Re: [Vo]:I will shut up about my aetheric images if at least 10 people try and take this poll

[Jonathan Berry]

Note, checking the pole I voted twice, turns out you can vote twice, also
it doesn't give straightforward numbers for votes  total or each answer.

One person had voted (they answered that they could feel it) somewhere is
US or Canada (near the border).

So let's use this poll instead: http://www.strawpoll.me/19451956

It has duplicate checking, and it reads out how many votes for each.

I just voted that *"I could feel it"*, that can count for whoever already
voted so they don't have to again, we will just count my test vote as this
kind gentleman's vote.


With the other poll it might have been hard to know when it got to 10 votes
total.

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 4:49 PM Jonathan Berry  wrote:

> Here is a very nice improvement for those who take the poll (not checked
> yet to see if anyone has)...
> https://ibb.co/gtw3t3F
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:30 AM Jonathan Berry 
> wrote:
>
>> Also, if anyone thinks it would help, I will happily run a second poll
>> with two or more images, potentially similar (or almost identical) in
>> appearance but only one of then will be designed correctly to be "active".
>>
>> If many more votes were to occur for the active image despite it being my
>> secret which one is active, that would be compelling evidence.
>>
>> I would be happy to tell someone, perhaps Mr Beaty himself which image I
>> expect to receive the most votes, if he wishes not to know until he tries
>> it.
>>
>> Would anyone be more convinced by this, and would enough people even try
>> it?!
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please excuse the coercive nature of this email...
>>>
>>> But, I believe this technology is of the utmost importance, I
>>> believe that it needs more than one man working on/with it and I don't
>>> believe that there is another way to get attention or belief in this.
>>> Indeed attention requires belief.
>>>
>>> If 10 people take the poll and if the group is unconvinced that the
>>> results merit further discussion, then I will drop the subject and not
>>> bring it up for a year at least, the technology would need to improve
>>> markedly or demonstrate in a more material manner (some measurable effect)
>>> before I would re-present it ever to this group.
>>>
>>> I would hope that if roughly half the respondents (or more) feel the
>>> energy, and some feel a compelling degree (painful, burning, intense) then
>>> it should be viewed as supporting the idea that this deserves more
>>> attention.
>>>
>>> Let me run a poll on this list right now, everyone on here, who has
>>> tried the latest designs?
>>> I predict that fewer people will have tried it than outright rejected it.
>>>
>>> Here is the poll, BTW I ran a poll on the new group I started and while
>>> only 3 people have answered, all 3 can feel the energy, another could see
>>> it but not feel it so I have added that option.   Some actually just feel
>>> strangely draw to the images.
>>>
>>> Vote here: https://linkto.run/p/09RVMGHOImage here:
>>> https://ibb.co/z5DFr69
>>> Further images here:
>>> https://www.quora.com/What-discovery-have-you-made-which-the-world-isnt-mentally-ready-for/answer/Jonathan-Berry-95
>>>
>>> *The image on the voting platform is terrible damaged from compression
>>> artifacts which hurt it*, so a better example is posted at the second
>>> link.
>>>
>>> My prediction is that fewer than 10 people, even here (supposed nest of
>>> believers) will try it despite my attempts to motivate people annoyed by
>>> the subject will try than report not feeling it.  And despite the fact I
>>> have been on this group for over 20 years.  Though I hope to be proven
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> What if at least half do feel something, and that some of those feel a
>>> compelling degree of activity, what then?
>>> Would those who don't, or who are skeptical become interested?  I would
>>> hope so, but we will see.
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe my last email on the subject?!
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>>

Re: [Vo]:I will shut up about my aetheric images if at least 10 people try and take this poll

[Jonathan Berry]

Here is a very nice improvement for those who take the poll (not checked
yet to see if anyone has)...
https://ibb.co/gtw3t3F

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:30 AM Jonathan Berry  wrote:

