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

Stargates

Expand Messages
  • Bill Hamilton
    Stargates There has been a lot of interest in so-called stargates on the www, but little scientific discussion. A physicist thinks of a stargate as a
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Stargates

      There has been a lot of interest in so-called stargates on the www, but
      little scientific
      discussion. A physicist thinks of a stargate as a traversable wormhole.
      Now a wormhole
      is a shortcut tunnel through space and one that is traversable is one that
      doesn't collapse
      on you or your spaceship when you enter its throat. It is theoretically
      possible to
      traverse a wormhole from entrance to exit from point A to point B faster
      than light
      would travel through normal space from point A to point B.

      The concept of a traversable wormhole is derived from Einstein's theory of
      General
      Relativity which is now the generally accepted theory of gravity.
      Einstein's theory
      requires that space be continuous down to small scales and this is in
      conflict with
      quantum theory which has finite limits on all mensuration.

      New theories of gravity have been proposed, but I believe that we need to
      understand
      what space is in order to understand gravity because physical space is
      something with
      characteristics and properties that, when understood, can lead us to
      solutions to
      many of the technological barriers we have encountered in energy systems and
      space transport systems.

      I sort of favor some of the theories proposed by Indian nuclear engineer,
      Parahamsa Tewari.
      Tewari proposes that space (absolute vacuum) is postulated to be an
      incompressible,
      homogeneous (continuous), non-viscous, and massless fluid that has a
      limiting speed of
      flow at the speed of light.

      In Tewari's model of the electron, he proposes a space-vortex structure
      where the space
      fluid medium is rotating at the velocity of light around a void core. This
      void is a true
      void without any physical structure or energy content. Without detailing
      his model further
      at this point I want to extract this concept of the void and the medium to
      propose a new
      model for stargates and wormholes.

      The wormhole model I propose is a large scale rotation of the space medium
      in the form
      of a tunnel vortex between two points. The hyperdimensional connection of
      the two
      points is through the void which has no inertial resistance. As long as the
      wormhole
      is rotating, the rotation will stabilize the wormhole. It should be
      possible to traverse such a
      wormhole at hyperfast speeds (superluminal velocities).

      It is not easy to depart from accepted physics in order to propose new ideas
      that
      parallel some already well-developed ideas, but we need to indulge ourselves
      in
      creative thinking in order to solve practical problems. Not that stargates
      and
      wormholes are on the top of the list as far as solving problems, but that
      they give
      us insight into the processes of the universe which will help us solve the
      engineering
      problems necessary to advance our progress as a species.

      There are suggestions that extraterrestrial entities are already using
      stargates to
      effect travel through vast distances and times.

      Well, better get back to one of my sci-fi shows, "Stargate SG-1". At least
      I can
      accompany the SG-1 team on their adventures until someone finds a real
      stargate.





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

      _________________________________________________________________
      Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
    • Petar Bosnic
      ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Bill Hamilton <skywatcher22@...> wrote:
        >
        > Stargates
        >
        > There has been a lot of interest in so-called
        > stargates on the www, but
        > little scientific
        > discussion. A physicist thinks of a stargate as a
        > traversable wormhole.
        > Now a wormhole
        > is a shortcut tunnel through space and one that is
        > traversable is one that
        > doesn't collapse
        > on you or your spaceship when you enter its throat.
        > It is theoretically
        > possible to
        > traverse a wormhole from entrance to exit from point
        > A to point B faster
        > than light
        > would travel through normal space from point A to
        > point B.
        >
        > The concept of a traversable wormhole is derived
        > from Einstein's theory of
        > General
        > Relativity which is now the generally accepted
        > theory of gravity.
        > Einstein's theory
        > requires that space be continuous down to small
        > scales and this is in
        > conflict with
        > quantum theory which has finite limits on all
        > mensuration.
        >
        > New theories of gravity have been proposed, but I
        > believe that we need to
        > understand
        > what space is in order to understand gravity because
        > physical space is
        > something with
        > characteristics and properties that, when
        > understood, can lead us to
        > solutions to
        > many of the technological barriers we have
        > encountered in energy systems and
        > space transport systems.
        >
        > I sort of favor some of the theories proposed by
        > Indian nuclear engineer,
        > Parahamsa Tewari.
        > Tewari proposes that space (absolute vacuum) is
        > postulated to be an
        > incompressible,
        > homogeneous (continuous), non-viscous, and massless
        > fluid that has a
        > limiting speed of
        > flow at the speed of light.
        >
        > In Tewari's model of the electron, he proposes a
        > space-vortex structure
        > where the space
        > fluid medium is rotating at the velocity of light
        > around a void core. This
        > void is a true
        > void without any physical structure or energy
        > content. Without detailing
        > his model further
        > at this point I want to extract this concept of the
        > void and the medium to
        > propose a new
        > model for stargates and wormholes.
        >
        > The wormhole model I propose is a large scale
        > rotation of the space medium
        > in the form
        > of a tunnel vortex between two points. The
        > hyperdimensional connection of
        > the two
        > points is through the void which has no inertial
        > resistance. As long as the
        > wormhole
        > is rotating, the rotation will stabilize the
        > wormhole. It should be
        > possible to traverse such a
        > wormhole at hyperfast speeds (superluminal
        > velocities).
        >
        > It is not easy to depart from accepted physics in
        > order to propose new ideas
        > that
        > parallel some already well-developed ideas, but we
        > need to indulge ourselves
        > in
        > creative thinking in order to solve practical
        > problems. Not that stargates
        > and
        > wormholes are on the top of the list as far as
        > solving problems, but that
        > they give
        > us insight into the processes of the universe which
        > will help us solve the
        > engineering
        > problems necessary to advance our progress as a
        > species.
        >
        > There are suggestions that extraterrestrial entities
        > are already using
        > stargates to
        > effect travel through vast distances and times.
        >
        > Well, better get back to one of my sci-fi shows,
        > "Stargate SG-1". At least
        > I can
        > accompany the SG-1 team on their adventures until
        > someone finds a real
        > stargate.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Bill Hamilton
        > Executive Director
        > Skywatch International, Inc.
        > Website:
        > http://www.skywatch-research.org
        > Fiat Lux et Veritas
        >
        >
        _________________________________________________________________
        > Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection
        > with MSN 8.
        > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
        >
        >


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
        http://calendar.yahoo.com
      • Robert Neil Boyd
        Tewari is wrong about the speed of light limitation on his aetheric super-fluid. As I have said here before, the subquantum is allowed to exceed the speed of
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Tewari is wrong about the speed of light limitation on his aetheric super-fluid.
          As I have said here before, the subquantum is allowed to exceed the speed of light.
          In fact, these aether fluxes have been measured experimentally, as superluminal,
          first by Nikola Tesla in the 1890s, then by Eric Dollard in the 1990s.

          The speed of light limitation holds only for massive entities larger than the Planck length
          which are subject to the linear Lorentz transformation. However,  "... there is always a unique frame in which the non-local connections operate instantaneously." [Bohm] By this alone, the relativistic limitation of the speed of light is invalidated. How then is it possible that we can have such observable and measureable instantaneous events? There are two primary mechanisms: The various superluminal subquantum aether particle fluxes, proceeding in the manner of de Broglie waves
          falling off in intensity as 1/R, and the 13 varieties of the Mobius transform E/M (aka "conformal graviphotons") which are allowed to have any velocity from zero to infinity. By the way, please do remember that Lorentz originally came up with his expressions based on the existence of an aether.

