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

Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"

Expand Messages
  • Jack Martinelli
    Do any of you think this article has merit? Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity http://mywebpages.comcast.net/deneb/muller.htm He writes: a
    Message 1 of 13 , Jan 19, 2003
       
      Do any of you think this article has merit?

      "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"
      http://mywebpages.comcast.net/deneb/muller.htm
       
      He writes: "a potential difference is induced between 0 and R due to the ABSOLUTE ROTATION of the system (Ref. 1). "
       
      I have yet to hear a definition of absolute motion that doesn't involve handwaving.  If someone says that some phenomena characterizes abosolute motion, you have to ask "why?".
       
      Regards
       
      Jack Martinelli
       
    • Paul Hoiland <paultrr2000@yahoo.com>
      Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to general global space-time
      Message 2 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
        Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove
        relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to
        general global space-time and still have loopholes when it comes to
        local frames. SR does not deal at all with say quantum states in
        general. Certain quantum states can display non-local effects ie
        entanglement. Does that make SR incorrect? No, it simply means
        that our global frame we observe is not the same frame these effects
        take place through. This implies there is more than one frame in
        existance. That other frame must have a different value for C.
        However, it would still obey Lorentz invariance within no matter
        what value for C you determine. The heart of SR was that Lorentz
        Invariance. Thus, the general findings of SR still apply.

        Lorentz invariance was originally formulated under Newtonian Theory,
        not Relativity. So opting to disprove it actually tends to require
        that one abandone Newton too.

        To find odd effects that one can harness you don't have to abandon
        SR/GR. All you have to do is look to quantum effects. QM, QED,
        and QCD are full of them. Some very much relate to some of the odd
        ball finds people mention from time to time. Which makes those
        ideas well discussed prior to those findings. Its how to harness
        those findings that is in question.

        If a lot of people would honestly examine fully modern theory you'd
        find explinations of a lot of the observed effects usually cited by
        those supporting Ether Theory. You'd even find a sort of ether
        does exists. Its been well discussed ever since the advent of
        quantum theory. That ether does not disprove SR in the least. In
        fact, the methods utilized with QM actually support SR. If its FTL
        states you are after then look to GR and QM for some solutions.
        They exist if you use a bit of investigative logic. Trying to bash
        SR only achieves one thing. The mainline Journals will never
        bother to even examine your results, even if those results are
        valid. People have been trying this since Einstein first proposed
        SR. Maybe the better route is to find evidence for ways to modify
        it to include a decent explination of certain effects. They tend
        to listen to modifications far better than trying to bash the whole
        idea.
      • afme@ihug.co.nz
        COMMENT: Come to think of this Relativity was not worked out around local Frames . You ve hit upon a cause and reason why and how proving wrong proceeds.
        Message 3 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
          COMMENT: Come to think of this Relativity was not worked out around "local Frames".
          You've hit upon a "cause" and reason why and how proving wrong proceeds. In order to experimentally (a)
          observe local frames, (b) space-time frames and for that matter all those rhetorical gimmicks preceded
          by someone's name and (c) Holistic or universal propositions that concern the silly nonsense called a
          Theory of everything one has to use special tricks to keep paradoxes and anomalies at bay, which are too
          numerous to mention but in general read Vailhinger "the Philosophy of 'AS IF" " for logical, legal, etc.
          fictions, as well as make certain assumptions about the nature of reality, etc blahh which don't mesh
          too well for this a, b, c distinction, as one runs into paradoxes.

          Relativity concerns a dynamic vs static vs abstract attitude in framing observations, viz what happens
          when one uses a "field" or event frame embroiled with a particle, apart from a particle and trying to
          reconcile the 1st and 2nd in oen frame, which goes with Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

          Quantum concerns what happens at a below observable inside a particle events instrumentally observed,
          usually with means that trap and trace particle unions in some way, to make pretty pictures of their
          voming and going.

          One cannot reconcile Q with R for the obvious reason that ALTHOUGH math is pretty good at transforming
          one way to model things into another it is [1] very ambiguous, [2] incomplete and [3] isomporphic with
          our senses not reality about which we don't know very much at all.

          Now to oust paradox and anomaly from a local event frame in order to set up an experiment which observe
          a change of one parameter or dimension and freeze frame ALL others, "all other things taken as equal"
          haha, how can you if you don't know them all?, one
          defines things and other tricks. It does not help us predict what will happen but we belive so.

          In order to manage a q event frame one needs accelerators and a lot of other hooplah and can ONLY
          observe superpositionally what is statistically MOST LIKELY to happen.