> Also, if anyone thinks it would help, I will happily run a second poll
> with two or more images, potentially similar (or almost identical) in
> appearance but only one of then will be designed correctly to be "active".
>
> If many more votes were to occur for the active image despite it being my
> secret which one is active, that would be compelling evidence.
>
> I would be happy to tell someone, perhaps Mr Beaty himself which image I
> expect to receive the most votes, if he wishes not to know until he tries
> it.
>
> Would anyone be more convinced by this, and would enough people even try
> it?!
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jonathan Berry 
> wrote:
>
>> Please excuse the coercive nature of this email...
>>
>> But, I believe this technology is of the utmost importance, I
>> believe that it needs more than one man working on/with it and I don't
>> believe that there is another way to get attention or belief in this.
>> Indeed attention requires belief.
>>
>> If 10 people take the poll and if the group is unconvinced that the
>> results merit further discussion, then I will drop the subject and not
>> bring it up for a year at least, the technology would need to improve
>> markedly or demonstrate in a more material manner (some measurable effect)
>> before I would re-present it ever to this group.
>>
>> I would hope that if roughly half the respondents (or more) feel the
>> energy, and some feel a compelling degree (painful, burning, intense) then
>> it should be viewed as supporting the idea that this deserves more
>> attention.
>>
>> Let me run a poll on this list right now, everyone on here, who has tried
>> the latest designs?
>> I predict that fewer people will have tried it than outright rejected it.
>>
>> Here is the poll, BTW I ran a poll on the new group I started and while
>> only 3 people have answered, all 3 can feel the energy, another could see
>> it but not feel it so I have added that option.   Some actually just feel
>> strangely draw to the images.
>>
>> Vote here: https://linkto.run/p/09RVMGHOImage here:
>> https://ibb.co/z5DFr69
>> Further images here:
>> https://www.quora.com/What-discovery-have-you-made-which-the-world-isnt-mentally-ready-for/answer/Jonathan-Berry-95
>>
>> *The image on the voting platform is terrible damaged from compression
>> artifacts which hurt it*, so a better example is posted at the second
>> link.
>>
>> My prediction is that fewer than 10 people, even here (supposed nest of
>> believers) will try it despite my attempts to motivate people annoyed by
>> the subject will try than report not feeling it.  And despite the fact I
>> have been on this group for over 20 years.  Though I hope to be proven
>> wrong.
>>
>> What if at least half do feel something, and that some of those feel a
>> compelling degree of activity, what then?
>> Would those who don't, or who are skeptical become interested?  I would
>> hope so, but we will see.
>>
>>
>> Maybe my last email on the subject?!
>> Jonathan
>>
>>
>>

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[H LV]

On Wed., Feb. 26, 2020, 4:29 p.m. ,  wrote:

> In reply to  H LV's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:24:06 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:08 PM  wrote:
> >
> >> In reply to  H LV's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:57:52 -0500:
> >> Hi Harry,
> >> [snip]
> >> A frame of reference is exactly that. It's a mathematical construct.
> >> Choose any frame you like, and stick to it, and the
> >> math will all work out.
> >> Difficulties only arise when we, sometimes sub-consciously, change our
> >> frame of reference.
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >My point is that the mathematical construct known as a "frame of
> reference"
> >misses something substantial about reality.
>
> My point is that you are missing something about frame of reference.
> The Human mind prefers to think of the World around us as a stationary
> frame, and think of all motion as relative to
> that frame.


The human mind, or at least a large number of minds came to choose
heliocentrism over geocentrism. Therefore the human mind is capable of
regarding itself as not being stationary. I will grant that the biology of
perception often provides a substitutes for the reasoned choice of the mind.


However that's just a personal choice.
> As far as the math is concerned, you can choose any frame you like, but
> your mind may not be comfortable with it.
> BTW note that on a stellar scale we tend to choose different frames of
> reference.
>
> >
> >Does vertigo provide a frame of reference?
>
> Frames are reference are not "provided", they are chosen.
>

Ideally the choice should be the product of investigation and (conscious)
deliberation rather than just be driven by perception.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:I will shut up about my aetheric images if at least 10 people try and take this poll

[Jonathan Berry]

Also, if anyone thinks it would help, I will happily run a second poll with
two or more images, potentially similar (or almost identical) in
appearance but only one of then will be designed correctly to be "active".

