Hi Horace,
Would you consider gravitational charge to be the same thing as mass? If
not, why not?
How do you use the term virtual such that it applies to the real world?
That is, how can an object exist without really existing?
Super massive black holes are hypothesized to exist, but as of
Hi Terry,
Ibison just published on the subject:
http://earthtech.org/publications/ibison_PLA_emergent_gravity.pdf
Personally, I could never trust any paper written in units where c is
arbitrarily taken to be 1. What's the problem with doing science with a
proper set of units? Is that
Has anybody here tried this experiment, yet?
http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/html/aquagen.htm
Dave
Hi Robin,
One case file described how investigators proved a man was lying about
being abducted by aliens when blood tests failed to show he had recently
experienced the weightlessness of space travel.
Has it not occurred to these people that alien races that can travel
between the stars
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032202
132.html
I wonder if we'll get any useful advanced technology clues from the French
UFO files?
Dave
Hi Thomas,
Some of the footage was shot down the street at our U of M. I'm
wondering why those vortexes bend down and tore up the pot holes.
That is not hard to imagine when considering the huge volume of water that
was moving over the ground. I have seen similar features on a smaller scale
Hi Thomas,
I've considered going to that lab and talking to the professors. They
clearly have the ability to generate powerful vortexes in water. Do you
have some ideas for experiments that you'd like to try?
It seems that a water version of the Windhex might be useful. I was
thinking of
Hi Esa,
heres a not that expensive one to build (im yet to build it tho)
http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/centripete/
also i just finished scanning a picture from a book on
grander+schauberger, this is the hyperbolic cone for creating a vortex.
http://www.scene.org/~esa/tratti2.jpg
I
Has anybody here seen the NOVA Megaflood program?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/megaflood/
There is some interesting water vortex footage in here that will inspire a
lot of interesting experiments. If you know what to look for, you can see
how this ties to Keely, Schauberger, the Windhex
Actually, John's assessment is correct and there were no ad hominem remarks
made by him. You still seem not to have toned down your smug attitude and
continue to incite negative responses.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March
Hi Michel,
My request for erasure was to prevent the public embarrassment of a member
I have been accused of, not for my own comfort as you seem to imagine.
Does your smug behavior have no limit? How can you prevent something you
have already done? Now that the moderator has given his clear
Hi Thomas,
I've been following the work of Dale Pond who claims to have replicated
the Dynasphere of John E W Keely, www.svpvril.com . He claims that the
Dynasphere taps the Strong Force.
Dale Pond is correct that Keely tapped the strong force. In particular,
Keely tapped the unbinding of
Hi Esa,
hi so what do you lot think of vladimir b ginzburg?
seems to be slightly touched in the head about vortices!
Interesting comment to be made on a list called vortex-l.
I have corresponded with him and have one of his books. Unlike my work,
which is completely dimension based
Hi Paul,
You just don't get it. Can you Aether theory even predict the single
electron double slit experiment?
Apparently, you still cannot understand a simple concept. The Aether
Physics Model is about structure, not mechanics. If you can require a
structural theory to explain mechanics,
Hi Thomas,
Does one of you have a website about the Aether?
I have a web site on the Aether Physics Model at www.16pi2.com
A white paper gives the foundations of the theory at:
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
Dave
Hi Esa
i did try to give ginzburg some stuff on walter schauberger (who took
great pains to take viktor's realizations back into mathematics and physics
and, well, science), lets see what happens. after all, walter schauberger
did publish quite a bit on the hyperbolic open-path geometry that
Hi Paul,
Quote from www.16pi2.com
the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, but can
also describe quantum mechanics
For the benefit of others who would like to see this quote in context, it
actually reads, BREAKING NEWS: We have succeeded in developing the electron
binding
Hi Paul,
Thanks for posting that fine list of comments from 16pi2. Too bad you
didn't take the time to actually read what these excellent topics are about.
Although, I would be delighted to expand on any of them should anybody with
interest request me to.
