. I suppose that our main task is to continue to ask questions and not accept the current descriptions of physics without adequate proof. It is safe to assume that there is much left to be learned in the sciences and that new understanding begins with good questions. We should encourage discussions about the behavior of time, ethers, and whatever else comes into focus even if they do not agree with our current understanding. Dave -Original Message- From: Roarty, Francis X To: vortex-l Sent: Tue, Apr 16, 2013 10:57 am Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? John, I think Ed Storm coined the NAE as a Nuclear Active environment.. not really defining how the lattice geometry does what it does but rather just defining the area where it occurs.. these hot spots do sometimes produce trace amounts of nuclear ash but not enough to account for the anomalous energy claimed… I am a neo Lorentzian theorist, IMHO the ether is moving through our 3D plane at a rate that defines our basic unit of time and is why we will always experience C as 300 million m/s –if the ether were to vary we would be blissfully unaware of it as our “awareness” will always match the rate of the ether passing through our plane..in effect it is our time base and is why we have the odd time dilation effects where the paradox twins are unaware of each others differences in inertial frames until they get back together and realize they were living at different rates. Fran From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? NAE is not an acronym I am familiar with. I see it can mean nuclear active environment. Have you tried the image? On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X wrote: John, I never left the path..perhaps this makes me a nutty troll but didn’t Tesla already treat this like an electrical science, He proposed that super high voltages could stiffen or “solidify” the ether. If I recall the story correctly Lorentzian theory was never proven wrong only less elegant than Einstein’s but with equivalent results and later in life Einstein did embrace ether theory. Casimir theory is an example of this where the results can be adequately explained from either perspective and when it comes down to brass tacks ..does it really matter which theory you choose? I choose ether theory because it is easy to visualize and requires less math skill to make a point. I like the Haisch - Rueda example of a car accelerating into a rainstorm increasing the pressure and resistance to forward motion with acceleration as being equivalent to acceleration through the ether..approach C and the pressure increases at a Pythagorean rate between time and space pushing the vector up from zero toward 90 degrees on the time axis [time dilation occurs in positive direction –slows from our perspective].. What IMHO is occurring in these NAE –and it agrees with the Naudt’s paper which redefines the hydrino as “relativistic
RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
John, I think Ed Storm coined the NAE as a Nuclear Active environment.. not really defining how the lattice geometry does what it does but rather just defining the area where it occurs.. these hot spots do sometimes produce trace amounts of nuclear ash but not enough to account for the anomalous energy claimed... I am a neo Lorentzian theorist, IMHO the ether is moving through our 3D plane at a rate that defines our basic unit of time and is why we will always experience C as 300 million m/s -if the ether were to vary we would be blissfully unaware of it as our "awareness" will always match the rate of the ether passing through our plane..in effect it is our time base and is why we have the odd time dilation effects where the paradox twins are unaware of each others differences in inertial frames until they get back together and realize they were living at different rates. Fran From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 9:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? NAE is not an acronym I am familiar with. I see it can mean nuclear active environment. Have you tried the image? On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>> wrote: John, I never left the path..perhaps this makes me a nutty troll but didn't Tesla already treat this like an electrical science, He proposed that super high voltages could stiffen or "solidify" the ether. If I recall the story correctly Lorentzian theory was never proven wrong only less elegant than Einstein's but with equivalent results and later in life Einstein did embrace ether theory. Casimir theory is an example of this where the results can be adequately explained from either perspective and when it comes down to brass tacks ..does it really matter which theory you choose? I choose ether theory because it is easy to visualize and requires less math skill to make a point. I like the Haisch - Rueda example of a car accelerating into a rainstorm increasing the pressure and resistance to forward motion with acceleration as being equivalent to acceleration through the ether..approach C and the pressure increases at a Pythagorean rate between time and space pushing the vector up from zero toward 90 degrees on the time axis [time dilation occurs in positive direction -slows from our perspective].. What IMHO is occurring in these NAE -and it agrees with the Naudt's paper which redefines the hydrino as "relativistic" hydrogen, is that the "rain" in the Haisch-Rueda experiment which defines