If many more votes were to occur for the active image despite it being my
secret which one is active, that would be compelling evidence.

I would be happy to tell someone, perhaps Mr Beaty himself which image I
expect to receive the most votes, if he wishes not to know until he tries
it.

Would anyone be more convinced by this, and would enough people even try
it?!



On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 AM Jonathan Berry  wrote:

> Please excuse the coercive nature of this email...
>
> But, I believe this technology is of the utmost importance, I believe that
> it needs more than one man working on/with it and I don't believe that
> there is another way to get attention or belief in this.  Indeed attention
> requires belief.
>
> If 10 people take the poll and if the group is unconvinced that the
> results merit further discussion, then I will drop the subject and not
> bring it up for a year at least, the technology would need to improve
> markedly or demonstrate in a more material manner (some measurable effect)
> before I would re-present it ever to this group.
>
> I would hope that if roughly half the respondents (or more) feel the
> energy, and some feel a compelling degree (painful, burning, intense) then
> it should be viewed as supporting the idea that this deserves more
> attention.
>
> Let me run a poll on this list right now, everyone on here, who has tried
> the latest designs?
> I predict that fewer people will have tried it than outright rejected it.
>
> Here is the poll, BTW I ran a poll on the new group I started and while
> only 3 people have answered, all 3 can feel the energy, another could see
> it but not feel it so I have added that option.   Some actually just feel
> strangely draw to the images.
>
> Vote here: https://linkto.run/p/09RVMGHOImage here:
> https://ibb.co/z5DFr69
> Further images here:
> https://www.quora.com/What-discovery-have-you-made-which-the-world-isnt-mentally-ready-for/answer/Jonathan-Berry-95
>
> *The image on the voting platform is terrible damaged from compression
> artifacts which hurt it*, so a better example is posted at the second
> link.
>
> My prediction is that fewer than 10 people, even here (supposed nest of
> believers) will try it despite my attempts to motivate people annoyed by
> the subject will try than report not feeling it.  And despite the fact I
> have been on this group for over 20 years.  Though I hope to be proven
> wrong.
>
> What if at least half do feel something, and that some of those feel a
> compelling degree of activity, what then?
> Would those who don't, or who are skeptical become interested?  I would
> hope so, but we will see.
>
>
> Maybe my last email on the subject?!
> Jonathan
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Aetheric Science - Invitation to take part

[Jonathan Berry]

Sure, but "really strong aetheric energy" does not equal "a little bit of
electrical energy", it's possible but could time an un-known amount of
effort of negligible payoff.

There are many different forms of aetheric energy and not all are going to
be read on a meter, and to be honest I'm not sure that something that
lights an LED would be evidence of anything, I mean arrays of diodes can
sometimes rectify enough environmental EM to light up.

Also, if physical, there is a problem, people need to believe the video
isn't faked (or caused by some conventional effect I have wrongly ascribed
to aetheric) and they need to either replicate it, or send me money so I
can send them one.

Images are so practical, you can send them out in moments to people, they
can change the image (improving or breaking it), re-create it (replicate
it), do all sorts tests and try it on others.

Then, they can put together a physical version with wire they might have
lying around the house in as little as a few minutes.

If the energy from images had to be subtle, then I wouldn't be trying this,
but it is strong enough for some to be rather shocked.



On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 10:28 AM Chris Zell  wrote:

