A beam of electrons should bend downward in earths gravity. Has that ever
been measured?
On Jan 30, 2018 11:56 AM, "Brian Ahern" <ahern_br...@msn.com> wrote:

> The forces are different by 10*36, so comparisons are impossible to
> measure.
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:54 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:No mass !?! Dirac electrons
>
> From the patent... "a free electron has inertial mass but not
> gravitational mass."  and "Thus, a free electron is not gravitationally
> attracted to ordinary matter. "
>
> Really?  Can that really add up?
>
> Pretty sure this is not very much in agreement with conventional theory.
>
>
> John Berry
>
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 3:53 AM, JonesBeene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> Bob,
>
>
>
> There is a fair amount of both brilliance (cough, cough) and silliness in
> Mills hand-waving. His misidentification of the Higgs boson is in the later
> category.
>
>
>
> As for the “antigravity electron” see his patent app (thanks to the spice
> man for this)
>
>
>
> Patent WO1995032021A1 - Apparatus and method for providing an
> antigravitational force
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fpatents%2FWO1995032021A1&data=02%7C01%7C%7Caad74bcab3c84067bd5d08d567bf0a75%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528992563255477&sdata=CVajWd%2FfT3TNJimv4xUvPE9IvIomeZDXpygX5w1Pe6s%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> The bigger question is: if this antigravity claim works why has NASA and
> the Pentagon ignoredthemt?
>
>
>
> And while we are at it: Why did NASA drop the hydrino rocket? BLP did not
> even get to Phase two on that one. Where is the CIHT battery? Where is the
> reverse gyrotron?
>
>
>
> Plus, in spite of his own genius - Mills fails to give Dirac and other
> credit and ignores emerging findings in physics when he cannot adequately
> rationalize them into his so-called classical view..A fair appraisal is
> that he is a creative genius on paper, but a lousy inventor. He simply
> cannot put good ideas into practice, despite throwing $150 million (or
> more) at the problem. He is great fund-raiser but after all these years
> there is not a satisfactory independent replication, nor a real sample of
> hydrinos to test.
>
>
>
> The sun-cell will most likely be yet another failure in this long list. If
> so, he will move on to the next round of funding without a real explanation
> of why it failed.
>
>
>
> Hopefully, in a few years other will be able to push Holmlid’s similar
> work into practice. All Mills can do then is to say “told you so” and claim
> to have been the first …
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *bobcook39...@hotmail.com
>
> For a nice qualitative summary of Mill’s theory see the following link:
>
>
>
> http://www.brettholverstott.com/annoucements/2017/8/5/summar
> y-of-randell-millss-unified-theory
> <https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brettholverstott.com%2Fannoucements%2F2017%2F8%2F5%2Fsummary-of-randell-millss-unified-theory&data=02%7C01%7C%7Caad74bcab3c84067bd5d08d567bf0a75%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636528992563255477&sdata=dBvPTomnEssGfRwgi080V2hRCp3eoSDmhFxIdwkK9Lw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to