          With regard to the origination of the aetheric fluxes, all stellar bodies contain regions of enormous
          electrical feilds due to the huge charge seperations which normally occur in stellar plasmas. When
          these charge seperations lead to rapid discharges of plasma "lighting" in order to neutralize the
          potential gradient, the conditions which are required in order to liberate the subquantum particles
          from the stellar plasmas are met, and aetheric particle fluxes are thereby released to radiate as
          stellar rays, which fall off in intensity as 1/R. As this process is going on in all stars in all the universe,
          all the time, in a stochastic manner (that is to say, distributed unequally in time and frequency), we are bombarded constantly with aether fluxes of varying intensities, durations, and frequency spectra, which are absorbed by the all the atomic elements which comprose the mass of our planet, in an equally stochastic manner.
           
          The experimental results of Gustav Le Bon, ["Evolution of Forces", London, Dryden House, 1908 reprinted by Borderland Sciences Research Foundation , and "Evolution of Matter", Walter Scott Publishing Company, 1906, also reprinted by Borderland] show empirically that the atomic elements and various isotopes can be converted one into the other by the simple process of bombardment of concentrated solar illumination. A very simple and inexpensive experiment can verify these results for you. All you will need is a Geiger counter and either some sheet tin, or sheet copper, and the lense from a solar furnace. Place the metal at the focal point of the lense in bright sunlight for several hours, then measure the sample with the gieger counter. It will have been converted into a radioactive sample. If you have access to a facility which can perform isotope seperations on the copper or tin samples, it will be found that there has been an inordinate increase in the ratio of radioactive species of isotopes of these two metals, relative to the normal off-the-shelf, fresh from the factory samples of these two materials.

          (Related to this, the very first fissionable concentrated nuclear material was produced by the simple process of exposing uranium, in the form of uranyl nitrate, to sunlight in opened rooftop evaporating tanks [Bloomfield, N.J., 1942]. The resulting green salts were electrolyzed, then the powder was pressed into briquets. This sunlight process produced about 65 tons per month of uranium metal during the second world war.)

          Again, repeating myself, Relativity says nothing about what gravitation *is*.
          It only says what gravitation *does*. Aether flux is the origination of gravitation and inertia.
          [And they are not equivalent.] (By the way the relativistic "Equivalence Principle"
          has been proved wrong by experiment and accurate measurements. But this
          fact does not bode well for relativity theory, so these results were swept
          under the carpet.) Relativity theory does not and cannot describe the actual
          origination of gravity or inertia. There are also a large number of problems with
          the standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, which are easily solved when
          we bring the superluminal subquantum aether particles into QM. It seems clear
          to me that relativity theory and QM will be found to be valid in certain frames,
          only under certain highly constrained special circumstances. I think that both relativity
          and QM will be subsumed in more encompassing, and more accurate, aether
          flux based expressions such as those developed by Tesla in the 1920s (which
          were summarily dismissed at the time because everyone went along with the
          misinterpreted expressions of Einstein regarding the "non-existence" of an "aether",
          while ignoring the fact that Einstien later recanted and insisted that there must be
          an aether of sorts, though not in the sense of the ancient "phlogiston" aether).

          I think that Crandall may perhaps have the best game in town right now.
          I would really like to have a look at his book to see if my suspicions are confirmed.
          Also, the Russian Vortex theory looks pretty good on the surface. But I haven't read that either.

          As far as traversable worm holes, don't sign me up. I intend to keep my physical
          body in good working order for quite some time.

          Best Wishes,

          Neil


          Bill Hamilton wrote:

          Stargates

          There has been a lot of interest in so-called stargates on the www, but
          little scientific
          discussion.  A physicist thinks of a stargate as a traversable wormhole. 
          Now a wormhole
          is a shortcut tunnel through space and one that is traversable is one that
          doesn't collapse
          on you or your spaceship when you enter its throat.  It is theoretically
          possible to
          traverse a wormhole from entrance to exit from point A to point B faster
          than light
          would travel through normal space from point A to point B.

          The concept of a traversable wormhole is derived from Einstein's theory of
          General
          Relativity which is now the generally accepted theory of gravity. 
          Einstein's theory
          requires that space be continuous down to small scales and this is in
          conflict with
          quantum theory which has finite limits on all mensuration.

          New theories of gravity have been proposed, but I believe that we need to
          understand
          what space is in order to understand gravity because physical space is
          something with
          characteristics and properties that, when understood, can lead us to
          solutions to
          many of the technological barriers we have encountered in energy systems and
          space transport systems.

          I sort of favor some of the theories proposed by Indian nuclear engineer,
          Parahamsa Tewari.
          Tewari proposes that space (absolute vacuum) is postulated to be an
          incompressible,
          homogeneous (continuous), non-viscous, and massless fluid that has a
          limiting speed of
          flow at the speed of light.

          In Tewari's model of the electron, he proposes a space-vortex structure
          where the space
          fluid medium is rotating at the velocity of light around a void core.  This
          void is a true
          void without any physical structure or energy content.  Without detailing
          his model further
          at this point I want to extract this concept of the void and the medium to
          propose a new
          model for stargates and wormholes.

          The wormhole model I propose is a large scale rotation of the space medium
          in the form
          of a tunnel vortex between two points.   The hyperdimensional connection of
          the two
          points is through the void which has no inertial resistance.  As long as the
          wormhole
          is rotating, the rotation will stabilize the wormhole.  It should be
          possible to traverse such a
          wormhole at hyperfast speeds (superluminal velocities).

          It is not easy to depart from accepted physics in order to propose new ideas
          that
          parallel some already well-developed ideas, but we need to indulge ourselves
          in
          creative thinking in order to solve practical problems.  Not that stargates
          and
          wormholes are on the top of the list as far as solving problems, but that
          they give
          us insight into the processes of the universe which will help us solve the
          engineering
          problems necessary to advance our progress as a species.

          There are suggestions that extraterrestrial entities are already using
          stargates to
          effect travel through vast distances and times.

          Well, better get back to one of my sci-fi shows, "Stargate SG-1".  At least
          I can
          accompany the SG-1 team on their adventures until someone finds a real
          stargate.





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

          _________________________________________________________________
          Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
          http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail



          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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service .

        • afme@ihug.co.nz
          Hi Neil, Has anybody considered the possibility of making a metal sheet up like a fresnel lens to find out what happens? Next I made copper bowls onece and
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Neil,
             
            Has anybody considered the possibility of making a metal sheet up like a fresnel lens to find out what happens? Next I made copper bowls onece and foudn out that a parabolic shape focusses the light in a point spot, which no dioptric curve does quite as well because one then also gets added penumbra.
             
            It should be easy to make a metal fresnel lens by explosion, the same way car bodies are shaped.
             
            Adrian.
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 5:45 AM
            Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Stargates

            Tewari is wrong about the speed of light limitation on his aetheric super-fluid.
             
          • c.h.thompson
            Hi Neil ... But I do hope you are not relying on quantum entanglement to support this statement! Bohm, I m told, as about the only one of the (moderately)
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Neil

              > As I have said here before, the subquantum is allowed to
              > exceed the speed of light.

              But I do hope you are not relying on "quantum entanglement" to support this
              statement! Bohm, I'm told, as about the only one of the (moderately) early
              quantum theory experts to comment on the Bell tests. He accepted readily
              that Bell's inequalities really were violated, because this was consistent
              with his theory. He cannot have looked hard at the actual experiments,
              though. In practice, his theory fails totally to explain them. (As I'm
              sure you remember, I've looked into the matter and found that the tests used
              are all "modified" ones that depend on highly dubious "auxiliary
              assumptions", and the actual experimental results are all consistent with
              explanations that do not involve superluminal effects or any other weird
              ones.)