> Sounds like Pavlita stuff.
>
>
>
> Build a pyramid-thing that lights an LED by itself ( if that can be done).
> Or some other simple inexplicable toy.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Berry 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 26, 2020 4:09 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Aetheric Science - Invitation to take part
>
>
>
> Thanks Harry...
>
>
>
> I had already made contact with Dean Radin (a scientist there who did a
> google talk) and he seemed a little interested but it didn't go anywhere
> back in 2017.   My tech is stronger now so perhaps that could be
> different this time.
>
>
>
> I tried now and rang several times going though to different extensions
> with none answering (left a message on one), all the email addresses say
> they don't answer emails, so we'll see what comes of that.
>
>
>
> It is very hard getting attention for something that looks more like the
> realm of magical sigils or psychotronics, but that is just the means of
> demonstrating the effect without needing to physically ship or recreate
> material devices.
>
>
>
> Despite the easily demonstrated reality of the effect, despite the
> applicability to hardware, despite the EXTREME promise of such technology,
> it is hard, to find an iota of interest, and more likely the person is to
> be "useful" to the objective on making this technology feasible the less
> likely they are to hear the pitch.
>
>
>
> The appearance of this is killing it.  I keep thinking that if I make it
> strong enough, startling enough (the intensity people report feeling from
> the images does increase as I improve the technology to a remarkable
> degree, something that could not occur with a placebo effect) that at some
> point it will be taken more seriously, and maybe it will...
>
>
>
> But, that won't happen if "USEFUL" people don't try it in the first place.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Vo]:I will shut up about my aetheric images if at least 10 people try and take this poll

[Jonathan Berry]

Please excuse the coercive nature of this email...

But, I believe this technology is of the utmost importance, I believe that
it needs more than one man working on/with it and I don't believe that
there is another way to get attention or belief in this.  Indeed attention
requires belief.

If 10 people take the poll and if the group is unconvinced that the results
merit further discussion, then I will drop the subject and not bring it up
for a year at least, the technology would need to improve markedly or
demonstrate in a more material manner (some measurable effect) before I
would re-present it ever to this group.

I would hope that if roughly half the respondents (or more) feel the
energy, and some feel a compelling degree (painful, burning, intense) then
it should be viewed as supporting the idea that this deserves more
attention.

Let me run a poll on this list right now, everyone on here, who has tried
the latest designs?
I predict that fewer people will have tried it than outright rejected it.

Here is the poll, BTW I ran a poll on the new group I started and while
only 3 people have answered, all 3 can feel the energy, another could see
it but not feel it so I have added that option.   Some actually just feel
strangely draw to the images.

Vote here: https://linkto.run/p/09RVMGHOImage here:
https://ibb.co/z5DFr69
Further images here:
https://www.quora.com/What-discovery-have-you-made-which-the-world-isnt-mentally-ready-for/answer/Jonathan-Berry-95

*The image on the voting platform is terrible damaged from compression
artifacts which hurt it*, so a better example is posted at the second link.

My prediction is that fewer than 10 people, even here (supposed nest of
believers) will try it despite my attempts to motivate people annoyed by
the subject will try than report not feeling it.  And despite the fact I
have been on this group for over 20 years.  Though I hope to be proven
wrong.

What if at least half do feel something, and that some of those feel a
compelling degree of activity, what then?
Would those who don't, or who are skeptical become interested?  I would
hope so, but we will see.


Maybe my last email on the subject?!
Jonathan

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[mixent]

In reply to  H LV's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2020 15:24:06 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:08 PM  wrote:
>
>> In reply to  H LV's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:57:52 -0500:
>> Hi Harry,
>> [snip]
>> A frame of reference is exactly that. It's a mathematical construct.
>> Choose any frame you like, and stick to it, and the
>> math will all work out.
>> Difficulties only arise when we, sometimes sub-consciously, change our
>> frame of reference.
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>>
>My point is that the mathematical construct known as a "frame of reference"
>misses something substantial about reality.

My point is that you are missing something about frame of reference.
The Human mind prefers to think of the World around us as a stationary frame, 
and think of all motion as relative to
that frame. However that's just a personal choice. 
As far as the math is concerned, you can choose any frame you like, but your 
mind may not be comfortable with it.
BTW note that on a stellar scale we tend to choose different frames of 
reference.

>
>Does vertigo provide a frame of reference?

Frames are reference are not "provided", they are chosen.
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

RE: [Vo]:Aetheric Science - Invitation to take part

[Chris Zell]

Sounds like Pavlita stuff.

Build a pyramid-thing that lights an LED by itself ( if that can be done). Or 
some other simple inexplicable toy.

From: Jonathan Berry 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 4:09 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Aetheric Science - Invitation to take part

Thanks Harry...