the "baseline" of rainfall- ether at zero velocity is actually capable of being "shielded" at the nano scale.. Casimir plates like all macro world matter experience ether intersecting our plane at 90 degrees from all spatial directions but can take advantage of conduction and geometry to shield a tiny cavity where the "pressure" as Puthoff would call it is reduced.. putting the passengers in that car at a lower pressure than what we consider the baseline in the macro world.. the hydrogen atoms are those passengers and do not need to accelerate to achieve relativistic effects..instead of compressing the rainfall by accelerating the NAE is simply suppressing the rainfall - much easier to do without any energy requirements other than to build the geometry in opposition to stiction forces. Of course any hydrogen migrating in and out of these NAE cavities will translate back and forth through different inertial frames and gain nothing without some asymmetrical process that opposes the migration in one direction vs the other..allowing us to tap the translation for energy as if the car was changing velocities... also note that the vector for occupants of this NAE - car is now toward negative 90 degrees and it is we who appear to slow down from dilation from the perspective of the occupants in this lower pressure environment.. Regards Fran From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com<mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com>] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? I have been in Vo's ugly nest of believers for a very long time. I think in general a more accurate sentence might be a nest of skeptics and jaded ex-believers (oh, and some nuts and trolls, and nutty trolls). Anyway I have some developments in the direction of influencing the aether sufficient to make it felt by most people. My goal is to make this into a science, not dissimilar too electrical engineering. And I am hoping to gain suggestions and other intput, and since this is very easy to experiment with some may wish to collaborate. I can probably prove the reality of this to anyone interested with the investment of o
Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
NAE is not an acronym I am familiar with. I see it can mean nuclear active environment. Have you tried the image? On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:17 AM, Roarty, Francis X < francis.x.roa...@lmco.com> wrote: > John, I never left the path..perhaps this makes me a nutty troll but > didn’t Tesla already treat this like an electrical science, He proposed > that super high voltages could stiffen or “solidify” the ether. If I recall > the story correctly Lorentzian theory was never proven wrong only less > elegant than Einstein’s but with equivalent results and later in life > Einstein did embrace ether theory. Casimir theory is an example of this > where the results can be adequately explained from either perspective and > when it comes down to brass tacks ..does it really matter which theory you > choose? I choose ether theory because it is easy to visualize and requires > less math skill to make a point. I like the Haisch - Rueda example of a > car accelerating into a rainstorm increasing the pressure and resistance to > forward motion with acceleration as being equivalent to acceleration > through the ether..approach C and the pressure increases at a Pythagorean > rate between time and space pushing the vector up from zero toward 90 > degrees on the time axis [time dilation occurs in positive direction –slows > from our perspective].. What IMHO is occurring in these NAE –and it agrees > with the Naudt’s paper which redefines the hydrino as “relativistic” > hydrogen, is that the “rain” in the Haisch-Rueda experiment which defines > the “baseline” of rainfall- ether at zero velocity is actually capable of > being “shielded” at the nano scale.. Casimir plates like all macro world > matter experience ether intersecting our plane at 90 degrees from all > spatial directions but can take advantage of conduction and geometry to > shield a tiny cavity where the “pressure” as Puthoff would call it is > reduced.. putting the passengers in that car at a lower pressure than what > we consider the baseline in the macro world.. the hydrogen atoms are those > passengers and do not need to accelerate to achieve relativistic > effects..instead of compressing the rainfall by accelerating the NAE is > simply suppressing the rainfall – much easier to do without any energy > requirements other than to build the geometry in opposition to stiction > forces. Of course any hydrogen migrating in and out of these NAE cavities > will translate back and forth through different inertial frames and gain > nothing without some asymmetrical process that opposes the migration in one > direction vs the other..allowing us to tap the translation for energy as if > the car was changing velocities… also note that the vector for occupants of > this NAE – car is now toward negative 90 degrees and it is we who appear > to slow down from dilation from the perspective of the occupants in this > lower pressure environment.. > > Regards > > Fran > > ** ** > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:21 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? > > ** ** > > I have been in Vo's ugly nest of believers for a very long time. > > ** ** > > I think in general a more accurate sentence might be a nest > of skeptics and jaded