              I've nothing against theories that say there can be FTL effects within the
              atom, because we can't prove this is not so, but I don't like to see false
              evidence used.

              > In fact, these aether fluxes have been measured experimentally,
              > as superluminal, first by Nikola Tesla in the 1890s, then by Eric
              > Dollard in the 1990s.

              Can you give refs on these? Presumably Tesla's are regarded as refuted, but
              how about Dollard's?

              Caroline

              c.h.thompson@...
              http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
            • javthornton
              I ve always understood that, especially in conventional physics, the necessarily concocted virtual particles were allowed to exceed the velocity of light. How
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                I've always understood that, especially in conventional physics, the
                necessarily concocted virtual particles were allowed to exceed the
                velocity of light.
                How you could measure this is another story entirely.

                John T.

                --- In forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com, "c.h.thompson"
                <c.h.thompson@p...> wrote:
                > Hi Neil
                >
                > > As I have said here before, the subquantum is allowed to
                > > exceed the speed of light.
                >
                > But I do hope you are not relying on "quantum entanglement" to
                support this
                > statement! Bohm, I'm told, as about the only one of the
                (moderately) early
                > quantum theory experts to comment on the Bell tests. He accepted
                readily
                > that Bell's inequalities really were violated, because this was
                consistent
                > with his theory. He cannot have looked hard at the actual
                experiments,
                > though. In practice, his theory fails totally to explain them.
                (As I'm
                > sure you remember, I've looked into the matter and found that the
                tests used
                > are all "modified" ones that depend on highly dubious "auxiliary
                > assumptions", and the actual experimental results are all
                consistent with
                > explanations that do not involve superluminal effects or any other
                weird
                > ones.)
                >
                > I've nothing against theories that say there can be FTL effects
                within the
                > atom, because we can't prove this is not so, but I don't like to
                see false
                > evidence used.
                >
                > > In fact, these aether fluxes have been measured experimentally,
                > > as superluminal, first by Nikola Tesla in the 1890s, then by Eric
                > > Dollard in the 1990s.
                >
                > Can you give refs on these? Presumably Tesla's are regarded as
                refuted, but
                > how about Dollard's?
                >
                > Caroline
                >
                > c.h.thompson@p...
                > http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
              • Petar Bosnic
                Antigravity, is a gravifugal force Unfortunately,there are to many nonsense in a field of so called ANTIGRAVITY.Constructors are basing them ideas onto
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Antigravity, is a gravifugal force

                  Unfortunately,there are to many nonsense in a field of
                  so called ANTIGRAVITY.Constructors are basing them
                  ideas onto following hypothesis:

                  Falling down(of the material things) is something
                  normal, natural,inevitable, physical fact... and
                  logic.

                  Ergo: something illogical, absurduous or irrelevant to
                  physic laws
                  will necessary levitate !!!???

                  This is "theoretical" base of the great majority of
                  projects of antigravitational devices.

                  ""Theoretical"" base of such projects is in fact a
                  MIRACLE.

                  In difference to the other cca 60 000 project and
                  ideas of antigravitational devices, my project of
                  "antigravitational" (GRAVIFUGAL) device is UNIQUE
                  project based in consistent scienticfic theory,
                  mathematicaly deduced from physics laws.

                  It is my opinion that antigravitational force does not
                  exist. Instead of it there is GRAVIFUGAL force This
                  force is calculated and confirmed by gravimetrical
                  measurements, and spining gyroscopes.

                  It seems the Theory on gravifugal force is the first
                  afirmative scientific theory on ""ANTIGRAVITY"" based
                  in classical physics and able to explaine why the
                  spining gyroscopes loos a very small particle of its
                  weight, or its falling down slightly slower. Without
                  GRAVIFUGAL THEORY is not possible neither believe in
                  existence or facticity of those facts.

                  For more,CLEARER and EASIER to understand, please see
                  at the site:

                  http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                  Attention:

                  Since the ring of Gravifugal device drawn at my site:
                  has to be made by carbon fiber, it could decrease its
                  weight max. per 5% The ring made by nano-tubes will
                  enable the craft to levitate.

                  Gentleman, I am expecting your skeptical opinions.

                  Petar Bosnic Petrus

                  P.S. Objection regard of normality of falling down of
                  material things:

                  Our ordinary experience tell us: "Material things are
                  necessary, or inevitable falling down."

                  IS IT TRUE ???

                  Scientific experience shows us that Astronauts are
                  levitating regard Earth during them orbiting arround
                  Earth.

                  The Moon is also levitating regard Earth.
                  Earth is levitating regard Sun.
                  Arms of galaxies are levitating regard its cores.
                  Electrons are levitating regard atom nucleis.

                  Ergo:

                  Whole material universe (Due to gravifugal, and
                  electrofugal force) is in fact levitating in itself.
                  The things are falling down only in a very small
                  number of places in universe - there where its angular
                  and linear velocity (of orbiting) is to low to enable
                  them to levitate.

                  It is not speculation, than rather well known physical
                  and astronomical fact.

                  Explanation of those facts at site:

                  http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                  I confess the term "gravifugal" is not term of
                  classical physics, But it is absolutely in a frame of
                  classical phy. Introducing this term in science I have
                  slightly enlarged the frames of class. phy. Gravifugal
                  force is in fact reaction to the action of gravipetal
                  force (gravipetal force is gravity functioning as
                  centripetal force). However, astronauts which are
                  orbiting Earth are levitating due to gravifugal force.
                  In a case of levitation of astronauts is erroneus to
                  say: they are levitating due to "centrifugal force"
                  because that term is to general, or to large. There
                  are several pairs of centrifugal and centripetal
                  forces:

                  gravipetal-gravifugal
                  electropetal-electrofugal
                  magnetopetal-magnetofugal
                  nucleopetal-nucleofugal
                  cohesipetal-cohesifugal

                  All of these forces was deduced my mathematical
                  apparatus of class. phy. Because of it, above
                  distinctions can be regarded as an enlargement of
                  class. phy. science.

                  Every known force can function as a centripetal force,
                  and has inevitable reaction in centrifugal direction.
                  The terms CENTRIFUGAL AND CENTRIPETAL are only
                  denominations of direction of actioning - toward
                  center or away of it.

                  CONCLUSION:

                  So called antigravity is in fact gravifugal force.
                  Gravifugal force is ih fact reaction to the action of
                  gravipetal force - manifestation of mass inertia.

                  Gravipetal force itself is a gravity functioning as
                  centripetal force.
                  Equation for calculating gravipetal force is:
                  Fgp = GMm/R2 - mv2/R ,
                  for gravifugal force: Fgf = mv2/R ,
                  where G is gravitational constant; M is mass of Earth;
                  m is observed mass; v is its linear velocity; R is
                  distance from center of Earth.

                  Gravifugal force (erroneous known as a derivative of
                  geocentrifugal force - cos. phy) produced by rotation
                  of Earth, was measured in a highest degree of accuracy
                  and AT ALL GEOGRAPHICAL LATITUDES -from 0 to 90
                  degree. Result of meassurements are in absolute
                  accordance with results of above equation.

                  Additionaly: it was proven by numerous falling spining
                  gyroscopes, but, unfortunately with small results
                  (values), and without any understanding of physical
                  cause of that phenomena.

