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

Your Reply

Expand Messages
  • Tim Ventura
    Dear Mark: Perhaps you misinterpreted my email, which I had hoped would serve to be a Hi, I m a new member message, but instead is apparently setting my up
    Message 1 of 10 , Sep 4 7:29 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Mark:
       
      Perhaps you misinterpreted my email, which I had hoped would serve to be a "Hi, I'm a new member" message, but instead is apparently setting my up as a target for criticism.
       
      My reference to nanotech absorbing and surpassing Antigravity technology cites the belief that the greatest power of nanotech may be its ability to transform existing industries -- I was not making a direct connection in a strict sense.
       
      Your quote: "In contrast, speculations about "electromagnetic/gravitational interactions" which could be exploited to create an "antigravity" technology are inconsistent with known physics and have no basis other than fantasy."
      Your quote above would be correct except that it disregards recent theory (post 2000) and research. There is a LOT that is now known about the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity -- the only weakness in this research has been and continues to be finding an efficient form of leverage to manipulate gravity with EM.
       
      My 30 seconds of research shows that your are a physics grad-student with the Superconducting Quantum Computing Group -- an admirable focus, but away from work in the realm of gravitational research, I suspect.
       
      Thanks;
       
      Tim Ventura
       
    • Mark Gubrud
      I m glad you called me on my point that ... This statement was indeed incorrect. Pseudoscience and fraud do provide additional support for these notions.
      Message 2 of 10 , Sep 4 9:13 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm glad you called me on my point that

        > speculations about
        > electromagnetic/gravitational interactions" which could be exploited
        > to create an "antigravity" technology are inconsistent with known
        > physics and have no basis other than fantasy."

        This statement was indeed incorrect. Pseudoscience and fraud do
        provide additional support for these notions.

        > Tim Ventura wrote:
        >
        > Dear Mark:
        >
        > Perhaps you misinterpreted my email, which I had hoped would serve to
        > be a "Hi, I'm a new member" message, but instead is apparently setting
        > my up as a target for criticism.
        >
        > My reference to nanotech absorbing and surpassing Antigravity
        > technology cites the belief that the greatest power of nanotech may be
        > its ability to transform existing industries -- I was not making a
        > direct connection in a strict sense.
        >
        > Your quote: "In contrast,
        > Your quote above would be correct except that it disregards recent
        > theory (post 2000) and research. There is a LOT that is now known
        > about the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity -- the
        > only weakness in this research has been and continues to be finding an
        > efficient form of leverage to manipulate gravity with EM.
        >
        > My 30 seconds of research shows that your are a physics grad-student
        > with the Superconducting Quantum Computing Group -- an admirable
        > focus, but away from work in the realm of gravitational research, I
        > suspect.
        >
        > Thanks;
        >
        > Tim Ventura
        >
      • Tim Ventura
        Mark -- Verbal attacks and libelous implications are rather unbecoming, don t you think? Would you have these added to your professional reputation as a
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 4 10:12 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          Mark --

          Verbal attacks and libelous implications are rather unbecoming, don't you
          think? Would you have these added to your professional reputation as a
          physicist?

          It concerns me that some people are so driven to "be right" that they
          attempt to undermine others in order to gain advantage. Adopting a "live and
          let live" policy will save you a lot of inner-turmoil and anger in the
          future. I would much prefer to see you share your expertise in Nanotech than
          comment outside your field of expertise.

          You have nothing to gain and a lot to lose in terms of credibility by
          arguing with me about my work & research. Obviously, if I am mistaken about
          my research, nothing will come of it and you will be proven right by
          default. It is in your best interest to say nothing and claim that you were
          right all along if I fail, rather than say that I am wrong and be in the
          same boat as the critics of the Wright Brothers if I succeed.

          Another consideration is that how you interact with the public reflects not
          only on your professional reputation, but also the reputation of your
          colleagues at the University of Maryland. I'm sure that they would be less
          than excited by this behavior.

          If you don't believe that Antigravity is possible or achievable, please be
          an expert on Nanotech.

          Thanks;

          Tim Ventura





          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Mark Gubrud" <mgubrud@...>
          To: "Tim Ventura" <tventura6@...>
          Cc: <nanotech@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:13 AM
          Subject: Re: Your Reply


