Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Getting caught up in it all...

Expand Messages
  • David de Hilster
    As I start to recover and get back into the swing of the SAA and my movie, I realize how easy it is to get caught up with all of this. When the latest dragon
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 5, 2007
      As I start to recover and get back into the swing of the SAA and my
      movie, I realize how easy it is to get caught up with all of this.
      When the latest dragon slayer comes around to "bring AD down", it is
      easy to get caught up in their fantasy battle.

      What happens is that a person seems interested, polite, and really
      concerned yet when you start arguing logic with them about their
      inability to understand the basics of Carezani's work, you quickly
      find that they are neither interested, polite, or concerned about
      physics truth. This has happened over and over during the last 15
      years and it will continue to happen.

      It is usually by students of physics preparing themselves to enter the
      mainstream. As someone in this fight from Seattle told me, most
      people who go into physics are autistic. It is true. They get their
      strenght by sitting isolated with themselves or their autistic friends
      who consider themselves to be very very smart yet socially, they are
      misfits. They find what they think are the weakest kid on the block,
      sit at their computer far removed, and pick on this person from an
      often anonymous, long-distance. It is very corwardess.

      I forget this. I forget that the people I admire around the world and
      in the SAA and others fighting the god of Einstein are the people who
      I like because they put truth above all.

      Carezani's work is amazing to me because of the following:

      1) He discovered it with a simple question
      2) His work is extensive
      3) His work has lots of real math
      4) His work answers questions not answered before
      5) His work opens many new possibiities in the world of physics
      6) His work has held up despite the attacks from people who simply
      don't get it

      Yes, the Wills and Marks are bellowing over the above. To dissect each of their mistakes is friutless because the Wills and Marks will never get it. We only need to do this for someone who is trying to understand AD wants us to answer. Then it is worth it.

      My mom, when we were filming two years ago at Poly High in Long Beach,
      said it best. She said that when Carezani lectured to the students,
      they were absolutely fascinated with what he said. When they asked a
      question, he actually had answers and sometimes the answers was "we
      don't know yet".

      It is easy, very easy to not understand the basics. One person in our
      interviews (podcasts) on Science Watchdogs said something very true
      that applies to Carezani's work: it is not the tweaks to complex ideas
      that are hard to understand, it is the basic shift at a fundemental
      level that is the hardest to understand. The basic shifts don't seem
      to have any of the "magic" for stimulation but the design of the
      universe is not there to make sure we are intellectually happy.

      Yes, I get caught up in the heat of the battle and make statements
      that I have to retract because I let emotion talk and not science or
      truth. That is the artist side of me. The scientist side of me gets
      lost at the time and I have to stand back and return to truth and not
      let my artist side make scientific statements that are false.

      I can forgive myself because I am at least trying to do something
      about it although I sometimes wonder if the human race will
      ever get it.

      But I always go back to people I admire greatly in this world:
      Carezani, my mom, my dad, my friend Amnon - people who have more
      experience than me. When my artist side gets in the way and causes me
      to go off track, be depressed, or simply give up, they always seem to
      have words of wisdom that are simple and basic and that help.

      That is a comfort. I am finding more and more friends around the
      world that are going through the same thing and they have much to say.
      Hopefully, my film with bring all of this to the masses so they can
      see there is a bright future for physics in the 21st century, despite
      the existence of "theoretical physics" - something that the
      experimental physicists and myself would like to see become an extinct
      profession.

      Science is based on observation first, theory second. Invention is the application of laws of physics to do something never
      before done. Invention of theory is an oxymoron.

      Theories by definition must be discovered. Like Autodynamics.

      -David
    • jps_galaxy
      David ... Correct me if I m wrong but didn t Carezani theorise autodynamics without experimental evidence? According to the AD website he found a flaw in SR
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 5, 2007
        David

        >...the existence of "theoretical physics" - something that the
        > experimental physicists and myself would like to see become an
        >extinct
        > profession
        > Science is based on observation first, theory second. Invention is
        >the application of laws of physics to do something never
        > before done. Invention of theory is an oxymoron.

        Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Carezani theorise autodynamics
        without experimental evidence? According to the AD website he found a
        flaw in SR related to decay. However this flaw was noticed in the
        theory not experiment.