                  For more, clearer, and easier to understand, please
                  see at site:

                  http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                  Thank you for your patient
                  Petrus


                  --- javthornton <javthornton@...> wrote:
                  > I've always understood that, especially in
                  > conventional physics, the
                  > necessarily concocted virtual particles were allowed
                  > to exceed the
                  > velocity of light.
                  > How you could measure this is another story
                  > entirely.
                  >
                  > John T.
                  >
                  > --- In forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com,
                  > "c.h.thompson"
                  > <c.h.thompson@p...> wrote:
                  > > Hi Neil
                  > >
                  > > > As I have said here before, the subquantum is
                  > allowed to
                  > > > exceed the speed of light.
                  > >
                  > > But I do hope you are not relying on "quantum
                  > entanglement" to
                  > support this
                  > > statement! Bohm, I'm told, as about the only one
                  > of the
                  > (moderately) early
                  > > quantum theory experts to comment on the Bell
                  > tests. He accepted
                  > readily
                  > > that Bell's inequalities really were violated,
                  > because this was
                  > consistent
                  > > with his theory. He cannot have looked hard at
                  > the actual
                  > experiments,
                  > > though. In practice, his theory fails totally to
                  > explain them.
                  > (As I'm
                  > > sure you remember, I've looked into the matter and
                  > found that the
                  > tests used
                  > > are all "modified" ones that depend on highly
                  > dubious "auxiliary
                  > > assumptions", and the actual experimental results
                  > are all
                  > consistent with
                  > > explanations that do not involve superluminal
                  > effects or any other
                  > weird
                  > > ones.)
                  > >
                  > > I've nothing against theories that say there can
                  > be FTL effects
                  > within the
                  > > atom, because we can't prove this is not so, but I
                  > don't like to
                  > see false
                  > > evidence used.
                  > >
                  > > > In fact, these aether fluxes have been measured
                  > experimentally,
                  > > > as superluminal, first by Nikola Tesla in the
                  > 1890s, then by Eric
                  > > > Dollard in the 1990s.
                  > >
                  > > Can you give refs on these? Presumably Tesla's
                  > are regarded as
                  > refuted, but
                  > > how about Dollard's?
                  > >
                  > > Caroline
                  > >
                  > > c.h.thompson@p...
                  > > http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
                  >
                  >


                  __________________________________
                  Do you Yahoo!?
                  Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                  http://calendar.yahoo.com
                • Petar Bosnic
                  Antigravity, is a gravifugal force Unfortunately,there are to many nonsense in a field of so called ANTIGRAVITY.Constructors are basing them ideas onto
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Antigravity, is a gravifugal force

                    Unfortunately,there are to many nonsense in a field of
                    so called ANTIGRAVITY.Constructors are basing them
                    ideas onto following hypothesis:

                    Falling down(of the material things) is something
                    normal, natural,inevitable, physical fact... and
                    logic.

                    Ergo: something illogical, absurduous or irrelevant to
                    physic laws
                    will necessary levitate !!!???

                    This is "theoretical" base of the great majority of
                    projects of antigravitational devices.

                    ""Theoretical"" base of such projects is in fact a
                    MIRACLE.

                    In difference to the other cca 60 000 project and
                    ideas of antigravitational devices, my project of
                    "antigravitational" (GRAVIFUGAL) device is UNIQUE
                    project based in consistent scienticfic theory,
                    mathematicaly deduced from physics laws.

                    It is my opinion that antigravitational force does not
                    exist. Instead of it there is GRAVIFUGAL force This
                    force is calculated and confirmed by gravimetrical
                    measurements, and spining gyroscopes.

                    It seems the Theory on gravifugal force is the first
                    afirmative scientific theory on ""ANTIGRAVITY"" based
                    in classical physics and able to explaine why the
                    spining gyroscopes loos a very small particle of its
                    weight, or its falling down slightly slower. Without
                    GRAVIFUGAL THEORY is not possible neither believe in
                    existence or facticity of those facts.

                    For more,CLEARER and EASIER to understand, please see
                    at the site:

                    http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                    Attention:

                    Since the ring of Gravifugal device drawn at my site:
                    has to be made by carbon fiber, it could decrease its
                    weight max. per 5% The ring made by nano-tubes will
                    enable the craft to levitate.

                    Gentleman, I am expecting your skeptical opinions.

                    Petar Bosnic Petrus

                    P.S. Objection regard of normality of falling down of
                    material things:

                    Our ordinary experience tell us: "Material things are
                    necessary, or inevitable falling down."

                    IS IT TRUE ???

                    Scientific experience shows us that Astronauts are
                    levitating regard Earth during them orbiting arround
                    Earth.

                    The Moon is also levitating regard Earth.
                    Earth is levitating regard Sun.
                    Arms of galaxies are levitating regard its cores.
                    Electrons are levitating regard atom nucleis.

                    Ergo:

                    Whole material universe (Due to gravifugal, and
                    electrofugal force) is in fact levitating in itself.
                    The things are falling down only in a very small
                    number of places in universe - there where its angular
                    and linear velocity (of orbiting) is to low to enable
                    them to levitate.

                    It is not speculation, than rather well known physical
                    and astronomical fact.

                    Explanation of those facts at site:

                    http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                    I confess the term "gravifugal" is not term of
                    classical physics, But it is absolutely in a frame of
                    classical phy. Introducing this term in science I have
                    slightly enlarged the frames of class. phy. Gravifugal
                    force is in fact reaction to the action of gravipetal
                    force (gravipetal force is gravity functioning as
                    centripetal force). However, astronauts which are
                    orbiting Earth are levitating due to gravifugal force.
                    In a case of levitation of astronauts is erroneus to
                    say: they are levitating due to "centrifugal force"
                    because that term is to general, or to large. There
                    are several pairs of centrifugal and centripetal
                    forces:

                    gravipetal-gravifugal
                    electropetal-electrofugal
                    magnetopetal-magnetofugal
                    nucleopetal-nucleofugal
                    cohesipetal-cohesifugal

                    All of these forces was deduced my mathematical
                    apparatus of class. phy. Because of it, above
                    distinctions can be regarded as an enlargement of
                    class. phy. science.

                    Every known force can function as a centripetal force,
                    and has inevitable reaction in centrifugal direction.
                    The terms CENTRIFUGAL AND CENTRIPETAL are only
                    denominations of direction of actioning - toward
                    center or away of it.

                    CONCLUSION:

                    So called antigravity is in fact gravifugal force.
                    Gravifugal force is ih fact reaction to the action of
                    gravipetal force - manifestation of mass inertia.

                    Gravipetal force itself is a gravity functioning as
                    centripetal force.
                    Equation for calculating gravipetal force is:
                    Fgp = GMm/R2 - mv2/R ,
                    for gravifugal force: Fgf = mv2/R ,
                    where G is gravitational constant; M is mass of Earth;
                    m is observed mass; v is its linear velocity; R is
                    distance from center of Earth.

                    Gravifugal force (erroneous known as a derivative of
                    geocentrifugal force - cos. phy) produced by rotation
                    of Earth, was measured in a highest degree of accuracy
                    and AT ALL GEOGRAPHICAL LATITUDES -from 0 to 90
                    degree. Result of meassurements are in absolute
                    accordance with results of above equation.

                    Additionaly: it was proven by numerous falling spining
                    gyroscopes, but, unfortunately with small results
                    (values), and without any understanding of physical
                    cause of that phenomena.