I had already made contact with Dean Radin (a scientist there who did a google 
talk) and he seemed a little interested but it didn't go anywhere back in 2017. 
  My tech is stronger now so perhaps that could be different this time.

I tried now and rang several times going though to different extensions with 
none answering (left a message on one), all the email addresses say they don't 
answer emails, so we'll see what comes of that.

It is very hard getting attention for something that looks more like the realm 
of magical sigils or psychotronics, but that is just the means of demonstrating 
the effect without needing to physically ship or recreate material devices.

Despite the easily demonstrated reality of the effect, despite the 
applicability to hardware, despite the EXTREME promise of such technology, it 
is hard, to find an iota of interest, and more likely the person is to be 
"useful" to the objective on making this technology feasible the less likely 
they are to hear the pitch.

The appearance of this is killing it.  I keep thinking that if I make it strong 
enough, startling enough (the intensity people report feeling from the images 
does increase as I improve the technology to a remarkable degree, something 
that could not occur with a placebo effect) that at some point it will be taken 
more seriously, and maybe it will...

But, that won't happen if "USEFUL" people don't try it in the first place.

Re: [Vo]:Aetheric Science - Invitation to take part

[Jonathan Berry]

Thanks Harry...

I had already made contact with Dean Radin (a scientist there who did a
google talk) and he seemed a little interested but it didn't go anywhere
back in 2017.   My tech is stronger now so perhaps that could be
different this time.

I tried now and rang several times going though to different extensions
with none answering (left a message on one), all the email addresses say
they don't answer emails, so we'll see what comes of that.

It is very hard getting attention for something that looks more like the
realm of magical sigils or psychotronics, but that is just the means of
demonstrating the effect without needing to physically ship or recreate
material devices.

Despite the easily demonstrated reality of the effect, despite the
applicability to hardware, despite the EXTREME promise of such technology,
it is hard, to find an iota of interest, and more likely the person is to
be "useful" to the objective on making this technology feasible the less
likely they are to hear the pitch.

The appearance of this is killing it.  I keep thinking that if I make it
strong enough, startling enough (the intensity people report feeling from
the images does increase as I improve the technology to a remarkable
degree, something that could not occur with a placebo effect) that at some
point it will be taken more seriously, and maybe it will...

But, that won't happen if "USEFUL" people don't try it in the first place.

--

I have decided to turn the bottom part of this email into a second email
with a new subject, so the below is redundant...
--

*Let me run a poll on this list right now, everyone on here, who has tried
the latest designs?*
*I predict that fewer people will have tried it that outright rejected it.*

*Here is the poll, BTW I ran a poll on the new group I started and while
only 3 people have answered, all 3 can feel the energy, another could see
it but not feel it.*


*Vote here: https://linkto.run/p/09RVMGHO 
  Image here: https://ibb.co/z5DFr69 *

*The image on the voting platform is terrible damaged from compression
artifacts, so a better example is posted at the second link.*

*My prediction is that very few even here, despite me being a member of
this group for well over 20 years, that fewer will try than report not
feeling it.  Though I hope to be proven wrong.*

*I will however shut up about this (if people want) if just 10 people try
and then report by voting if they feel it or not.*

*But, I might also ask, what if at least half do feel something, and that
some of those feel a compelling degree of activity, what then?*
*Would those who don't, or who are skeptical become interested?  I would
hope so, but we will see.*


Regards,
Jonathan





On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:08 AM H LV  wrote:

> Institute of Noetic Sciences
>
> https://noetic.org/
>
> https://noetic.org/science/
>
> harry
>
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:56 PM Jonathan Berry  wrote:
>
>> What a bunch of pretentious BS much of the art world is.
>>
>> I guess however I could treat it as art...
>>
>> Or, I could make journals of these designs with strange writings and
>> leave them places, they could become semi-famous on the internet (as has
>> occurred in the past).
>>
>> Or, I could just present this as the utterly ignored science it is to an
>> audience which in theory should be appropriate and be ignored anyway, ugh.
>>
>> Many on Vortex and elsewhere have seen the correlation, the suggestion
>> that these "weird" claims relating to Antigravity and Free Energy are due
>> to some "aetheric vortex".
>> In the 17 years of researching this before I made a coil in 2012 which
>> produced a tangible energy, I told many people about my "theory" only to
>> have others confirm they had seen the same correlation.
>> And at that early stage, it is an almost useless observation because so
>> little is known about how such a mechanism could work, and no way to know
>> if you are getting results (or so one might presume) until you get massive
>> gravity or (apparent) CoE defying evidence.
>> And yet, my images both prove the principles, and MOST people can feel
>> the energy.
>>
>> My images (or, more to the point the designs when embodied physically or
>> graphically) increase one's sensitivity.
>>
>> So I can give powerful and detailed mechanisms...  Theory...
>> And many (more than not) can feel the energy so lack of instrumentation
>> is not a hard problem.
>>
>> There is zero cost related to simple levels of experimentation with
>> graphics or even bits of wire.
>>
>> Developments can be shared with others rapidly, and experiments can be
>> tried at incredible rates, lifetimes of work can be done in months!
>>
>> It can and has been objectively proven to be real...  (though people
>> feeling energy from hid

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[H LV]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:08 PM  wrote:

> In reply to  H LV's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:57:52 -0500:
> Hi Harry,
> [snip]
> A frame of reference is exactly that. It's a mathematical construct.
> Choose any frame you like, and stick to it, and the
> math will all work out.
> Difficulties only arise when we, sometimes sub-consciously, change our
> frame of reference.
> Regards,
>
>
>
My point is that the mathematical construct known as a "frame of reference"
misses something substantial about reality.

Does vertigo provide a frame of reference?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[mixent]

In reply to  H LV's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:57:52 -0500:
Hi Harry,
[snip]
A frame of reference is exactly that. It's a mathematical construct. Choose any 
frame you like, and stick to it, and the
math will all work out.
Difficulties only arise when we, sometimes sub-consciously, change our frame of 
reference.
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[H LV]

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 2:42 PM  wrote:

> In reply to  H LV's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:21:20 -0500:
> Hi Harry,
> >In Galilean relativity if I walk eastward towards a tree with uniform
> >velocity this is equivalent to saying the tree is moving westward towards
> >me with the same uniform velocity. As a fundamental proposition of modern
> >physics this is eminently useful but it is also absurd.
> [snip]
> Have you ever been sitting in a train next to another train, at the
> station, and when you see relative motion between
> the two wondered whether it is the other train or your own that is moving?
>
>
>
Yes I have, but does that establish that reality and perception are
interchangeable?

Harry

Re: [Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[mixent]

In reply to  H LV's message of Wed, 26 Feb 2020 14:21:20 -0500:
Hi Harry,
>In Galilean relativity if I walk eastward towards a tree with uniform
>velocity this is equivalent to saying the tree is moving westward towards
>me with the same uniform velocity. As a fundamental proposition of modern
>physics this is eminently useful but it is also absurd. 
[snip]
Have you ever been sitting in a train next to another train, at the station, 
and when you see relative motion between
the two wondered whether it is the other train or your own that is moving?

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success

[Vo]:Galilean relativity and a tree.

[H LV]

In Galilean relativity if I walk eastward towards a tree with uniform
velocity this is equivalent to saying the tree is moving westward towards
me with the same uniform velocity. As a fundamental proposition of modern
physics this is eminently useful but it is also absurd. It is useful if
what is deemed important about the motion of bodies is the possibility of
past or future collisions (In the absence of  such obvious possibilities
the notion of a force was devised to explain changes in uniform velocity).
It is absurd because it is detached from what we actually know about the
world on a personal level. The tree is at rest because it is rooted in the
Earth and I am moving towards it. I cannot get the tree and the Earth to
move towards me by simply declaring I am at rest. There has to be a
property of matter that expresses this non-relative quality of "rootedness"
which has been ignored by physics since the 1600's.

Harry

Re: [Vo]:More on the WuFlu conspiracy theory

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is some encouraging news. Look carefully at these graphs, especially
the last two:

Serious and Critical Cases

Outcome of Cases (Recovery or Death)

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-cases/

Note that the first graph, "Total Cases (worldwide)" can be changed to the
logarithmic format on the top tab.