          It follows that the zero sum procedure of localised stuff vs the stat guesses for Q stuff neither mix
          with Einstein nor each other, although by using math jiggery pokery we can acheive SOME of the last two,
          but not all three. That's the hangup that hung around for the last 80 odd years we tgot around SOME by
          proposing that consciousness interferes which is rather obvious because without consciousness there
          ain't nothing to observe with.

          Thos folk who call themselves pragmatic and practical, two different things, shoudl read Moby Dick where
          right smack bang when Ahab get the whole crew of the Pequod to attck the White Whale there's the
          carpenter and "all the carpenter wanted to do was carpenter.
          WHICH IS FINE WHEN WE HAD ONLY ONE THEORY WE BELIEVED TO BE CERTAIN AND ABSOLUTE, WHICH WAS DURING THE
          VICTORIAN PERIOD but it is not at all fine during this period of crisis in theory because we cannot
          attain a TOE and are highly unlikely to because we've also found out that absolutes and constant exist
          only in OUR imagination and not reality. Standing on one's Hyde park box about classical scince is a
          waste of time

          Further for maverick overunity science it has got very complex indeed as there are so many ways to fall
          through the unexamined cracks in the fabric of standard science that it ain't no longer funny. It's not
          much use my saying this unless one makes an effort to understand what I am saying and come to terms with
          it. It's quite simple.

          1: there is no stable permanent material world out there of the guaranteed kind. In fact we don't have
          much of a clue whether there is an "out there" because we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out.
          2: It is guaranteed, proven and sure that our senses are not a reliable guide to reality and as yet we
          ain't got no clue as to how to model it.
          3: since Albie PROVED that matter = energy of the fabulous E = MC ^2 it's a little silly to prove albie
          wrong and try to get overunity or Non Newtonic energy taps going. Without Albie you ain't got a canoe to
          travel in. Can I suggest that that word "wrong" is taboo when commenting on other people?
          4: One cannot falsify Theory A with any given theory B. The fact that multi theory events take place
          only shows there's cracks in the fabric of classical science. In fact NO theory ever exceeds ever more
          than about 70% "proof" by that time we've collected enough anomalies to have to start another one.
          After a short amateur making up laws of the universe in the 17th Cy or so and two Centuries of imagining
          we knew it all we're now having to admit we don't know it all and certainty is hard to find. Disproving
          Theory A by a Theory B is a phony game.
          5: there's an enormous lot of dirty politics going on around a commercial world who does not want to
          give up that manufacturer consumer junk and refuses to admit that raping our planet is a no win game.

          6: Victorian attitudes are not going to solve this crisis.

          T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scienctific revolutions"

          " In the absence of a theory of a candidate for a theory ALL of the data are equally significant,

          and may I add equally insignificant mainly because we don't know how they pattern or gestalt together
          which reminds me of the story of the seven blind men and the elephant. To end: all we've got right now
          is a few classical science anomalous experimental data

          Adrian.


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: <paultrr2000@...>
          To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 5:04 AM
          Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"


          > Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove
          > relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to
          > general global space-time and still have loopholes when it comes to
          > local frames. SR does not deal at all with say quantum states in
          > general. Certain quantum states can display non-local effects ie
          > entanglement. Does that make SR incorrect? No, it simply means
          > that our global frame we observe is not the same frame these effects
          > take place through. This implies there is more than one frame in
          > existance. That other frame must have a different value for C.
          > However, it would still obey Lorentz invariance within no matter
          > what value for C you determine. The heart of SR was that Lorentz
          > Invariance. Thus, the general findings of SR still apply.
          >
          > Lorentz invariance was originally formulated under Newtonian Theory,
          > not Relativity. So opting to disprove it actually tends to require
          > that one abandone Newton too.
          >
          > To find odd effects that one can harness you don't have to abandon
          > SR/GR. All you have to do is look to quantum effects. QM, QED,
          > and QCD are full of them. Some very much relate to some of the odd
          > ball finds people mention from time to time. Which makes those
          > ideas well discussed prior to those findings. Its how to harness
          > those findings that is in question.
          >
          > If a lot of people would honestly examine fully modern theory you'd
          > find explinations of a lot of the observed effects usually cited by
          > those supporting Ether Theory. You'd even find a sort of ether
          > does exists. Its been well discussed ever since the advent of
          > quantum theory. That ether does not disprove SR in the least. In
          > fact, the methods utilized with QM actually support SR. If its FTL
          > states you are after then look to GR and QM for some solutions.
          > They exist if you use a bit of investigative logic. Trying to bash
          > SR only achieves one thing. The mainline Journals will never
          > bother to even examine your results, even if those results are
          > valid. People have been trying this since Einstein first proposed
          > SR. Maybe the better route is to find evidence for ways to modify
          > it to include a decent explination of certain effects. They tend
          > to listen to modifications far better than trying to bash the whole
          > idea.
          >
          >
          > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
          >
          > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • Bill Hamilton
          Paul, Indeed, it is nearly impossible to publish theories or experiments that seem to disprove SR. However, there have been several worthwhile attempts. So
          Message 4 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
            Paul,

