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

Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Stargates

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.