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

Re: [forcefieldpropulsionphysics] Re: Stargates

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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.