As for answering your question about
Hi Esa,
Thanks for the excellent links. You seem to have spent a lot of time
investigating Schauberger's work.
Some of the technological applications being purveyed by the Schauberger
family first appeared to me as charlatan in nature. The seemingly static
vortex coils, for example,
Hi Paul,
Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free?
Yes, electronically. There are countless sites that freely and gladly
allow people place their research. I use Peswiki.com.
Err, funny you would say that...
Hi Esa,
the main thing of interest for those who wish to look at the Pöpel report
is the report of negative friction - i.e. that the pipes, through which
the water flowed, were shaped in such a way as to actually accelerate the
flow of water, and to negate friction.
Yes, that is
Hi Paul,
I for example offer all my research, free of charge.
I'm sure there is a good reason for it and it isn't because of your
magnanimous personality.
And it seems obvious all those usenet posts begging
scientists to give David Thomson a Nobel Prize was merely you
masquerading under
Hi Paul,
What Freedomfuel doesn't want to accept is that my research is based on
old classical physics! Furthermore, as just one of many examples, modern
society is killing this planet from gas burning machines.
Actually, they would be more interested in your research if you could prove
it is
Hi Paul,
No, the thugs are concerned about the release of advanced technology.
You're thinking of the science community,
There is technically no such thing as advanced technology that is not
defined as science that works.
The imagined thugs are no more than scientists asking you to put up
Hi Paul,
No, my definition of thugs is people working for the cause to suppress
technology considered dangerous in the hands of terrorists or rogue
countries such as Iran or North Korea.
You mean like machine guns, hand grenades, and nuclear bombs? It's a little
late for that, don't you
Hi Paul,
No offense, but IMHO this conversation is silly and a waste of time. I
generally prefer to converse with people at Vo that are primarily interested
in research geared toward generating so-called free energy. Are you are
working on such research? If it's fine with you, lets try and
Hi Paul,
Can you understand the difference between my research focused on capturing
usable ambient temperature energy and your extensive Aether theory?
Yes, my theory is based upon real math, your research is based upon
dreams. That is not rhetoric, it is a fact.
Seriously, can you
Hi Harry,
These days I am more concerned with Big Sister than Big Brother.
Why is that?
Dave
Hi Steven,
OTOH it's my understanding that time dilation has been confirmed.
Extremely brief half-life's of certain sub atomic particles that are
speeding close to C have been detected to decay within a slowed down time
period reference from our perspective. At least, that's my understanding.
Hi Terry,
IMHO, we will only succeed in tying ourselves into unsolvable knots
similar to religious fanaticism if we insist there MUST exist an ABSOLUTE
frame of reference. SR, would seem to suggest there ain't no such animal and
never was - period.
Ah, but that is the key. SR is not
Hi Paul,
Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the
others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. I have
written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as
short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper,
Hi Steven,
When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that
the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to
suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe?
This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody is
Hi Paul,
Come on, you're not that naïve, are you? Even before the NSA officially
existed, they were directly involved with telephone circuits. Remember back
in the sixties when it was a felony to open your telephone and modify it?
That is because the circuits have a feature that allows the NSA
Hi Jed,
Remember back in the sixties when it was a felony to open your
telephone and modify it?
That is preposterous. The 1933 FCC rules forbade attachment to the
telephone network of any device not furnished by the telephone
company. They said nothing about opening up telephones. Millions
Hi Stephen,
Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come
from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how
did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I
understand it, is supernova explosions:
The supernova explosion theory is
Hi Harry,
Thanks for posting the derivation.
This is one of those cases where E=mc^2 appears to be true, because the math
predicts a value that is useful. As I pointed out, however, E=mc^2 is not
always true, such as in the case of nuclear binding and unbinding.
Nuclear fission, regardless of
Hi Paul,
Any thoughts on Linux or Mac?
The government's business is to know what its citizens are doing. You
realize there are computer science divisions of the NSA and CIA, right? Do
you really think they are sitting back and letting new technology defeat
them?