ex-believers (oh, and some nuts and trolls, and nutty > trolls). > > ** ** > > Anyway I have some developments in the direction of influencing the aether > sufficient to make it felt by most people. > > ** ** > > My goal is to make this into a science, not dissimilar too electrical > engineering. > > And I am hoping to gain suggestions and other intput, and since this is > very easy to experiment with some may wish to collaborate. > > ** ** > > I can probably prove the reality of this to anyone interested with the > investment of only 2-3 minutes and no materials needed. > > ** ** > > This is the science of the future (and perhaps the past) that will provide > Free Energy, Antigravity and a Star Trek level technology in general. > > ** ** > > Anyone want to take the path less traveled? > > ** ** > > John > > ** ** >
[Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
John, I never left the path..perhaps this makes me a nutty troll but didn't Tesla already treat this like an electrical science, He proposed that super high voltages could stiffen or "solidify" the ether. If I recall the story correctly Lorentzian theory was never proven wrong only less elegant than Einstein's but with equivalent results and later in life Einstein did embrace ether theory. Casimir theory is an example of this where the results can be adequately explained from either perspective and when it comes down to brass tacks ..does it really matter which theory you choose? I choose ether theory because it is easy to visualize and requires less math skill to make a point. I like the Haisch - Rueda example of a car accelerating into a rainstorm increasing the pressure and resistance to forward motion with acceleration as being equivalent to acceleration through the ether..approach C and the pressure increases at a Pythagorean rate between time and space pushing the vector up from zero toward 90 degrees on the time axis [time dilation occurs in positive direction -slows from our perspective].. What IMHO is occurring in these NAE -and it agrees with the Naudt's paper which redefines the hydrino as "relativistic" hydrogen, is that the "rain" in the Haisch-Rueda experiment which defines the "baseline" of rainfall- ether at zero velocity is actually capable of being "shielded" at the nano scale.. Casimir plates like all macro world matter experience ether intersecting our plane at 90 degrees from all spatial directions but can take advantage of conduction and geometry to shield a tiny cavity where the "pressure" as Puthoff would call it is reduced.. putting the passengers in that car at a lower pressure than what we consider the baseline in the macro world.. the hydrogen atoms are those passengers and do not need to accelerate to achieve relativistic effects..instead of compressing the rainfall by accelerating the NAE is simply suppressing the rainfall - much easier to do without any energy requirements other than to build the geometry in opposition to stiction forces. Of course any hydrogen migrating in and out of these NAE cavities will translate back and forth through different inertial frames and gain nothing without some asymmetrical process that opposes the migration in one direction vs the other..allowing us to tap the translation for energy as if the car was changing velocities... also note that the vector for occupants of this NAE - car is now toward negative 90 degrees and it is we who appear to slow down from dilation from the perspective of the occupants in this lower pressure environment.. Regards Fran From: John Berry [mailto:berry.joh...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 3:21 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here? I have been in Vo's ugly nest of believers for a very long time. I think in general a more accurate sentence might be a nest of skeptics and jaded ex-believers (oh, and some nuts and trolls, and nutty trolls). Anyway I have some developments in the direction of influencing the aether sufficient to make it felt by most people. My goal is to make this into a science, not dissimilar too electrical engineering. And I am hoping to gain suggestions and other intput, and since this is very easy to experiment with some may wish to collaborate. I can probably prove the reality of this to anyone interested with the investment of only 2-3 minutes and no materials needed. This is the science of the future (and perhaps the past) that will provide Free Energy, Antigravity and a Star Trek level technology in general. Anyone want to take the path less traveled? John
[Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
I have been in Vo's ugly nest of believers for a very long time. I think in general a more accurate sentence might be a nest of skeptics and jaded ex-believers (oh, and some nuts and trolls, and nutty trolls). Anyway I have some developments in the direction of influencing the aether sufficient to make it felt by most people. My goal is to make this into a science, not dissimilar too electrical engineering. And I am hoping to gain suggestions and other intput, and since this is very easy to experiment with some may wish to collaborate. I can probably prove the reality of this to anyone interested with the investment of only 2-3 minutes and no materials needed. This is the science of the future (and perhaps the past) that will provide Free Energy, Antigravity and a Star Trek level technology in general. Anyone want to take the path less traveled? John