          > I'm glad you called me on my point that
          >
          > > speculations about
          > > electromagnetic/gravitational interactions" which could be exploited
          > > to create an "antigravity" technology are inconsistent with known
          > > physics and have no basis other than fantasy."
          >
          > This statement was indeed incorrect. Pseudoscience and fraud do
          > provide additional support for these notions.
          >
          > > Tim Ventura wrote:
          > >
          > > Dear Mark:
          > >
          > > Perhaps you misinterpreted my email, which I had hoped would serve to
          > > be a "Hi, I'm a new member" message, but instead is apparently setting
          > > my up as a target for criticism.
          > >
          > > My reference to nanotech absorbing and surpassing Antigravity
          > > technology cites the belief that the greatest power of nanotech may be
          > > its ability to transform existing industries -- I was not making a
          > > direct connection in a strict sense.
          > >
          > > Your quote: "In contrast,
          > > Your quote above would be correct except that it disregards recent
          > > theory (post 2000) and research. There is a LOT that is now known
          > > about the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity -- the
          > > only weakness in this research has been and continues to be finding an
          > > efficient form of leverage to manipulate gravity with EM.
          > >
          > > My 30 seconds of research shows that your are a physics grad-student
          > > with the Superconducting Quantum Computing Group -- an admirable
          > > focus, but away from work in the realm of gravitational research, I
          > > suspect.
          > >
          > > Thanks;
          > >
          > > Tim Ventura
          > >
          >
        • Mark Gubrud
          Your aggressive tone and the not-so-thinly-veiled threats contained in your reply reveal that you are a wolf in sheep s clothing, masquerading as an innocent
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 4 10:34 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            Your aggressive tone and the not-so-thinly-veiled threats contained in
            your reply reveal that you are a wolf in sheep's clothing, masquerading
            as an innocent "new member" when your real intention is to attract
            business to your slick website AmericanAntigravity.com, where the
            operative part of the URL is ".com" A quick visit to the site confirms
            that you are not even a crank, but a shameless con man. Your business
            activities are pure fraud.

            Tim Ventura wrote:
            >
            > Mark --
            >
            > Verbal attacks and libelous implications are rather unbecoming, don't you
            > think? Would you have these added to your professional reputation as a
            > physicist?
            >
            > It concerns me that some people are so driven to "be right" that they
            > attempt to undermine others in order to gain advantage. Adopting a "live and
            > let live" policy will save you a lot of inner-turmoil and anger in the
            > future. I would much prefer to see you share your expertise in Nanotech than
            > comment outside your field of expertise.
            >
            > You have nothing to gain and a lot to lose in terms of credibility by
            > arguing with me about my work & research. Obviously, if I am mistaken about
            > my research, nothing will come of it and you will be proven right by
            > default. It is in your best interest to say nothing and claim that you were
            > right all along if I fail, rather than say that I am wrong and be in the
            > same boat as the critics of the Wright Brothers if I succeed.
            >
            > Another consideration is that how you interact with the public reflects not
            > only on your professional reputation, but also the reputation of your
            > colleagues at the University of Maryland. I'm sure that they would be less
            > than excited by this behavior.
            >
            > If you don't believe that Antigravity is possible or achievable, please be
            > an expert on Nanotech.
            >
            > Thanks;
            >
            > Tim Ventura
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Mark Gubrud" <mgubrud@...>
            > To: "Tim Ventura" <tventura6@...>
            > Cc: <nanotech@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 9:13 AM
            > Subject: Re: Your Reply
            >
            > > I'm glad you called me on my point that
            > >
            > > > speculations about
            > > > electromagnetic/gravitational interactions" which could be exploited
            > > > to create an "antigravity" technology are inconsistent with known
            > > > physics and have no basis other than fantasy."
            > >
            > > This statement was indeed incorrect. Pseudoscience and fraud do
            > > provide additional support for these notions.
            > >
            > > > Tim Ventura wrote:
            > > >
            > > > Dear Mark:
            > > >
            > > > Perhaps you misinterpreted my email, which I had hoped would serve to
            > > > be a "Hi, I'm a new member" message, but instead is apparently setting
            > > > my up as a target for criticism.
            > > >
            > > > My reference to nanotech absorbing and surpassing Antigravity
            > > > technology cites the belief that the greatest power of nanotech may be
            > > > its ability to transform existing industries -- I was not making a
            > > > direct connection in a strict sense.
            > > >
            > > > Your quote: "In contrast,
            > > > Your quote above would be correct except that it disregards recent
            > > > theory (post 2000) and research. There is a LOT that is now known
            > > > about the relationship between electromagnetism and gravity -- the
            > > > only weakness in this research has been and continues to be finding an
            > > > efficient form of leverage to manipulate gravity with EM.
            > > >
            > > > My 30 seconds of research shows that your are a physics grad-student
            > > > with the Superconducting Quantum Computing Group -- an admirable
            > > > focus, but away from work in the realm of gravitational research, I
            > > > suspect.
            > > >
            > > > Thanks;
            > > >
            > > > Tim Ventura
            > > >
            > >
          • Ooo0001@aol.com
            In a message dated 9/4/2002 11:34:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Don t be too upset, Tim. Mark s notorious on this forum for exhibiting belligerent devotion
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 4 11:51 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 9/4/2002 11:34:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tventura6@... writes:


              It concerns me that some people are so driven to "be right" that they
              attempt to undermine others in order to gain advantage.


