Open Source Ecology Forums

Matt_Maier

No you don't. You've referenced your own situation several times as an excuse for why you can't provide better support for the idea. However, your explanation for why you can't support the idea through your own efforts (you're in dire financial straits) is contradicted by your own efforts (you have plenty of time to screw around on the interwebs). Either you're in such a bad situation that you can't possibly do any work on this subject yourself, or you have free time which could be devoted to advancing the idea in a tangible way...but not both at once.

You're not very good at this. At least the "CIA put a chip in my head" and "The Man wants me dead" conspiracies don't suffer from that particular contradiction.

At a minimum, it would be better if you claimed the science was beyond your ability to understand it. You can't really go that route anymore since you have put a lot of effort into "correcting" other people's understanding of the technical aspects. Whether your explanations are right or wrong, you have asserted that you believe you understand the technology. Since you also claim that dirt-cheap prototypes are examples of the technology working, you are left with the absurd claim that you 1) don't have any resources whatsoever to devote to your own prototypes AND 2) you have plenty of time to devote to monitoring an internet forum. Either you have a smart phone, or you're sitting at a public computer, both of which contradict the assertion that you don't have your own resources (time or money).

I don't even mind the electrogravitics stuff. It's whatever. The part that bothers me is you think I am (we are) stupid. It's not THAT hard to come up with a good conspiracy. The Loose Change guy did it pretty much all by himself. You've got to think this stuff through if it's going to stand up to even brief scrutiny.

mjn

> You will change Your tune if You want to be honest.

So if I read them and remain unconvinced, then I'm dishonest? That's rather insulting.

- Mark

Amaterasu

Matt,

1. I am at a friend's who is nearly as bad off as I am.

2. I apply to at least 10 jobs a day. Usually 25-30, sometimes as many as 50. I have applied to about 50,000 jobs in the last 6 years.

3. My job on this planet is to bring awareness of something that will free not only Myself but You, personally and You, Humanity on this planet collectively, from the need to "find a job." To follow Our bliss.

4. I have no money to build anything. All I have is about 59 cents and food stamps to keep Me alive.

5. I don't think You're "stupid." I think many who attack without reading the proffered books, papers, and sites are foolish and closed-minded, at best, and have an ulterior motive at worst.

6. I gave You My reasoning and even a well-referenced site to show that conspiracies abound. Believe as You wish.

Geez.

Amaterasu

Mark,

If You come away with the idea that conspiracies don't exist today (like, they're "old hat" or something), then, yes, My dear. You will be dishonest with Yourself.

Amaterasu

Here's an interesting read for any willing to actually read:
http://www.etheric.com/physarchive/history1.html Note the endorsement of a Nobel Laureate...

Matt_Maier

Obama's got a Nobel prize too...

Anywho, at least you're funny. That bit about applying to 22 jobs each day, every day, for 6 years, was a good one. No wonder you spend all your time on the internet now. You have officially been turned down for ALL THE JOBS. People must have preferred going out of business to hiring you. I know hindsight is 20/20, but does it ever bother you that you could have prototyped an electrogravitics device with all the money you spent on resume paper? Man...I guess I have to actively dislike you now. If you'd been better at becoming gainfully employed you would have popularized electrogravitics by now and I'd be free to follow my bliss instead of working. So, like, not only did you fail to convince anyone to let you do anything for pay, you doomed the world to at least another decade of wage-slavery.

That would be sad if this whole thing wasn't a joke :D

Amaterasu

Matt,

There's no pleasing You, and You're a rude SOB to boot. Believe what You wish. (In a world where I compete with 50 20-somethings for every job, no One is hiring the old lady.)