I only know a tiny bit about
Hi Harry,
Is y = xa^2 not an equation?
Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2.
Of course, it is an equation. All the variables are truly variables and
have the same dimension of one. Do you really think that E=mc^2 is the
equation of a straight line with slope c^2? Are
?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:04 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
[ ... ]
You called me a crank in two different posts, now.
Sigh
Hi Stephen,
I've heard people claim he did but I have never
seen an article or quote in which Einstein actually
asserted that there must be an aether.
http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
http://www.aetherometry.com/einstein_aether_and_relativity.html
According to
Hi Steven,
First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the
interchangeability of mass and energy.
Are you going to give me a history lesson, or are we going to discuss the
physics? Einstein clearly supported the mass/energy equivalence principle
and is widely credited
Hi Steven,
The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also
ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion both
release energy.
It is irrelevant since you are not computing the fusion for making the
uranium and comparing it to the fission for turning it into
Hi Michel,
Harry is right of course. Have you never studied high school level nuclear
physics David? Look up the atomic masses!
You are confused about your own gender, let alone can you follow a physics
discussion.
Dave
Hi Harry,
If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted
to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should
create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion.
It depends on where they are on the periodic table.
Another irrational argument. I know what fusion and fission
Hi Stephen,
Why do these discussions always have to end like this?
Excuse me. For the record, you accused me of having SR as my
religion, after which I observed that cranks always seem to say that
in relativity discussions, which is true. Go back and check the post.
On March 5, after
Hi Stephen,
I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity
here.
Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is
generally considered to be the seminal paper on SR was On The
Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it covers a great deal more than
the
Hi Stephen,
When you say Aether Physics model, do you mean aether as in
luminiferous aether, the hypothetical medium in which electromagnetic
waves propagate?
When I say Aether Physics Model, I mean a fluid-dynamic-quantum Aether,
just as it is explained in the paper.
If so, how you do you
Hi John,
For instance how electricity works is a theory, how magnets work is a
theory, how gravity works is a theory.
But that something we call electricity exists is not a theory, that
magnetism exists is not a theory, that gravity exists is not a theory.
There is a difference between
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim
ought to be possible.
Not quite sure what I'm meant to be guilty of, this is the first I have
heard of your theory.
But what good is a
Hi John,
Ok, that didn't take long.
I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments
your theory is based on.
I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to
output free energy or create (so-called) antigravity.
Does it explain the vast
Hi Stephen,
(It just sets my teeth on edge when someone opens a discussion of this
sort with a blanket assertion that SR is internally inconsistent,
which, thankfully, you didn't do.)
The Aether Physics Model stands on its own. It is not necessary for me to
trash SR by pointing out its major
Hi Stephen,
On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General
Relativity.
Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general
relativity in the absence of mass (flat background space).
Say what?? GR was derived completely independent of SR. The link to SR
Hi John,
I have a list of Yes/No questions at the bottom if you could please take 1
minute to answer them.
We agree that there is a fluid aether which is matter entrained and
apparently on some other points too, I have the experimental side, you have
the model covered so let's make an effort
Hi John,
The answer is easier obtained by taking two glasses, one full and one empty,
and then taking half of each. If a glass is already empty, taking half of
it doesn't fill it. It only makes sense to take half of a full glass.
Dave
_
From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim
ought to be possible.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
You believe matter can be created?
Hi Wesley,
There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most
deposits and fossils.
I don't dispute the dating process may be flawed, but what does that have to
do with the quantity and variety of fauna and flora? Either the fossils
exist or they don't. And it is equally
by the subtle
energies of nature that I suspect many in here would reject, needless to say
it could be achieved more easily this way than by a brute force method but
either way it plainly IS possible.
On 2/17/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
Obviously it can be stopped, saying
Hi Michel,
I know Michel thought I was kidding her...
...