            Indeed, it is nearly impossible to publish theories or experiments
            that seem to disprove SR. However, there have been several worthwhile
            attempts. So many, in fact, that it seems that a special forum
            is needed to hash it all out.

            Sometime ago a journal entitled "Speculations in Science and Technology"
            published a special 2-part Einstein pro and con issue.
            It was amazing how many physicists either criticized SR or GR or
            presented alternate theories. Why does this subject generate so
            much controversy?

            For instance, this website:
            http://www.mrelativity.net/
            contains a modification to SR that uses spherical coordinates
            instead of rectangular coordinates, a creative effort that the
            author thought was worthwhile.

            It looks like one of the big mistakes by Einstein was to postulate
            space as empty when now we know it is seething with energetic
            activity (ZPE/ZPF). Perhaps we ought not to discourage thinkers
            from re-evaluating presiding theories even though the scientific
            community as a whole is loath to accept or publish antirelativistic
            papers. Forums exist outside of the sanctified Halls of
            Knowledge and that is where one feels free to question,
            analyze, and develop new ideas.

            In the long stretch, it is what works that will count.

            Bill H.

            >From: "Paul Hoiland <paultrr2000@...>" <paultrr2000@...>
            >Reply-To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
            >To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
            >Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of
            >Special Relativity"
            >Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:04:06 -0000
            >
            >Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove
            >relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to
            >general global space-time and still have loopholes when it comes to
            >local frames. SR does not deal at all with say quantum states in
            >general. Certain quantum states can display non-local effects ie
            >entanglement. Does that make SR incorrect? No, it simply means
            >that our global frame we observe is not the same frame these effects
            >take place through. This implies there is more than one frame in
            >existance. That other frame must have a different value for C.
            >However, it would still obey Lorentz invariance within no matter
            >what value for C you determine. The heart of SR was that Lorentz
            >Invariance. Thus, the general findings of SR still apply.
            >
            >Lorentz invariance was originally formulated under Newtonian Theory,
            >not Relativity. So opting to disprove it actually tends to require
            >that one abandone Newton too.
            >
            >To find odd effects that one can harness you don't have to abandon
            >SR/GR. All you have to do is look to quantum effects. QM, QED,
            >and QCD are full of them. Some very much relate to some of the odd
            >ball finds people mention from time to time. Which makes those
            >ideas well discussed prior to those findings. Its how to harness
            >those findings that is in question.
            >
            >If a lot of people would honestly examine fully modern theory you'd
            >find explinations of a lot of the observed effects usually cited by
            >those supporting Ether Theory. You'd even find a sort of ether
            >does exists. Its been well discussed ever since the advent of
            >quantum theory. That ether does not disprove SR in the least. In
            >fact, the methods utilized with QM actually support SR. If its FTL
            >states you are after then look to GR and QM for some solutions.
            >They exist if you use a bit of investigative logic. Trying to bash
            >SR only achieves one thing. The mainline Journals will never
            >bother to even examine your results, even if those results are
            >valid. People have been trying this since Einstein first proposed
            >SR. Maybe the better route is to find evidence for ways to modify
            >it to include a decent explination of certain effects. They tend
            >to listen to modifications far better than trying to bash the whole
            >idea.
            >
            >
            >To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
            >
            >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
            >forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
            >
            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


            Bill Hamilton
            Executive Director
            Skywatch International, Inc.
            Website:
            http://www.skywatch-research.org
            Fiat Lux et Veritas

            _________________________________________________________________
            Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
            http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
          • afme@ihug.co.nz
            Dear Bill, Because psychology we suffer from inner tension when our world models or theories don t pan out consistently. Our senses are anomaly detectors we
            Message 5 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
              Dear Bill,

              Because psychology we suffer from inner tension when our world models or theories don't pan out
              consistently. Our senses are anomaly detectors we "feel" we must do something about and all somatotonics
              seem to suffer bodily agony when their world model fails to conform to expectancies.

              Adrian.


