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

Re: Your Reply

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Sep 4, 2002
    • 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 2 of 10 , Sep 4, 2002
      • 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 3 of 10 , Sep 4, 2002
        • 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 4 of 10 , Sep 4, 2002
          • 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 5 of 10 , Sep 4, 2002
            • 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 6 of 10 , Sep 4, 2002
              • 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 7 of 10 , Sep 4, 2002
                • 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.