Dave
Even worse than I thought. Dave when the MIW come don't forget mentioning
you talked with a female Vo :)))
Michel
What are you trying to say, that you are as crazy as I am? I doubt it! My
life is so bizarre even I have
Hi Kyle,
Classical spacetime is not recognized as a medium, just some mathematics
and tensors.
And that means what? Do you really think the Universe is made out of
dimensionless math equations?
It will probably be eventually recognized that there is a physical
something to the vacuum, but
Hi Michel,
...
My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the
vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential.
...
Multiply it by root 2 in fact. To maintain the same thrust, every time you
halve the pressure you must double the current,
Hi Michel,
The only problem with ion wind theory is that there isn't enough thrust in
the ions to cause a lifter to lift. What's more, you can reverse the
polarity of the wire and broad conductor and the lift is the same. If
electrons were being emitted as ion wind in one case, they would
Hi Michel,
Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges.
Was it necessary to make this dig?
If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the
characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here
is one I wrote some time ago
I
Hi Michel,
But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion
mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a
helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a
helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter.
Several people have
Hi Kyle,
My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the
vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential.
But to what end? If there is no medium to push against, even if you have
100MV across the thing, it won't fly around.
Space-time is a
I don't see what need there is to take the carbon out of the air. We spent
150 years of hard work getting all that sequestered carbon back into the
biosphere.
Don't these people realize the climate of the Earth was most stable during
the time of the dinosaurs? Our planet went for hundreds of
Hi Michel,
Beware of the MIB Dave, unless the MIW get hold of you first? :)
I have no clue what you are talking about.
Dave
Hi Nick,
E, Dave, that may be true but getting from where we are now to that
paradise involves going through a probably horrendous series of probably
violent climate instabilities. Billions of people would die, millions of
species would be wiped out.
There is no two ways about it, you
Hi John,
Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish.
Obviously it cannot be stopped. It has already happened a dozen times in
the past 120,000 years. What makes you think we are special and climate
change was not going to happen to us?
Dave
Hi Kyle,
1. They do not work in hard vacuum. This has been tested many times,
Blazelabs has tested this, I have tested it, others have as well. It is
pretty well determined that they do not function in hard vacuum. In very
soft vacuums they do work, as there is still air to push around, of
I had said I would make a video of my water vortex generator and have been
putting it off. This morning I remembered I had made a video record for my
self. It has plenty of good footage in it to show that the vortex is
strictly a downward flow in the center, as evidenced by the air bubbles
being
Hi Jones,
Looks like you were going for an artistic/ecosystem approach.
I built this a couple years ago and intended to be looking at it constantly.
There are no mountain streams here in the middle of Illinois, so it was
necessary to observe an engineered vortex in my house.
Have you
Hi Michel,
What you're missing is that if solar output variations contribute
significantly to global warming, then humans should redouble efforts to
reduce GHG emissions. You shoot yourselves in the foot :)
What you are missing is that spending money on reducing unimportant GHG
emissions
Hi John,
Ok, I'll bite, where is the evidence that all planets are heating up in
the last few years, and by how much?
According to NASA, Mars is experiencing
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html global warming
Neptune's largest moon, Triton, is also experiencing
Hi Terry,
The image came through. It looks nearly identical to the water vortex I
have.
I have found that the vortex is caused by the angular momentum of the medium
(water in my case) with regard to a unidirectional force (gravity in this
case) acting upon it. As the medium spins orthogonal to
Hi Paul,
Here's an interesting 4-dimensional vortex of an atom. The flat plane
slicing through the center would be the 3-dimensions; i.e., where the
two vortexes meet.
http://www.unarius.org/plasma/vortex.gif
This is a very nice image.
Are all the dimensions length dimensions? What is
Hi Richard,
I have a water vortex in my living space as one of my room decorations. It
is part of an aquarium/terrarium/rock garden setup. I've had it operating
for over two years and watch it daily. I have never witnessed upward flow
in this water vortex. In fact, you just forced me to do
76 matches
Mail list logo