        JP



        --- In autodynamics@yahoogroups.com, "David de Hilster" <david@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > As I start to recover and get back into the swing of the SAA and my
        > movie, I realize how easy it is to get caught up with all of this.
        > When the latest dragon slayer comes around to "bring AD down", it is
        > easy to get caught up in their fantasy battle.
        >
        > What happens is that a person seems interested, polite, and really
        > concerned yet when you start arguing logic with them about their
        > inability to understand the basics of Carezani's work, you quickly
        > find that they are neither interested, polite, or concerned about
        > physics truth. This has happened over and over during the last 15
        > years and it will continue to happen.
        >
        > It is usually by students of physics preparing themselves to enter
        the
        > mainstream. As someone in this fight from Seattle told me, most
        > people who go into physics are autistic. It is true. They get
        their
        > strenght by sitting isolated with themselves or their autistic
        friends
        > who consider themselves to be very very smart yet socially, they are
        > misfits. They find what they think are the weakest kid on the block,
        > sit at their computer far removed, and pick on this person from an
        > often anonymous, long-distance. It is very corwardess.
        >
        > I forget this. I forget that the people I admire around the world
        and
        > in the SAA and others fighting the god of Einstein are the people
        who
        > I like because they put truth above all.
        >
        > Carezani's work is amazing to me because of the following:
        >
        > 1) He discovered it with a simple question
        > 2) His work is extensive
        > 3) His work has lots of real math
        > 4) His work answers questions not answered before
        > 5) His work opens many new possibiities in the world of physics
        > 6) His work has held up despite the attacks from people who simply
        > don't get it
        >
        > Yes, the Wills and Marks are bellowing over the above. To dissect
        each of their mistakes is friutless because the Wills and Marks will
        never get it. We only need to do this for someone who is trying to
        understand AD wants us to answer. Then it is worth it.
        >
        > My mom, when we were filming two years ago at Poly High in Long
        Beach,
        > said it best. She said that when Carezani lectured to the students,
        > they were absolutely fascinated with what he said. When they asked
        a
        > question, he actually had answers and sometimes the answers was "we
        > don't know yet".
        >
        > It is easy, very easy to not understand the basics. One person in
        our
        > interviews (podcasts) on Science Watchdogs said something very true
        > that applies to Carezani's work: it is not the tweaks to complex
        ideas
        > that are hard to understand, it is the basic shift at a fundemental
        > level that is the hardest to understand. The basic shifts don't seem
        > to have any of the "magic" for stimulation but the design of the
        > universe is not there to make sure we are intellectually happy.
        >
        > Yes, I get caught up in the heat of the battle and make statements
        > that I have to retract because I let emotion talk and not science or
        > truth. That is the artist side of me. The scientist side of me
        gets
        > lost at the time and I have to stand back and return to truth and
        not
        > let my artist side make scientific statements that are false.
        >
        > I can forgive myself because I am at least trying to do something
        > about it although I sometimes wonder if the human race will
        > ever get it.
        >
        > But I always go back to people I admire greatly in this world:
        > Carezani, my mom, my dad, my friend Amnon - people who have more
        > experience than me. When my artist side gets in the way and causes
        me
        > to go off track, be depressed, or simply give up, they always seem
        to
        > have words of wisdom that are simple and basic and that help.
        >
        > That is a comfort. I am finding more and more friends around the
        > world that are going through the same thing and they have much to
        say.
        > Hopefully, my film with bring all of this to the masses so they can
        > see there is a bright future for physics in the 21st century,
        despite
        > the existence of "theoretical physics" - something that the
        > experimental physicists and myself would like to see become an
        extinct
        > profession.
        >
        > Science is based on observation first, theory second. Invention is
        the application of laws of physics to do something never
        > before done. Invention of theory is an oxymoron.
        >
        > Theories by definition must be discovered. Like Autodynamics.
        >
        > -David
        >
      • David de Hilster
        Good question. Your question that the flaw Carezani found was not from an experiment is correct. He found the superfluous frame and removed it because it
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 5, 2007
          Good question.

          Your question that the flaw Carezani found was not from an
          experiment is correct. He found the superfluous frame and
          removed it because it doesn't make mathematical or physical sense. He
          was taking an existing theory and found a physical flaw in that.

