I agree with everything you said. Yes Podkletnov, Morton, Telos and also unfocused versions have the opposite implosion effect, Edward Farrow for instance although there are lots of cases of the latter.
I didn't fully follow what you said about spirals but there was an interesting account. A kid was watching TV and the set caused an implosion of metal, it was bent into spiral shapes, nails were pulled out of the wall, we are talking about some incredible forces. The kid didn't live. I can probably find the account. What happens is these aetheric explosions don't generate any notable forces inherently but aether is the medium of space and the source of inertia. The transition from another material to metal slows down the aetheric shockwave and that causes an inertial force to be placed on the metal which retarded it. If you think about it the direction is correct, inward. The focusing elements actually cause a self accelerating beam as the different aetheric interactions get stronger, first an aetheric current flows in the metal which creates a stronger focusing beam. This is why Podkletnov noticed a delay between the arc and the force. Because the aether is now correctly modulated it is not dependent on the material to create the force. BSRF have a video in which they show metal foil attracted in but hands feel a pressure, of course that can be explained with electrostatics. But I know of another with the same claim but this one not explained away by electrostatics, it is real and well verified but I fear too spooky for this list. BTW there is something about my above account that does not add up, Edward Farrow shows weightloss with a book not metal! But it is transition from one material to another that slows the aether and a book is hundreds of pages of transition. On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Colin Quinney <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John ! > > I agree with Bill's suggestions of self-devil-advocating, and that we > should do the experiments ourselves- *that is IF we have the > space, money, time, and we are skilled..* but we also need a forum where > we can *read* the ideas of folks like yourself who are well-read in the > alt community. Why? I appreciate knowledgeable "armchairs" such as yourself, > those who CAN connect the dots in "library" searches to discovering *common > factors* in *multiple* experiments, reports, and patents, etc. (Jones > Beene does this rather well on Vortex and gets five *stars* for *his*effort, > don't you think? :-)) > > I enjoy reading your posts John because I learned anew about the anomaly > AND I definitely like the *direction *of some of your ideas and > speculations. Evidence-motivated speculations by knowledgeable folks > provide a service which is appreciated by many on this list and on other > lists, although some may not admit it since most of us develop our own > theories based on our own readings, experiences, and/or experiments. > > Anyway, all I'm trying to say, is that after reading all of your > recent posts and links, I just wanted to say that they are greatly > appreciated and for the reasons I just listed, and to thank you, and of > course to Jones and to all others who on this list *who connect dots...* > > BTW, assuming the Podkletnov impulse gravity beam experiment to be true, > then one other piece of evidence, (perhaps a common factor in your ether > vortex theory of gravity?), *"might"* be the probable *spiral*configuration > of it's electric discharge in the same direction as it's B > field. (That is, IF that was the actual configuration, and I'm a-thinking > that it was...) > > > Best Regards, > Colin Quinney > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* John Berry <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:13 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Hiddink capacitor links > > <snip> > > Rather a "means" for the electrons to do what was claimed was left out to > simplify the job of communicating the idea as the whole thing is quite large > and still not yet covered when we get to the aetheric part of it. > >