                    For more, clearer, and easier to understand, please
                    see at site:

                    http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                    Thank you for your patient
                    Petrus


                    --- javthornton <javthornton@...> wrote:
                    > I've always understood that, especially in
                    > conventional physics, the
                    > necessarily concocted virtual particles were allowed
                    > to exceed the
                    > velocity of light.
                    > How you could measure this is another story
                    > entirely.
                    >
                    > John T.
                    >
                    > --- In forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com,
                    > "c.h.thompson"
                    > <c.h.thompson@p...> wrote:
                    > > Hi Neil
                    > >
                    > > > As I have said here before, the subquantum is
                    > allowed to
                    > > > exceed the speed of light.
                    > >
                    > > But I do hope you are not relying on "quantum
                    > entanglement" to
                    > support this
                    > > statement! Bohm, I'm told, as about the only one
                    > of the
                    > (moderately) early
                    > > quantum theory experts to comment on the Bell
                    > tests. He accepted
                    > readily
                    > > that Bell's inequalities really were violated,
                    > because this was
                    > consistent
                    > > with his theory. He cannot have looked hard at
                    > the actual
                    > experiments,
                    > > though. In practice, his theory fails totally to
                    > explain them.
                    > (As I'm
                    > > sure you remember, I've looked into the matter and
                    > found that the
                    > tests used
                    > > are all "modified" ones that depend on highly
                    > dubious "auxiliary
                    > > assumptions", and the actual experimental results
                    > are all
                    > consistent with
                    > > explanations that do not involve superluminal
                    > effects or any other
                    > weird
                    > > ones.)
                    > >
                    > > I've nothing against theories that say there can
                    > be FTL effects
                    > within the
                    > > atom, because we can't prove this is not so, but I
                    > don't like to
                    > see false
                    > > evidence used.
                    > >
                    > > > In fact, these aether fluxes have been measured
                    > experimentally,
                    > > > as superluminal, first by Nikola Tesla in the
                    > 1890s, then by Eric
                    > > > Dollard in the 1990s.
                    > >
                    > > Can you give refs on these? Presumably Tesla's
                    > are regarded as
                    > refuted, but
                    > > how about Dollard's?
                    > >
                    > > Caroline
                    > >
                    > > c.h.thompson@p...
                    > > http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
                    >
                    >


                    __________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                    http://calendar.yahoo.com
                  • Petar Bosnic
                    Antigravity, is a gravifugal force Unfortunately,there are to many nonsense in a field of so called ANTIGRAVITY.Constructors are basing them ideas onto
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 6, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Antigravity, is a gravifugal force

                      Unfortunately,there are to many nonsense in a field of
                      so called ANTIGRAVITY.Constructors are basing them
                      ideas onto following hypothesis:

                      Falling down(of the material things) is something
                      normal, natural,inevitable, physical fact... and
                      logic.

                      Ergo: something illogical, absurduous or irrelevant to
                      physic laws
                      will necessary levitate !!!???

                      This is "theoretical" base of the great majority of
                      projects of antigravitational devices.

                      ""Theoretical"" base of such projects is in fact a
                      MIRACLE.

                      In difference to the other cca 60 000 project and
                      ideas of antigravitational devices, my project of
                      "antigravitational" (GRAVIFUGAL) device is UNIQUE
                      project based in consistent scienticfic theory,
                      mathematicaly deduced from physics laws.

                      It is my opinion that antigravitational force does not
                      exist. Instead of it there is GRAVIFUGAL force This
                      force is calculated and confirmed by gravimetrical
                      measurements, and spining gyroscopes.

                      It seems the Theory on gravifugal force is the first
                      afirmative scientific theory on ""ANTIGRAVITY"" based
                      in classical physics and able to explaine why the
                      spining gyroscopes loos a very small particle of its
                      weight, or its falling down slightly slower. Without
                      GRAVIFUGAL THEORY is not possible neither believe in
                      existence or facticity of those facts.

                      For more,CLEARER and EASIER to understand, please see
                      at the site:

                      http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                      Attention:

                      Since the ring of Gravifugal device drawn at my site:
                      has to be made by carbon fiber, it could decrease its
                      weight max. per 5% The ring made by nano-tubes will
                      enable the craft to levitate.

                      Gentleman, I am expecting your skeptical opinions.

                      Petar Bosnic Petrus

                      P.S. Objection regard of normality of falling down of
                      material things:

                      Our ordinary experience tell us: "Material things are
                      necessary, or inevitable falling down."

                      IS IT TRUE ???

                      Scientific experience shows us that Astronauts are
                      levitating regard Earth during them orbiting arround
                      Earth.

                      The Moon is also levitating regard Earth.
                      Earth is levitating regard Sun.
                      Arms of galaxies are levitating regard its cores.
                      Electrons are levitating regard atom nucleis.

                      Ergo:

                      Whole material universe (Due to gravifugal, and
                      electrofugal force) is in fact levitating in itself.
                      The things are falling down only in a very small
                      number of places in universe - there where its angular
                      and linear velocity (of orbiting) is to low to enable
                      them to levitate.

                      It is not speculation, than rather well known physical
                      and astronomical fact.

                      Explanation of those facts at site:

                      http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                      I confess the term "gravifugal" is not term of
                      classical physics, But it is absolutely in a frame of
                      classical phy. Introducing this term in science I have
                      slightly enlarged the frames of class. phy. Gravifugal
                      force is in fact reaction to the action of gravipetal
                      force (gravipetal force is gravity functioning as
                      centripetal force). However, astronauts which are
                      orbiting Earth are levitating due to gravifugal force.
                      In a case of levitation of astronauts is erroneus to
                      say: they are levitating due to "centrifugal force"
                      because that term is to general, or to large. There
                      are several pairs of centrifugal and centripetal
                      forces:

                      gravipetal-gravifugal
                      electropetal-electrofugal
                      magnetopetal-magnetofugal
                      nucleopetal-nucleofugal
                      cohesipetal-cohesifugal

                      All of these forces was deduced my mathematical
                      apparatus of class. phy. Because of it, above
                      distinctions can be regarded as an enlargement of
                      class. phy. science.

                      Every known force can function as a centripetal force,
                      and has inevitable reaction in centrifugal direction.
                      The terms CENTRIFUGAL AND CENTRIPETAL are only
                      denominations of direction of actioning - toward
                      center or away of it.

                      CONCLUSION:

                      So called antigravity is in fact gravifugal force.
                      Gravifugal force is ih fact reaction to the action of
                      gravipetal force - manifestation of mass inertia.

                      Gravipetal force itself is a gravity functioning as
                      centripetal force.
                      Equation for calculating gravipetal force is:
                      Fgp = GMm/R2 - mv2/R ,
                      for gravifugal force: Fgf = mv2/R ,
                      where G is gravitational constant; M is mass of Earth;
                      m is observed mass; v is its linear velocity; R is
                      distance from center of Earth.

                      Gravifugal force (erroneous known as a derivative of
                      geocentrifugal force - cos. phy) produced by rotation
                      of Earth, was measured in a highest degree of accuracy
                      and AT ALL GEOGRAPHICAL LATITUDES -from 0 to 90
                      degree. Result of meassurements are in absolute
                      accordance with results of above equation.

                      Additionaly: it was proven by numerous falling spining
                      gyroscopes, but, unfortunately with small results
                      (values), and without any understanding of physical
                      cause of that phenomena.