          But the discovery happened because of analyzing the physical world and seeing things didn't make sense when it came to Einstein's equations and movement and the application of the equations to the real world. Carezani's discorvery is based on observation of what movement is in the universe. They are based on physical reality where as Einstein's equations were wrongly based on two frames when in fact Carezani found that there is only one three dimensional space in the universe shared by all objects. This leads to conclusion that inertial frames do not exist. This nullifies one of Einstein's postulates.

          So Carezani based the flaws he found on the real physical universe. Einstein invented two postulates and commanded the universe to follow.

          Carezani's new equations simply pointed to a new simple principle in physics that Newton and Einstein missed. N & E treated movement as if it were already there. Carezani showed that you can't assume movement without energy.

          These new equations revealed that movement doesn't come for
          free. The equations instead of being "magic" like SR with no
          explantion for what or why there is mass increase, time dilation,
          length contraction, simply showed that movement requires energy from
          the mass that wants to move. People misinterpret the AD equations by
          saying the they are "magic" and that mass decreases instead of
          increases when the idea is that mass decrease is from the mass
          itself and that is a universal principle for the universe.

          -David


          --- In autodynamics@yahoogroups.com, "jps_galaxy" <jps_galaxy@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > David
          >
          > >...the existence of "theoretical physics" - something that the
          > > experimental physicists and myself would like to see become an
          > >extinct
          > > profession
          > > Science is based on observation first, theory second. Invention
          is
          > >the application of laws of physics to do something never
          > > before done. Invention of theory is an oxymoron.
          >
          > Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Carezani theorise autodynamics
          > without experimental evidence? According to the AD website he found
          a
          > flaw in SR related to decay. However this flaw was noticed in the
          > theory not experiment.
          >
          > JP
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In autodynamics@yahoogroups.com, "David de Hilster" <david@>
          > wrote:
          > >
          > > As I start to recover and get back into the swing of the SAA and
          my
          > > movie, I realize how easy it is to get caught up with all of this.
          > > When the latest dragon slayer comes around to "bring AD down", it
          is
          > > easy to get caught up in their fantasy battle.
          > >
          > > What happens is that a person seems interested, polite, and really
          > > concerned yet when you start arguing logic with them about their
          > > inability to understand the basics of Carezani's work, you quickly
          > > find that they are neither interested, polite, or concerned about
          > > physics truth. This has happened over and over during the last 15
          > > years and it will continue to happen.
          > >
          > > It is usually by students of physics preparing themselves to
          enter
          > the
          > > mainstream. As someone in this fight from Seattle told me, most
          > > people who go into physics are autistic. It is true. They get
          > their
          > > strenght by sitting isolated with themselves or their autistic
          > friends
          > > who consider themselves to be very very smart yet socially, they
          are
          > > misfits. They find what they think are the weakest kid on the
          block,
          > > sit at their computer far removed, and pick on this person from an
          > > often anonymous, long-distance. It is very corwardess.
          > >
          > > I forget this. I forget that the people I admire around the
          world
          > and
          > > in the SAA and others fighting the god of Einstein are the people
          > who
          > > I like because they put truth above all.
          > >
          > > Carezani's work is amazing to me because of the following:
          > >
          > > 1) He discovered it with a simple question
          > > 2) His work is extensive
          > > 3) His work has lots of real math
          > > 4) His work answers questions not answered before
          > > 5) His work opens many new possibiities in the world of physics
          > > 6) His work has held up despite the attacks from people who simply
          > > don't get it
          > >
          > > Yes, the Wills and Marks are bellowing over the above. To dissect
          > each of their mistakes is friutless because the Wills and Marks
          will
          > never get it. We only need to do this for someone who is trying to
          > understand AD wants us to answer. Then it is worth it.
          > >
          > > My mom, when we were filming two years ago at Poly High in Long
          > Beach,
          > > said it best. She said that when Carezani lectured to the
          students,
          > > they were absolutely fascinated with what he said. When they
          asked
          > a
          > > question, he actually had answers and sometimes the answers
          was "we
          > > don't know yet".
          > >
          > > It is easy, very easy to not understand the basics. One person in
          > our
          > > interviews (podcasts) on Science Watchdogs said something very
          true
          > > that applies to Carezani's work: it is not the tweaks to complex
          > ideas
          > > that are hard to understand, it is the basic shift at a
          fundemental
          > > level that is the hardest to understand. The basic shifts don't
          seem
          > > to have any of the "magic" for stimulation but the design of the
          > > universe is not there to make sure we are intellectually happy.
          > >
          > > Yes, I get caught up in the heat of the battle and make statements
          > > that I have to retract because I let emotion talk and not science
          or
          > > truth. That is the artist side of me. The scientist side of me
          > gets
          > > lost at the time and I have to stand back and return to truth and
          > not
          > > let my artist side make scientific statements that are false.
          > >
          > > I can forgive myself because I am at least trying to do something
          > > about it although I sometimes wonder if the human race will
          > > ever get it.
          > >
          > > But I always go back to people I admire greatly in this world:
          > > Carezani, my mom, my dad, my friend Amnon - people who have more
          > > experience than me. When my artist side gets in the way and
          causes
          > me
          > > to go off track, be depressed, or simply give up, they always
          seem
          > to
          > > have words of wisdom that are simple and basic and that help.
          > >
          > > That is a comfort. I am finding more and more friends around the
          > > world that are going through the same thing and they have much to
          > say.
          > > Hopefully, my film with bring all of this to the masses so they
          can
          > > see there is a bright future for physics in the 21st century,
          > despite
          > > the existence of "theoretical physics" - something that the
          > > experimental physicists and myself would like to see become an
          > extinct
          > > profession.
          > >
          > > Science is based on observation first, theory second. Invention
          is
          > the application of laws of physics to do something never
          > > before done. Invention of theory is an oxymoron.
          > >
          > > Theories by definition must be discovered. Like Autodynamics.
          > >
          > > -David
          > >
          >
        • lucyhaye
          Dear J. P. Carezani started from EXPERIMENTAL evidence that drove him to Autodynamics, helped later by theoretical hypotheses. The RaE experiment proved that
          Message 4 of 4 , Apr 6, 2007
            Dear J. P.