              Don't be too upset, Tim. Mark's notorious on this forum for exhibiting belligerent devotion to some rather unrealistic opinions. Please don't judge the rest of the members by his attitude.

              And welcome. B-)

              Derek
            • Mark Gubrud
              Oh I love it. Mr. Yes I want to commit suicide and be replaced by a robot! Derek is another flying saucer propulsion engineer. No wonder.
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 4 12:41 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                Oh I love it. Mr. "Yes I want to commit suicide and be replaced by a
                robot!" Derek is another flying saucer propulsion engineer. No wonder.

                > In a message dated 9/4/2002 11:34:42 AM Pacific Daylight Time, tventura6@... writes:
                >
                >
                > It concerns me that some people are so driven to "be right" that they
                > attempt to undermine others in order to gain advantage.
                >
                >
                >
                > Don't be too upset, Tim. Mark's notorious on this forum for exhibiting belligerent devotion to some
                > rather unrealistic opinions. Please don't judge the rest of the members by his attitude.
                >
                > And welcome. B-)
                >
                > Derek
              • Jeffrey Soreff
                It might be worth looking at message 2114 in the archive for this group as well. Best wishes, -Jeff
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 4 1:58 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  It might be worth looking at message 2114 in
                  the archive for this group as well.

                  Best wishes,
                  -Jeff
                • Mark Gubrud
                  Jeff, have a look at AmericanAntigravity.com and tell us what you think.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 4 3:11 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jeff, have a look at AmericanAntigravity.com and tell us what you think.

                    Jeffrey Soreff wrote:
                    >
                    > It might be worth looking at message 2114 in
                    > the archive for this group as well.
                    >
                    > Best wishes,
                    > -Jeff
                    >
                    >
                    > The Nanotechnology Industries mailing list.
                    > "Nanotechnology: solutions for the future."
                    > www.nanoindustries.com
                    >
                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  • Ooo0001@aol.com
                    In a message dated 9/4/2002 12:57:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... Oh, sorry, I forgot to add extreme exaggeration and incorrect information to my post.
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 4 3:12 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      In a message dated 9/4/2002 12:57:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mgubrud@... writes:


                      Oh I love it.  Mr. "Yes I want to commit suicide and be replaced by a
                      robot!" Derek is another flying saucer propulsion engineer.  No wonder.


                      Oh, sorry, I forgot to add "extreme exaggeration" and "incorrect information" to my post. B-)

                      Derek
                    • soreff
                      ... think. The claim of getting net force from a charged capacitor with geometrically different plates is bizarre. I wouldn t be so quick to claim fraud.
                      Message 10 of 10 , Sep 4 8:08 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In nanotech@y..., Mark Gubrud <mgubrud@s...> wrote:
                        > Jeff, have a look at AmericanAntigravity.com and tell us what you
                        think.

                        The claim of getting net force from a charged
                        capacitor with geometrically different plates
                        is bizarre. I wouldn't be so quick to claim
                        fraud. This sounds a bit more like a momentum-conservation
                        version of the Pons & Fleischman snafu in measuring heat
                        flows accurately. The descriptions on the
                        AmericanAntigravity site sound like the air-immersed
                        capacitor does just what they describe - produces a
                        corona discharge around the sharper electrode, and a
                        resulting ion wind. The experiments with an asymmetrical
                        capacitor isolated in a sealed chamber (either air or
                        vacuum): I strongly suspect that they weren't far enough
                        from the wall to get a true reading of the null net force.
                        Since the capacitor is highly asymmetrical, with much
                        higher field strengths on the side of the sharper electrode,
                        I'd expect stronger attraction to the wall (dielectric or
                        metal at a potential between the electrodes' potentials)
                        on that side of the capacitor.

                        How far away from the wall do you think they would need to
                        be to avoid a false net force to a given accuracy
                        (as a fraction of the force between the electrodes)?
                        Can this field be approximated as dipole plus quadropole?
                        If it was suspended from the middle of a spherical dielectric
                        enclosure, I _think_ that a pure dipole gives no net force
                        (am I getting the symmetry right here?). If the dipole field
                        goes as 1/r^3, and the quadropole as 1/r^4, the for the sum to
                        give a symmetrical force to say 1% accuracy, do we need
                        r ~ 100 times the characteristic length of capacitor, or have
                        I dropped a power or r somewhere?

                        Still, calling Derek a "flying saucer propulsion engineer"
                        was uncalled for, particularly since it isn't _his_ site in
                        the first place.

                        Best wishes,
                        -Jeff
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.