Clifton

Believe what You wish

Okey Dokey!
I believe you are a very bad and incompetent... yet enthusiastic and prolific... liar.
I believe that you are extremely gullible, and despite how poor your lies are, you may have convinced yourself due to your own gulliblity.
I believe it is very possible, yet uncertain, that you may even be mentally ill.
I believe you exaggerate and distort very nearly everything you assert, much like Violette does.
I believe you have a very flawed view of science, which is fueled best, not by fervent belief like yours, but by healthy skepticism.that demands PROOF!
I believe you may have multiple accounts here to support yourself. I might be wrong about that, but it is what I believe.
I believe that all of this has nothing to do with OSE and this entire thread is a colossal waste of effort.
I believe in conservation of energy and that no system can output more energy than it takes in.
I believe that that is obvious.
I believe that you want people to disbelieve the obvious, and support your belief.
I believe that is idiotic.
I believe I no longer care about this topic.
I believe I will go to bed now.
Good Night All

Matt_Maier

I kind of enjoy the fact that this thread is now longer than most the other threads on this forum combined.

Amaterasu

Clifton...

I believe you are a very bad and incompetent... yet enthusiastic and prolific... liar.

And why would I lie?

I believe that you are extremely gullible, and despite how poor your lies are, you may have convinced yourself due to your own gulliblity.

And I believe You are close-minded and drink the koolaid They offer every day. [shrug]

I believe it is very possible, yet uncertain, that you may even be mentally ill.

Enjoy that thought.

I believe you exaggerate and distort very nearly everything you assert, much like Violette does.

Fair enough. Choosing to avoid research will do that.

I believe you have a very flawed view of science, which is fueled best, not by fervent belief like yours, but by healthy skepticism.that demands PROOF!

Fair enough. Choosing to avoid research will do that. I have personal experience and much research to draw on.

I believe you may have multiple accounts here to support yourself. I might be wrong about that, but it is what I believe.

You are wrong. But feel free to believe that.

I believe that all of this has nothing to do with OSE and this entire thread is a colossal waste of effort.

Getting rid of the need for money rather has everything to do with an open source economy and ecology... Though it will be an economy/ecology of social status as some People come up with Betterment above and beyond Others. But carry on with Your beliefs.

I believe in conservation of energy and that no system can output more energy than it takes in.

"If the universe is made of mostly Dark Energy...can We use it to run Our cars?" There is a vast sea of energy We swim in. You're saying there is no way to tap it?

I believe that that is obvious.

If We fail to look at the vast sea, I suppose Your views make sense, being "obvious."

I believe that you want people to disbelieve the obvious, and support your belief.

LOL! No... I want People to consider the vast sea.

I believe that is idiotic.

Because You have limited Your view, perhaps...?

I believe I no longer care about this topic.

Then I can trust You will keep Your limited, unresearched views to Yourself?

Rather than attack Me... Show how subquantum kinetics fails. THAT would be the scientific approach.

Clifton

Oh, but I have never attacked you. Only pointed out how ridiculous you are. If you are going to be riduculous, stop complaining about ridicule.

Oh yes and kindly STFU.

Oh and to that point: It seems that this thread serves no purpose, if in fact it ever did, but certainly we are past any usefulness potential that it ever had.

Moderators: May I suggest locking the thread?
Members: If they don't, may I suggest we all stop feeding the troll?

Amaterasu

I will not STFU, as I have information to impart to those who are willing to look and consider with open mind. Clearly not You.

I did not complain. I asked You to prove something rather than merely spouting ugly remarks. You did not, just added more ugly remarks. [shrug]

Nor did You answer My questions:

1. And why would I lie?

2. "If the universe is made of mostly Dark Energy...can We use it to run Our cars?" There is a vast sea of energy We swim in. You're saying there is no way to tap it?

(Though, in essence, You did answer this one: "Then I can trust You will keep Your limited, unresearched views to Yourself?" The answer is "No.")

Xienixs

Ok, both sides I think we are going extremely off topic here and we should settle it for now. Both do not agree, ok.

If it works it will be awesome and will be automatically implemented in te future but not useful for OSE at this very moment.

If it won't work to bad but nothing to do about it.

For now, bury the axe, shovel or whatever and both sides move on.

Lock down the topic would be a good idea I think.

Amaterasu

I would welcome additional discussion of electrogravitics. Honest inquiry, information spreading, and such. I am unclear why personal attacks were made, initially. I know I did not start them.