            Carezani started from EXPERIMENTAL evidence that drove him to
            Autodynamics, helped later by theoretical hypotheses.

            The RaE experiment proved that the energy provided by DECAY is 0.36
            MeV and the Einstein equation gives 1.16 MeV. Pauli invented the
            Neutrino supposing Einstein was right but paying a big price: SR cannot explain the Beta SPECTRUM.

            Carezani didn't believe in inventions thinking that Einstein was
            wrong, and proving later that he was really wrong because he copied
            Lorentz and he was wrong.

            But, simultaneously, Carezani saw that the increasing energy and mass
            in the Einstein's equations contradict the EXPERIMENTAL conclusion
            that DECAY means CONSTANY energy and DECREASING mass, which is
            experimentally proved by the 0,36 MeV according with the reaction
            Neutron decaying to Proton and Electron. (Numbers no Inventions)

            Without Neutrino, AD explains the Beta Spectrum!!!!

            Consequently, the root of the Carezani discovery started from
            EXPERIMENTAL facts.

            Later, of course, to see from where the mistake came from he needed to add, momentarily, theoretical hypotheses, which always were related
            to experimental confirmation through energy conservation.
            Lorentz' transformation is mathematically correct, but physically
            erroneous because it scoffs the Principle of Energy Conservation
            (EXPERIMENTAL)and Einstein died with his Sum Velocity equation, which
            gives two different values: One using Kinetic Energy and Mass
            equations and the other using his Sum Velocity equation.

            Carezani didn't invent anything, including the Principle of Relativity
            given by Poincare NOT Einstein, NOT Lorentz, and something given
            theoretical as Mach Universal Conception, which Carezani converted to
            a Cosmological reality through his Mass Decay-Energy Absorption
            Principle, (confirmed daily) that yields an Eternal Universe in
            Perpetual evolution without those fantastic charlatanism about Big
            Bang, Expansion and etc., etc, etc.

            AD follows experimental common sense and SR/ GR are only febrile
            inventions, in a word, FANYASIA.

            This is the reason that AD is right and Lorentz and Einstein wrong:
            EXPERIMENTAL facts against INVENTIONS

            Regards.

