Horace Heffner wrote:
On Jun 18, 2007, at 7:44 AM, Paul Lowrance wrote:
> If you are only working for humanitarian purposes, post your ideas in
> detail. Show us something that hasn't been around since Maxwell's
> time. Let's see your engineering, your numbers. Let's see some
> specific devices, and some experimental results. Show us how it is
> done. Teach.
On many occasions I have provided numbers & equations, described the
science and such methods in an detailed step-by-step process.
What information have you provided that hasn't been around for decades?
What's matter? You can't recall? For one, you can use magnetic material as a
means of capturing and keeping ambient energy during one full cycle. Furthermore
I've provide various methods of capture ambient energy by other means than
magnetic materials.
As far as mathematics, I've evolved beyond pencil pushing to computer
key pushing, as my mathematics is contained in the computer in the
form of software. I firmly believe computer software algorithms,
functions, and programs are the future of science. Computer
simulations are complex. It would be insane to even attempt to write
down an equation of such a simulation.
As a person who has written complex deterministic and stochastic
simulations for a living,
What computer language do you write in?
I am compelled to waste the time to say the
statement "It would be insane to even attempt to write down an equation
of such a simulation" is total bunk, even though most everyone on this
list is probably keenly aware of the seriousness of being incompetent to
clearly describe a simulation method being applied.
LOL, you think you can write a mathematical equation on paper that took a
computer simulation program weeks to complete. LOL. Now that is hilarious.
Sorry, your pen pushing days are coming to an end, to be replace by more
intelligent methods such as computer software. :-)
> If you are working for profit shouldn't you be busy
> filing for patents and building demonstrators? Good grief, I can
> imagine how someone funding your efforts would feel about you wasting
> your time debating instead of working diligently! Your objective
> appears to be argument and heckling rather than making a genuine
> contribution to the list, or the art. Prove me wrong! 8^)
>
> Hopefully we won't see the old "persecuted genius" scam emerge from
> you. It is so boring hearing from yet another genius who sets himself
> up as an unappreciated persecuted martyr who's only need is an
> appreciative patron.
> It is so irritating to watch it happen while real
> genius, and true contributors to the list, like Ed Storms, work away
> diligently, without fanfare or adequate funding.
That indicates you still don't get it. How many times and in how many
ways do I need to keep telling you?
Talk is cheap. Repetitious talk is meaningless. Inconsistent
repetitious talk is ...
I've already repudiated your fuzzy logic claims that I'm "inconsistent." I
challenge you to show us my inconsistency. If you can't then you have no
business accusing people of cheap talk.
It's always been about spreading truth & logic and searching for other
capable individuals who may be interested in this research.
This list has been full of people with their own lines of research or
theory. Why do you think your approach is any better?
I could die tomorrow, and quite frankly I don't like the thought that
my research will go to waste.
Well, then, why not get busy documenting your research in detail and
distributing it? Why bother wasting time on petty debate and trolling?
I already told you the reason.
Furthermore, believe it or not, sitting on the computer and typing
these emails is not only an attempt to find certain gifted individuals
to join this research, but also it's my break time away from such
research. Additionally, at this very moment I am running a computer
simulation in the background even though such simulations have reached
their present limit without a serious upgrade. The other day an idea
came to me that may allow such simulations offer further assistance.
... let me guess, you don't believe me. Here's a compressed gif screen
shot of the present simulation running in the background taken a few
minutes ago -->
Why would I not believe you? So you wrote a computer simulation. Not a
big deal. Is it meaningful? Time will tell.
Sounds like you're just bitter because I keep finding errors in your statements.
For example, when I clearly wrote *BOTH* sides of a material radiates and you
replied I was wrong, when in actuality you were incorrect. My answer was correct.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