              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "Bill Hamilton" <skywatcher22@...>
              To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 8:12 AM
              Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"


              > Paul,
              >
              > Indeed, it is nearly impossible to publish theories or experiments
              > that seem to disprove SR. However, there have been several worthwhile
              > attempts. So many, in fact, that it seems that a special forum
              > is needed to hash it all out.
              >
              > Sometime ago a journal entitled "Speculations in Science and Technology"
              > published a special 2-part Einstein pro and con issue.
              > It was amazing how many physicists either criticized SR or GR or
              > presented alternate theories. Why does this subject generate so
              > much controversy?
              >
              > For instance, this website:
              > http://www.mrelativity.net/
              > contains a modification to SR that uses spherical coordinates
              > instead of rectangular coordinates, a creative effort that the
              > author thought was worthwhile.
              >
              > It looks like one of the big mistakes by Einstein was to postulate
              > space as empty when now we know it is seething with energetic
              > activity (ZPE/ZPF). Perhaps we ought not to discourage thinkers
              > from re-evaluating presiding theories even though the scientific
              > community as a whole is loath to accept or publish antirelativistic
              > papers. Forums exist outside of the sanctified Halls of
              > Knowledge and that is where one feels free to question,
              > analyze, and develop new ideas.
              >
              > In the long stretch, it is what works that will count.
              >
              > Bill H.
              >
              > >From: "Paul Hoiland <paultrr2000@...>" <paultrr2000@...>
              > >Reply-To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
              > >To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
              > >Subject: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of
              > >Special Relativity"
              > >Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 16:04:06 -0000
              > >
              > >Is there any real reason most here try to find a way to prove
              > >relativity fully wrong. Relativity can be correct when it comes to
              > >general global space-time and still have loopholes when it comes to
              > >local frames. SR does not deal at all with say quantum states in
              > >general. Certain quantum states can display non-local effects ie
              > >entanglement. Does that make SR incorrect? No, it simply means
              > >that our global frame we observe is not the same frame these effects
              > >take place through. This implies there is more than one frame in
              > >existance. That other frame must have a different value for C.
              > >However, it would still obey Lorentz invariance within no matter
              > >what value for C you determine. The heart of SR was that Lorentz
              > >Invariance. Thus, the general findings of SR still apply.
              > >
              > >Lorentz invariance was originally formulated under Newtonian Theory,
              > >not Relativity. So opting to disprove it actually tends to require
              > >that one abandone Newton too.
              > >
              > >To find odd effects that one can harness you don't have to abandon
              > >SR/GR. All you have to do is look to quantum effects. QM, QED,
              > >and QCD are full of them. Some very much relate to some of the odd
              > >ball finds people mention from time to time. Which makes those
              > >ideas well discussed prior to those findings. Its how to harness
              > >those findings that is in question.
              > >
              > >If a lot of people would honestly examine fully modern theory you'd
              > >find explinations of a lot of the observed effects usually cited by
              > >those supporting Ether Theory. You'd even find a sort of ether
              > >does exists. Its been well discussed ever since the advent of
              > >quantum theory. That ether does not disprove SR in the least. In
              > >fact, the methods utilized with QM actually support SR. If its FTL
              > >states you are after then look to GR and QM for some solutions.
              > >They exist if you use a bit of investigative logic. Trying to bash
              > >SR only achieves one thing. The mainline Journals will never
              > >bother to even examine your results, even if those results are
              > >valid. People have been trying this since Einstein first proposed
              > >SR. Maybe the better route is to find evidence for ways to modify
              > >it to include a decent explination of certain effects. They tend
              > >to listen to modifications far better than trying to bash the whole
              > >idea.
              > >
              > >
              > >To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
              > >
              > >To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
              > >forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
              > >
              > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              > Bill Hamilton
              > Executive Director
              > Skywatch International, Inc.
              > Website:
              > http://www.skywatch-research.org
              > Fiat Lux et Veritas
              >
              > _________________________________________________________________
              > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
              > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
              >
              >
              > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
              >
              > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
            • Paul Hoiland <paultrr2000@yahoo.com>
              Actually that does not suprize me. I know of several field theorists, like myself that do not favor the old traditional strick SR. I favor a modified
              Message 6 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
                Actually that does not suprize me. I know of several field
                theorists, like myself that do not favor the old traditional strick
                SR. I favor a modified version, that takes some of the
                developments in String Theory with certain FTL states into
                account. However, I have yet to find a reason to actually abandone
                Lorentz Invariance. Every state I have ever actually examined from
                those theories still obeys it once you substitute the different
                value for C in. Dirac during some of his early modeling of the
                electron came across a simular aspects. Internal within the
                electron he discovered a state where our C value didn't hold. But
                he also showed it still obeyed Lorentz Invariance. So yes, some of
                us do complain about SR. We complain about the strick rendering on
                C a lot. But most of us who do have also worked with the models of
                Cosmology. In that field at present we have observed effects out
                there that seem to be telling us C has varied over time.
              • Jack Martinelli
                ... I ve seen this a few times, and something I ve wondered about is whether or not Dirac considered the proper time and proper length of an electron. I.e.,
                Message 7 of 13 , Jan 29, 2003
                  >Internal within the electron he discovered a state where our C
                  value didn't hold
                   