                      For more, clearer, and easier to understand, please
                      see at site:

                      http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                      Thank you for your patient
                      Petrus


                      --- afme@... wrote:
                      > Hi Neil,
                      >
                      > Has anybody considered the possibility of making a
                      > metal sheet up like a fresnel lens to find out what
                      > happens? Next I made copper bowls onece and foudn
                      > out that a parabolic shape focusses the light in a
                      > point spot, which no dioptric curve does quite as
                      > well because one then also gets added penumbra.
                      >
                      > It should be easy to make a metal fresnel lens by
                      > explosion, the same way car bodies are shaped.
                      >
                      > Adrian.
                      >
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: Robert Neil Boyd
                      > To: forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 5:45 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics]
                      > Stargates
                      >
                      >
                      > Tewari is wrong about the speed of light
                      > limitation on his aetheric super-fluid.
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                      http://calendar.yahoo.com
                    • Robert Neil Boyd
                      Hi Adrian, Nifty idea! I have never seen any information describing a metal fresnel lense. Sounds interesting! One thing to keep in mind about copper though.
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 7, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Adrian,

                        Nifty idea! I have never seen any information describing a metal fresnel lense.
                        Sounds interesting! One thing to keep in mind about copper though. It will
                        become increasingly radioactive over time as it is exposed to sunlight.

                        Neil

                        afme@... wrote:
                        Hi Neil,
                         
                        Has anybody considered the possibility of making a metal sheet up like a fresnel lens to find out what happens? Next I made copper bowls onece and foudn out that a parabolic shape focusses the light in a point spot, which no dioptric curve does quite as well because one then also gets added penumbra.
                         
                        It should be easy to make a metal fresnel lens by explosion, the same way car bodies are shaped.
                         
                        Adrian.
                         
                         
                        ----- Original Message -----
                        Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 5:45 AM
                        Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Stargates

                        Tewari is wrong about the speed of light limitation on his aetheric super-fluid.
                         


                        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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service .

                      • Robert Neil Boyd
                        Hi, ... Nothing to do with quantum entanglement. Keyword: SUBquantum ... Superluminal violation of Bell s theorums were verified last year in a redesigned
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jun 7, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hi,

                          c.h.thompson wrote:

                          > Hi Neil
                          >
                          > > As I have said here before, the subquantum is allowed to
                          > > exceed the speed of light.
                          >
                          > But I do hope you are not relying on "quantum entanglement" to support
                          > this
                          > statement!

                          Nothing to do with quantum entanglement. Keyword: SUBquantum

                          > Bohm, I'm told, as about the only one of the (moderately) early
                          > quantum theory experts to comment on the Bell tests. He accepted
                          > readily that Bell's inequalities really were violated, because this
                          > was consistent with his theory. He cannot have looked hard at the
                          > actual experiments, though.

                          Superluminal violation of Bell's theorums were verified last year in a
                          redesigned Aspect experiment,
                          which removed all the uncertainties from the measurements. I thought you
                          were aware of that.

                          In addition, violation of Bell's theorum was proved by the experiments
                          at Princeton
                          Engineering Anomalies Research, in terms of influences on the quantum
                          system, from
                          outside of the system, by the vehicle of Consciousness

                          > In practice, his theory fails totally to explain them. (As I'm
                          > sure you remember, I've looked into the matter and found that the
                          > tests used
                          > are all "modified" ones that depend on highly dubious "auxiliary
                          > assumptions", and the actual experimental results are all consistent with
                          > explanations that do not involve superluminal effects or any other weird
                          > ones.)

                          Not true anymore. See above.

                          >
                          >
                          > I've nothing against theories that say there can be FTL effects within
                          > the atom, because we can't prove this is not so, but I don't like to
                          > see false evidence used.
                          >
                          > > In fact, these aether fluxes have been measured experimentally,
                          > > as superluminal, first by Nikola Tesla in the 1890s, then by Eric
                          > > Dollard in the 1990s.
                          >
                          > Can you give refs on these? Presumably Tesla's are regarded as
                          > refuted, but how about Dollard's?

                          See the book "Secrets of Cold War Technology" by Gerry Vassilatos,
                          Adventures Unlimited Press.
                          You can regard anything as refuted, but that does not make it so in
                          fact. Neither Tesla's measurements, nor Dollards have ever been
                          "refuted". Rather, they have been denied. Not the
                          same thing is it?

                          While your stance with regard to the speed of light limitation may
                          please many, such a view
                          is not correct in all circumstances. But we have already been through
                          all that, haven't we?

                          Best Wishes,

                          Neil

                          Neil
                        • Robert Neil Boyd
                          Relativity theory does not hold for rotating masses. You are on a good track, it seems to me. I suggest high dv/dt (very fast) HVDC impluses on a rotating
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jun 7, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Relativity theory does not hold for rotating masses.

                            You are on a good track, it seems to me.

                            I suggest high dv/dt (very fast) HVDC impluses on a rotating massive
                            dielectric will create easily measureable weight reduction, or increased
                            weight, depending on the orientation of the positive pole of
                            the applied HVDC impulses. (There is a direct relation between
                            gravitation and the electric field, sometimes called "electrogravetics".
                            [Reference Dr. T. T. Brown.] This kind of event is a result of aether fluxes.)

                            Have you found yet, that there is a relationship between the angular
                            momentum of the Earth, and the rotational velocity of a rotating mass
                            in the laboratory frame, which creates a angular momentum based
                            mass resonance in the laboratory frame, related to the rotation of the planet,
                            in the vicinity of 27,000 RPM? At these rotational velocities, charge seperation
                            begins to occur on the rotating mass, due to E cross V drift. This can result in
                            an increase in the rotational velocity of the rotating mass, and a levitational
                            effect. This was first noted by Searl in the UK. Although patented, Searl's
                            machines have not been amenable to replication, so far.

                            Best Wishes,

                            Neil

                            Petar Bosnic wrote:
                            Antigravity, is a gravifugal force

                            Unfortunately,there are to many nonsense in a field of
                            so called ANTIGRAVITY.Constructors are basing them
                            ideas onto following hypothesis:

                            Falling down(of the material things) is something
                            normal, natural,inevitable, physical fact... and
                            logic.

                            Ergo: something illogical, absurduous or irrelevant to
                            physic laws
                            will necessary levitate !!!???

                            This is "theoretical" base of the great majority of
                            projects of antigravitational devices.

                            ""Theoretical"" base of such projects is in fact a
                            MIRACLE.

                            In difference to the other cca 60 000 project and
                            ideas of antigravitational devices, my project of
                            "antigravitational" (GRAVIFUGAL) device is UNIQUE
                            project based in consistent scienticfic theory,
                            mathematicaly deduced from physics laws.

                            It is my opinion that antigravitational force does not
                            exist. Instead of it there is GRAVIFUGAL force This
                            force is calculated and confirmed by gravimetrical
                            measurements, and spining gyroscopes.

                            It seems the Theory on gravifugal force is the first
                            afirmative scientific theory on ""ANTIGRAVITY"" based
                            in classical physics and able to explaine why the
                            spining gyroscopes loos a very small particle of its
                            weight, or its falling down slightly slower. Without
                            GRAVIFUGAL THEORY is not possible neither believe in
                            existence or facticity of those facts.

                            For more,CLEARER and EASIER to understand, please see
                            at the site:

                            http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                            Attention:

                            Since the ring of Gravifugal device drawn at my site:
                            has to be made by carbon fiber, it could decrease its
                            weight max. per 5% The ring made by nano-tubes will
                            enable the craft to levitate.