            Lucy Haye


            --- In autodynamics@yahoogroups.com, "jps_galaxy" <jps_galaxy@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > David
            >
            > >...the existence of "theoretical physics" - something that the
            > > experimental physicists and myself would like to see become an
            > >extinct
            > > profession
            > > Science is based on observation first, theory second. Invention
            is
            > >the application of laws of physics to do something never
            > > before done. Invention of theory is an oxymoron.
            >
            > Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Carezani theorise autodynamics
            > without experimental evidence? According to the AD website he found
            a
            > flaw in SR related to decay. However this flaw was noticed in the
            > theory not experiment.
            >
            > JP
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In autodynamics@yahoogroups.com, "David de Hilster" <david@>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > As I start to recover and get back into the swing of the SAA and
            my
            > > movie, I realize how easy it is to get caught up with all of this.
            > > When the latest dragon slayer comes around to "bring AD down", it
            is
            > > easy to get caught up in their fantasy battle.
            > >
            > > What happens is that a person seems interested, polite, and really
            > > concerned yet when you start arguing logic with them about their
            > > inability to understand the basics of Carezani's work, you quickly
            > > find that they are neither interested, polite, or concerned about
            > > physics truth. This has happened over and over during the last 15
            > > years and it will continue to happen.
            > >
            > > It is usually by students of physics preparing themselves to
            enter
            > the
            > > mainstream. As someone in this fight from Seattle told me, most
            > > people who go into physics are autistic. It is true. They get
            > their
            > > strenght by sitting isolated with themselves or their autistic
            > friends
            > > who consider themselves to be very very smart yet socially, they
            are
            > > misfits. They find what they think are the weakest kid on the
            block,
            > > sit at their computer far removed, and pick on this person from an
            > > often anonymous, long-distance. It is very corwardess.
            > >
            > > I forget this. I forget that the people I admire around the
            world
            > and
            > > in the SAA and others fighting the god of Einstein are the people
            > who
            > > I like because they put truth above all.
            > >
            > > Carezani's work is amazing to me because of the following:
            > >
            > > 1) He discovered it with a simple question
            > > 2) His work is extensive
            > > 3) His work has lots of real math
            > > 4) His work answers questions not answered before
            > > 5) His work opens many new possibiities in the world of physics
            > > 6) His work has held up despite the attacks from people who simply
            > > don't get it
            > >
            > > Yes, the Wills and Marks are bellowing over the above. To dissect
            > each of their mistakes is friutless because the Wills and Marks
            will
            > never get it. We only need to do this for someone who is trying to
            > understand AD wants us to answer. Then it is worth it.
            > >
            > > My mom, when we were filming two years ago at Poly High in Long
            > Beach,
            > > said it best. She said that when Carezani lectured to the
            students,
            > > they were absolutely fascinated with what he said. When they
            asked
            > a
            > > question, he actually had answers and sometimes the answers
            was "we
            > > don't know yet".
            > >
            > > It is easy, very easy to not understand the basics. One person in
            > our
            > > interviews (podcasts) on Science Watchdogs said something very
            true
            > > that applies to Carezani's work: it is not the tweaks to complex
            > ideas
            > > that are hard to understand, it is the basic shift at a
            fundemental
            > > level that is the hardest to understand. The basic shifts don't
            seem
            > > to have any of the "magic" for stimulation but the design of the
            > > universe is not there to make sure we are intellectually happy.
            > >
            > > Yes, I get caught up in the heat of the battle and make statements
            > > that I have to retract because I let emotion talk and not science
            or
            > > truth. That is the artist side of me. The scientist side of me
            > gets
            > > lost at the time and I have to stand back and return to truth and
            > not
            > > let my artist side make scientific statements that are false.
            > >
            > > I can forgive myself because I am at least trying to do something
            > > about it although I sometimes wonder if the human race will
            > > ever get it.
            > >
            > > But I always go back to people I admire greatly in this world:
            > > Carezani, my mom, my dad, my friend Amnon - people who have more
            > > experience than me. When my artist side gets in the way and
            causes
            > me
            > > to go off track, be depressed, or simply give up, they always
            seem
            > to
            > > have words of wisdom that are simple and basic and that help.
            > >
            > > That is a comfort. I am finding more and more friends around the
            > > world that are going through the same thing and they have much to
            > say.
            > > Hopefully, my film with bring all of this to the masses so they
            can
            > > see there is a bright future for physics in the 21st century,
            > despite
            > > the existence of "theoretical physics" - something that the
            > > experimental physicists and myself would like to see become an
            > extinct
            > > profession.
            > >
            > > Science is based on observation first, theory second. Invention
            is
            > the application of laws of physics to do something never
            > > before done. Invention of theory is an oxymoron.
            > >
            > > Theories by definition must be discovered. Like Autodynamics.
            > >
            > > -David
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.