                  I've seen this a few times, and something I've wondered about is whether or not Dirac considered the proper time and proper length of an electron.  I.e., the value of c that we can measure for an electron's internal states might differ from standard c.  But an "electron-resident" kinda guy might measure the speed limit of the universe to be exactly what us ordinary matter guys measure.  To me this makes good sense.  I can think of no reason why an electron's clock should tick at the same rate as an ordinary matter clock.  I can also not imagine why an electron's natural unit of length should match ours.
                   
                  Regards
                   
                  Jack Martinelli
                   
                   
                • Robert Neil Boyd
                  Hi Adrian, You said, ...we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out. This is not at all accurate. I can inform you how to physically transport yourself
                  Message 8 of 13 , Jan 30, 2003
                    Hi Adrian,

                    You said, "...we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out."

                    This is not at all accurate. I can inform you how to physically
                    transport yourself to many other realities with one of several
                    Consciousness-based methods. (If you are interested, contact me off
                    list.) And aren't you forgetting that there is more than one universe,
                    more than one dimension, more than one realm of Existance?

                    Neil
                  • afme@ihug.co.nz
                    Sorry Neil, That s all part of the UNI-verse. I don t confuse the UNI-verse with our spectrum or world, or the physical. Adrian. ... From: Robert Neil Boyd
                    Message 9 of 13 , Jan 30, 2003
                      Sorry Neil,

                      That's all part of the UNI-verse. I don't confuse the UNI-verse with our spectrum or world, or the
                      physical. Adrian.



                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Robert Neil Boyd" <rnboyd@...>
                      To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:32 AM
                      Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"


                      > Hi Adrian,
                      >
                      > You said, "...we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out."
                      >
                      > This is not at all accurate. I can inform you how to physically
                      > transport yourself to many other realities with one of several
                      > Consciousness-based methods. (If you are interested, contact me off
                      > list.) And aren't you forgetting that there is more than one universe,
                      > more than one dimension, more than one realm of Existance?
                      >
                      > Neil
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...
                      >
                      > To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • Paul Hoiland <paultrr2000@yahoo.com>
                      A lot of Dirac s ideas on that we generally over looked. It wasn t till modern QED and even later String Theory stated mentioning odd states that some of
                      Message 10 of 13 , Jan 30, 2003
                        A lot of Dirac's ideas on that we generally over looked. It wasn't
                        till modern QED and even later String Theory stated mentioning odd
                        states that some of this resurfaced a bit. However, its far from a
                        settled issue. Personally I tend towards a scale variable C with
                        the closer we get to the Plank scale after a point you begin to, via
                        QM's probability wave to see why its possible velocity changes close
                        to the Plank scale. It would explain a lot of QM's non-local
                        effects.
                      • Robert Neil Boyd
                        OK. :) The same thing by many different names. I call it the Multiverse, or sometimes, the Omniverse. Anyway, there s a lot more than just this particular
                        Message 11 of 13 , Jan 31, 2003
                          OK. :)

                          The same thing by many different names. I call it the Multiverse, or sometimes, the Omniverse.

                          Anyway, there's a lot more than just this particular infinite volume universe, etc.

                          Neil

                          afme@... wrote:
                          Sorry Neil,

                          That's all part of the UNI-verse. I don't confuse the UNI-verse with our spectrum or world, or the
                          physical. Adrian.



                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Robert Neil Boyd" <rnboyd@...>
                          To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 3:32 AM
                          Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: "Experimental Disproof of Special Relativity"


                          Hi Adrian,

                          You said, "...we are INSIDE a UNI-verse with NO WAY to get out."

                          This is not at all accurate. I can inform you how to physically
                          transport yourself to many other realities with one of several
                          Consciousness-based methods. (If you are interested, contact me off
                          list.) And aren't you forgetting that there is more than one universe,
                          more than one dimension, more than one realm of Existance?

                          Neil




                          To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...

                          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.co m/info/terms/





                          To Post a message, send it to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@...

                          To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: forcefieldpropulsionphysics-unsubscribe@...

                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/





                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.