                            Gentleman, I am expecting your skeptical opinions.

                            Petar Bosnic Petrus

                            P.S. Objection regard of normality of falling down of
                            material things:

                            Our ordinary experience tell us: "Material things are
                            necessary, or inevitable falling down."

                            IS IT TRUE ???

                            Scientific experience shows us that Astronauts are
                            levitating regard Earth during them orbiting arround
                            Earth.

                            The Moon is also levitating regard Earth.
                            Earth is levitating regard Sun.
                            Arms of galaxies are levitating regard its cores.
                            Electrons are levitating regard atom nucleis.

                            Ergo:

                            Whole material universe (Due to gravifugal, and
                            electrofugal force) is in fact levitating in itself.
                            The things are falling down only in a very small
                            number of places in universe - there where its angular
                            and linear velocity (of orbiting) is to low to enable
                            them to levitate.

                            It is not speculation, than rather well known physical
                            and astronomical fact.

                            Explanation of those facts at site:

                            http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                            I confess the term "gravifugal" is not term of
                            classical physics, But it is absolutely in a frame of
                            classical phy. Introducing this term in science I have
                            slightly enlarged the frames of class. phy. Gravifugal
                            force is in fact reaction to the action of gravipetal
                            force (gravipetal force is gravity functioning as
                            centripetal force). However, astronauts which are
                            orbiting Earth are levitating due to gravifugal force.
                            In a case of levitation of astronauts is erroneus to
                            say: they are levitating due to "centrifugal force"
                            because that term is to general, or to large. There
                            are several pairs of centrifugal and centripetal
                            forces:

                            gravipetal-gravifugal
                            electropetal-electrofugal
                            magnetopetal-magnetofugal
                            nucleopetal-nucleofugal
                            cohesipetal-cohesifugal

                            All of these forces was deduced my mathematical
                            apparatus of class. phy. Because of it, above
                            distinctions can be regarded as an enlargement of
                            class. phy. science.

                            Every known force can function as a centripetal force,
                            and has inevitable reaction in centrifugal direction.
                            The terms CENTRIFUGAL AND CENTRIPETAL are only
                            denominations of direction of actioning - toward
                            center or away of it.

                            CONCLUSION:

                            So called antigravity is in fact gravifugal force.
                            Gravifugal force is ih fact reaction to the action of
                            gravipetal force - manifestation of mass inertia.

                            Gravipetal force itself is a gravity functioning as
                            centripetal force.
                            Equation for calculating gravipetal force is:
                            Fgp = GMm/R2 - mv2/R ,
                            for gravifugal force: Fgf = mv2/R ,
                            where G is gravitational constant; M is mass of Earth;
                            m is observed mass; v is its linear velocity; R is
                            distance from center of Earth.

                            Gravifugal force (erroneous known as a derivative of
                            geocentrifugal force - cos. phy) produced by rotation
                            of Earth, was measured in a highest degree of accuracy
                            and AT ALL GEOGRAPHICAL LATITUDES -from 0 to 90
                            degree. Result of meassurements are in absolute
                            accordance with results of above equation.

                            Additionaly: it was proven by numerous falling spining
                            gyroscopes, but, unfortunately with small results
                            (values), and without any understanding of physical
                            cause of that phenomena.

                            For more, clearer, and easier to understand, please
                            see at site:

                            http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm

                            Thank you for your patient
                            Petrus


                            --- javthornton <javthornton@...> wrote:
                            > I've always understood that, especially in
                            > conventional physics, the
                            > necessarily concocted virtual particles were allowed
                            > to exceed the
                            > velocity of light.
                            > How you could measure this is another story
                            > entirely.
                            >
                            > John T.
                            >
                            > --- In forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com,
                            > "c.h.thompson"
                            > <c.h.thompson@p...> wrote:
                            > > Hi Neil
                            > >
                            > > > As I have said here before, the subquantum is
                            > allowed to
                            > > > exceed the speed of light.
                            > >
                            > > But I do hope you are not relying on "quantum
                            > entanglement" to
                            > support this
                            > > statement!  Bohm, I'm told, as about the only one
                            > of the
                            > (moderately) early
                            > > quantum theory experts to comment on the Bell
                            > tests.  He accepted
                            > readily
                            > > that Bell's inequalities really were violated,
                            > because this was
                            > consistent
                            > > with his theory.  He cannot have looked hard at
                            > the actual
                            > experiments,
                            > > though.  In practice, his theory fails totally to
                            > explain them. 
                            > (As I'm
                            > > sure you remember, I've looked into the matter and
                            > found that the
                            > tests used
                            > > are all "modified" ones that depend on highly
                            > dubious "auxiliary
                            > > assumptions", and the actual experimental results
                            > are all
                            > consistent with
                            > > explanations that do not involve superluminal
                            > effects or any other
                            > weird
                            > > ones.)
                            > >
                            > > I've nothing against theories that say there can
                            > be FTL effects
                            > within the
                            > > atom, because we can't prove this is not so, but I
                            > don't like to
                            > see false
                            > > evidence used.
                            > >
                            > > > In fact, these aether fluxes have been measured
                            > experimentally,
                            > > > as superluminal, first by Nikola Tesla in the
                            > 1890s, then by Eric
                            > > > Dollard in the 1990s.
                            > >
                            > > Can you give refs on these?  Presumably Tesla's
                            > are regarded as
                            > refuted, but
                            > > how about Dollard's?
                            > >
                            > > Caroline
                            > >
                            > > c.h.thompson@p...
                            > > http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
                            >
                            >


                            __________________________________
                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
                            http://calendar.yahoo.com


                            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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service .

                          • c.h.thompson
                            Hi Neil ... No, and I firmly believe that if you can tell me more details I shall be able to tell you in what way the Bell test used was invalid. I m sure
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jun 7, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Neil

                              > Superluminal violation of Bell's theorums were verified last
                              > year in a redesigned Aspect experiment, which removed
                              > all the uncertainties from the measurements. I thought you
                              > were aware of that.

                              No, and I firmly believe that if you can tell me more details I shall be
                              able to tell you in what way the "Bell test" used was invalid. I'm sure if
                              anything really interesting had happened I'd have been informed. Certainly
                              the editors of AJP did not seem aware of any such marvellous experiment.
                              Nor Abner Shimony, nor Franck Laloe ...

                              Perhaps you are thinking of the Rowe et al experiment, using trapped ions?
                              As a "Bell test" this was a farce, since the ions concerned were not
                              "separated", there was no *independent* setting of anything equivalent to
                              the axes of polarisers, and there was not even anything equivalent to two
                              "sides" to the experiment. The total intensity from both ions at once is
                              all that was measured. See
                              http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/Critiques/intro.htm#Rowe2001

                              > In addition, violation of Bell's theorum was proved by the
                              > experiments at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research,
                              > in terms of influences on the quantum system, from
                              > outside of the system, by the vehicle of Consciousness

                              Hmmm ... you can believe this if you like. Perhaps you are referring to the
                              Ganzfeld experiments? Though Bill Morris assured me there was no fiddle, I
                              bet something was wrong with the statistics. See various letters on my
                              site, dated March-April 2001.

                              Caroline

                              c.h.thompson@...
                              http://users.aber.ac.uk/cat/
                            • afme@ihug.co.nz
                              Caroline, 1: particles are a math fiction, because that s what math can handle, so even waves are dealt with AS IF they are particles. If you know that no
                              Message 14 of 14 , Jun 7, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Caroline,

                                1: particles are a math fiction, because that's what math can handle, so even waves are dealt with AS IF
                                they are particles. If you know that no harm is done. IF one takes particles as literally *out there*
                                it makes nonsense.