I prefer this to be open to Others who may have curiosity.

And... If the information is not spread to the tipping point, it will NOT be "automatically implemented in the future." It will be held tighter and We will slip into fascism.

danielravennest

EHD Thrusters do not work in a vacuum.

A crucial test of any purported propulsive or motive device is to test it in a vacuum. That eliminates any interaction with air, because there isn't any. As expected, this test showed when you remove the air, the lift force goes away. Therefore interaction with the air (electrostatic wind) is the cause of the observed forces, not any gravity effects.

Amaterasu

In another forum it was pointed out that in the case of the "lifters" (which I may have linked to one such video) the reason the vacuum removed the electrogravitic effects was because in their case the air was acting as the dielectric. Take the dielectric out of the system and, yeah. It won't work. I don't know for sure, but in the case of the Mythbusters vid, I think They should have measured the strength of lift and see if it matched the 1.(something) MPH ion wind thrust.

It seemed rather disingenuous to just declare that because a wind effect could be felt it accounted for ALL the thrust...

I don't think the lifters are the best example. Did you see the disks on a beam and fulcrum? It's linked in one of My posts...

danielravennest

La Violette Misstates Thomas Townsend Brown:

In a NASA application, Paul Laviolette states (backup paper page 4) "His U.S. patent #3,187,206 filed in 1958 and granted in 1965 is of particular interest. However, the patents do not give any details on the variable frequency pulsed DC power supply which is a key to the technology."

The actual Patent 3187206 states (column 3, line 65 of the text) "A source of direct current voltage 13 is connected to electrodes 12 and 14 through conductors 15 and 17 respectively" (numbers refer to Figure 1 in the patent). Direct current has no frequency by definition, and no mention is made of pulsing it. Therefore Laviolette is misstating what the patent itself says.

Thunderstorms generate static voltages measured in millions of volts across a dielectric: the air. In fact, when you reach the dielectric breakdown voltage, the limit of what air can support, that is when you get lightning shorting out the static charge. Since clouds are randomly shaped, some of them meet the non-uniform field required by Brown in his patent. Therefore some thunderclouds should exhibit the electrogravitic effect, and accelerate in some direction contrary to the local wind. The voltages and thus fields are as high as air can sustain, and clouds don't weigh much, since they are floating in air, so you would expect to see some motion. As far as I know, this has not been observed. Therefore the effect either does not exist, or is so small no meteorologist has ever noticed it.

Also, the original patent should have been invalidated by the prior art demonstrated by Mother Nature throughout recorded history. In any case, it's expired now, so anyone can play around with electrostatics if they want to.

Metz

I think that OSE is not a very appropriate place to be going along this line of illogic/logic debate.

This project is about doers not talkers. If you got something to bri g to the table, build it, prove it or stop distracting us. Since 9/11 happened over 10 years ago now, you could have found the time/resources in the last 3650+ days since 9/11 to do something about it. This is not counting the time prior to 9/11 when you had ample time and funds as you say to build such a device.

Luck is not a excuse. It is is what you do with it opportunity when it presents itself. I went from flat broke trailer park living to nearly self sufficient. I just seized the opportunity.

I really would like to get back to the GVCS project.

mjn

On a related note, I recently came across a review of the movie "Thrive". The movie presents many of the same arguments that Amaterasu does here. The review points out the flaws in this approach to argument.

- Mark

Amaterasu

Daniel,

I see no "misstatement" on LaViolette's part. The patent, as far as I can see, does indeed not discuss the pulsing of the DC current.

As for clouds... If the discharge occurs on a random happenstance of shape - at the moment of discharge - for "the non-uniform field required by Brown in his patent," the discharge itself will distort the shape. Clouds, after all, are hardly constrained in shape. I would expect the movement to be so brief as to be virtually undetectable without extremely high-speed camera work and the luck of finding the perfect cloud to film. This is rather straw manish.

I would be all over it if I was funded, but I am not asking for funding of any kind. That is not My purpose. I know that it works from My father's (very excited) descriptions of successes.

You are very vested, it would seem, in disproving this. I contemplate why.

