Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Stargates
> Hi NeilNothing to do with quantum entanglement. Keyword: SUBquantum
> > 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
> Bohm, I'm told, as about the only one of the (moderately) earlySuperluminal violation of Bell's theorums were verified last year in a
> 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.
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
Engineering Anomalies Research, in terms of influences on the quantum
outside of the system, by the vehicle of Consciousness
> In practice, his theory fails totally to explain them. (As I'mNot true anymore. See above.
> 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
>See the book "Secrets of Cold War Technology" by Gerry Vassilatos,
> 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?
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?
- 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.
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
Ergo: something illogical, absurduous or irrelevant to
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
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:
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
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
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.
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:
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
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.
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
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:
Thank you for your patient
--- 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
> John T.
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org,
> <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
> > that Bell's inequalities really were violated,
> because this was
> > with his theory. He cannot have looked hard at
> the actual
> > 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
> > 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
> > > 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).
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 .
- Hi Neil
> Superluminal violation of Bell's theorums were verified lastNo, and I firmly believe that if you can tell me more details I shall be
> year in a redesigned Aspect experiment, which removed
> all the uncertainties from the measurements. I thought you
> were aware of that.
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
> In addition, violation of Bell's theorum was proved by theHmmm ... you can believe this if you like. Perhaps you are referring to 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
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.
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
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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Neil Boyd" <rnboyd@...>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 1:53 AM
Subject: Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Stargates
> 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,
> 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/