                                2: What is called the aether is a pre-quantum flux, which no math can handle because it's continuous and
                                therefore everything is connected to everything else, because, as I get tired of pointing out, OR ELSE
                                the universe would tear itself apart into multiple universes with no connection between them which
                                contradicts our UNI-verse as a whole whole than which no other whole. In a non-whole whole prediction is
                                IMPOSSIBLE. We fictionally call material reality such a whole.

                                3: Logic and axiomatics is a mechanical monstrosity for making linear associations, which it does better
                                as "aesthetics" in polymodal forms, which, again, math cannot handle but WE can, under the label
                                intuition. That's where matrices, etc., come into play. Before one CAN use logic one has to a-logically
                                but not necessarily irrationally decide on a postulate, assumption, belief about the nature and
                                behaviours of reality. Also with math having some 100 odd squiggles to play pattern making the terms are
                                HIGHLY ambiguous, whence the problem of rendering it in words. Thus it varies with whatever MEANING the
                                mathematician happens to have as a mindset. There's no way to cross check for meanings as that is
                                subjective.

                                In a body of knowledge constructed of well-defined words any such word or datum CAN BE made out as a
                                paradox, simply as a category mixup. Russell's Barber who does not shave himself WILL shave himself in
                                OUR world but not that imaginary well-defined word domain. Boeotian liars DO tell the truth, when they
                                do it to a non-Boeotian, eh!. He does not say everybody lies, only Boeotians. In a negative sense it
                                makes a Catch22 or Double Bind whereby one misleads the hearer by using one meaning which he does not
                                have in mind or consider and then pulling another meaning out of the hat when he swallow the con game.

                                One can only self-check out actual consistency with a non-math world by hyperlogic when using Godel's
                                proof in a metaphorically dynamic sense, or, more simply, by making sure one does not, as Einstein
                                pointed out, UNconsciously fool oneself. The naive user, rule bound, will get thunked by this and more
                                of that ilk. When Feynmann writes he wants to read the mind of god, he is not being religious or naive
                                or besotted. He is making a deceitful paradoxical allusion to the notion in vogue among Q physicists
                                that matter = mindstuff. Unless one is in the know one gets fooled. Science insists on the mechanically
                                only as acceptable and it follows that when one reaches beyond conventional science to begin to
                                understand how reality plays its tricks a hide bound scientist who *believes* what textbooks tell us
                                will, without substance, refuse to accept it. FI In order to use a yardstick one has to MAKE a
                                beginning, because reality has neither beginning nor end.

                                So those telepathing particles are a metaphoric fib to describe, by means of a paradox, what actually
                                happens in a pre-planckian flux, because there neither space nor time apply. Just because the current
                                fib is that everything is digital does not mean reality complies with that fib, do it? We cannot
                                represent a continuum with math, which is why Newton invented his infinitesimal Calculus. That harbours
                                a paradox too< IFF one insists only the digital is valid. Otherwise it leads to three worlds:
                                a: that of our sensorium,
                                b: that of our communal model of the world, for science nowadays digital.
                                c: Reality with which our MIND is continuous in various ways
                                NOT to ignore our imaginary constructs ABOUT reality, which axiomatics conflates into *the same* as OF
                                reality or In reality or for reality.

                                4: Here Einstein's relativity applies in a psychological sense as imagination, experience and formal
                                write up in 3rd person abstract, which because the naive BELIEF that words are REAL, which they cannot
                                be. If reality obeyed words it would not work. Theory does NOT prescribe to reality and reality does not
                                obey us. It comes in several KINDS as real, imaginary, simulated and fantasised. The current status is
                                that we subjectively PROJECT our ideas INTO our world, as automatically hardwire done by our sensorium.
                                A fact is a product of a theory, not a constituent. It is real when I express my opinions only. There
                                is, currently no word to distinguish when something works for serendipitous reasons we cannot explain.
                                The dialogue with Nature is an internal monologue. If you don't want to believe any of this, that's your
                                problem and freedom, BUT don't try to subjugate other people's thinking INTO yours.

                                And if YOU cannot understand me does not mean you may decide I am wrong. In theory we don't know for
                                sure and in practice we must assume we know it all; which we don't. Assumptions are undecidables. When
                                we say Aristotle is a man, we firstly NAME the bits and secondly providing ONE attribute is illicit;
                                thirdly we use an identity which neither fuzzy, nor hyperlogic tolerates. All that means is that we can
                                use logic beyond the binary limits.

                                Adrian.



                                ----- Original Message -----
                                From: "Robert Neil Boyd" <rnboyd@...>
                                To: <forcefieldpropulsionphysics@yahoogroups.com>
                                Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:53 AM
                                Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Stargates


                                > Hi,
                                >
                                > c.h.thompson wrote:
                                >
                                > > Hi Neil
                                > >
                                > > > As I have said here before, the subquantum is allowed to
                                > > > exceed the speed of light.
                                > >
                                > > But I do hope you are not relying on "quantum entanglement" to support
                                > > this
                                > > statement!
                                >
                                > Nothing to do with quantum entanglement. Keyword: SUBquantum
                                >
                                > > Bohm, I'm told, as about the only one of the (moderately) early
                                > > quantum theory experts to comment on the Bell tests. He accepted
                                > > readily that Bell's inequalities really were violated, because this
                                > > was consistent with his theory. He cannot have looked hard at the
                                > > actual experiments, though.
                                >
                                > Superluminal violation of Bell's theorums were verified last year in a
                                > redesigned Aspect experiment,
                                > which removed all the uncertainties from the measurements. I thought you
                                > were aware of that.
                                >
                                > In addition, violation of Bell's theorum was proved by the experiments
                                > at Princeton
                                > Engineering Anomalies Research, in terms of influences on the quantum
                                > system, from
                                > outside of the system, by the vehicle of Consciousness
                                >
                                > > In practice, his theory fails totally to explain them. (As I'm
                                > > sure you remember, I've looked into the matter and found that the
                                > > tests used
                                > > are all "modified" ones that depend on highly dubious "auxiliary
                                > > assumptions", and the actual experimental results are all consistent with
                                > > explanations that do not involve superluminal effects or any other weird
                                > > ones.)
                                >
                                > Not true anymore. See above.
                                >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > I've nothing against theories that say there can be FTL effects within
                                > > the atom, because we can't prove this is not so, but I don't like to
                                > > see false evidence used.
                                > >
                                > > > In fact, these aether fluxes have been measured experimentally,
                                > > > as superluminal, first by Nikola Tesla in the 1890s, then by Eric
                                > > > Dollard in the 1990s.
                                > >
                                > > Can you give refs on these? Presumably Tesla's are regarded as
                                > > refuted, but how about Dollard's?
                                >
                                > See the book "Secrets of Cold War Technology" by Gerry Vassilatos,
                                > Adventures Unlimited Press.
                                > You can regard anything as refuted, but that does not make it so in
                                > fact. Neither Tesla's measurements, nor Dollards have ever been
                                > "refuted". Rather, they have been denied. Not the
                                > same thing is it?
                                >
                                > While your stance with regard to the speed of light limitation may
                                > please many, such a view
                                > is not correct in all circumstances. But we have already been through
                                > all that, haven't we?
                                >
                                > Best Wishes,
                                >
                                > Neil
                                >
                                > 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/
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.