Amaterasu

Mark,

The review You offer is interesting. It clearly is biased. And I can answer to this:

A quote from the film: “… so much of the pain on the planet has to do with the lack of access to energy”.

And the initial response:

"Wow, now there’s a statement. How many people on this planet would argue that much of the pain on the planet has to do with the developed world having lack of access to energy?"

I argue that the poverty on this planet is a direct result of energy-scarcity requiring a money system to account for meaningful energy expended. Money is merely an accounting of meaningful energy expended in an energy-scarce society - the condition Humans have lived in for all Our recorded history. Add abundant free energy and once the cost of energy is removed all down the line, what is left is free.

(One can grasp this most easily by considering the first hunter, gatherer, farmer, miner. The stuff They gained/used was free: critters, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seed, sun, soil, rain, ores. It was the meaningful energy expended that gave "value" to the stuff: the killing, picking, tilling, weeding, harvesting, mining, transporting.)

And the money aggregates to a very few (with conspiracy to ensure this) leaving most in poverty, and the evils of the love of money cropping up. We are wage-slaved in jobs We hate because of this money system. And cures are indeed being suppressed (whether the jackass who wrote the review wants to believe it or not).

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm#farley

So... I'd say the energy scarcity is THE cause of virtually ALL suffering.

I could read on, but that's enough to condemn this as a hatchet piece.

danielravennest

If the pulsing of the DC was required to make the effect happen, then Brown's patent is clearly invalid because he left that critical information out. Patents require disclosing sufficient detail that someone skilled in the art can reproduce the device, that is a legal requirement. If Brown lied to the patent examiners (he states the device as described produces the effect), then any attempt to test his work is a waste of time because you are starting from faulty sources.

As to clouds, the moment of discharge is not relevant. The electrostatic charge builds up over time. If the electrogravitic effect happens when you have a charge across a dielectric, they should exhibit it, since thats what you have in a thunderstorm cloud. Your idea about the cloud changing shape during the discharge is naive. First of all, if you watch a thunderstorm, you can see that does not happen. Second, a lightning bolt does not dissipate all the charge in a cloud. If you are saying the effect only happens during the discharge, that is the well known force generated by current carrying wires by which all electric motors work.

As to my motives which you question, I'm a retired engineer, I have no financial incentive to do anything. I object to faulty science being promoted on a site like this one devoted to building practical devices.

Amaterasu

I cannot answer to Brown's (Or LaViolette's) behavior relative to patents. I am not an engineer. But I did address Your comment that LaViolette "misstated." Seems to Me He didn't.

As for the cloud... It would have to maintain its configuration for long enough for any effect to be seen. Frankly, I doubt any cloud is going to sit in a given, relatively precise form long enough. Clouds perpetually change shapes, and there might be a degree of movement observed if the exact configuration happened, but in a very short time the configuration would change and no more movement. And... The observation would have to be made - as in looking in just the right place at the right time with the right equipment to even detect the movement. Probability of all things "lining up..." VERY slim. I still think this cloud thing is a straw man (whether You intended that or not).

I appreciate Your concern, as an engineer. I might point out that My father was an electrical engineer... HE said it was both possible and that He was doing it. [shrug]

Matt_Maier

Haha...

"I'm not an engineer...but I'm pretty sure the only engineer in the conversation is wrong." - Amaterasu

Jason

I'm an engineer :)

Daniel, just curious, what kind of engineer are you?

Amaterasu

Matt... Are You implying My father was wrong? Or what?

And misquoting others is rather rude and a personal attack. I never said that, now did I?

danielravennest

@Jason - I was a "Systems Engineer" with Boeing for many years. That is the specialty involving the design of complex systems. The same name is used in the computer field in the more restricted sense of designing complex computer systems. As to what I actually did there, it was split about evenly between space propulsion and the Space Station project. The last thing I did before I retired was testing the computer software and networks for the US part of the Station. The "Global Village Construction Set" is a complex system, with it's 50 machines, so I thought my experience might be of use.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Open Source Ecology Forums