Main page:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/


Meanwhile, in bad news, the Japanese press reports that some recovered
patients may not be fully immune.

Re: [Vo]:Ice Age Cave Art: Unlocking the Mysteries Behind These Markings

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

SO(4) physics shows the exact nature of gravitation. The force is caused 
inside any proton as a residual field of the central 5 rotation  
coupling between the relativistic mass the perturbative mass. This field 
is caused by a virtual charge and thus behaves like a classic EM field 
that is formed by two rotations also known(/described by) as two 
spherical harmonics.


The gravitation force inside the proton couples via the electron 
perturbative mass to an other proton. The only mean to get an anti 
gravitational effect would be to polarize the electron cloud of a solid 
body what would result in a reduction of the radial gravitation force 
and an increase of the horizontal force.
But most available materials consist of higher Z nuclei and thus own 
many electrons, that are not very well accessible for such an effect. 
Unless you find some breakthrough trick anti gravity is the same like 
finding the perpetual running machine. Effects of some few % could be 
demonstrated e.g. for Helium that has spin paired electrons and 
effectively has a slightly reduced weight.


What you see in these cheap anti gravity movies is the dirty old trick 
of an axis spinning up wheel due to eccentricity. As long as these folks 
do not use a friction less magnetic baring every second you spend 
watching this nonsense is lost live time unless it's not funny...


J.W.



Am 26.02.20 um 15:33 schrieb H LV:

Ice Age Cave Art: Unlocking the Mysteries Behind These Markings

https://youtu.be/aSF4zk2nsTU

Re: [Vo]:Ice Age Cave Art: Unlocking the Mysteries Behind These Markings

[H LV]

Graham Hancock - Cave painting artists were shamans
https://youtu.be/OHDydxj6kJE
harry


On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 9:33 AM H LV  wrote:

> Ice Age Cave Art: Unlocking the Mysteries Behind These Markings
>
> https://youtu.be/aSF4zk2nsTU
>
> < focused their attention on the animal and human art, largely ignoring the
> geometric signs found to the sides of these beautiful paintings. At most
> sites, the geometric signs outnumber the animal paintings by two to one.
> That intrigued Genevieve Von Petzinger, a 2016 National Geographic emerging
> explorer. What could these rarely studied signs mean? Von Petzinger takes
> the stage to talk about her passion for exploration and her quest to
> uncover the hidden meaning behind these markings.>>
>
> harry
>

[Vo]:Ice Age Cave Art: Unlocking the Mysteries Behind These Markings

[H LV]

Ice Age Cave Art: Unlocking the Mysteries Behind These Markings

https://youtu.be/aSF4zk2nsTU

<>

harry

Re: [Vo]:Aetheric Science - Invitation to take part

[H LV]

Institute of Noetic Sciences

https://noetic.org/

https://noetic.org/science/

harry

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 4:56 PM Jonathan Berry  wrote:

> What a bunch of pretentious BS much of the art world is.
>
> I guess however I could treat it as art...
>
> Or, I could make journals of these designs with strange writings and leave
> them places, they could become semi-famous on the internet (as has
> occurred in the past).
>
> Or, I could just present this as the utterly ignored science it is to an
> audience which in theory should be appropriate and be ignored anyway, ugh.
>
> Many on Vortex and elsewhere have seen the correlation, the suggestion
> that these "weird" claims relating to Antigravity and Free Energy are due
> to some "aetheric vortex".
> In the 17 years of researching this before I made a coil in 2012 which
> produced a tangible energy, I told many people about my "theory" only to
> have others confirm they had seen the same correlation.
> And at that early stage, it is an almost useless observation because so
> little is known about how such a mechanism could work, and no way to know
> if you are getting results (or so one might presume) until you get massive
> gravity or (apparent) CoE defying evidence.
> And yet, my images both prove the principles, and MOST people can feel the
> energy.
>
> My images (or, more to the point the designs when embodied physically or
> graphically) increase one's sensitivity.
>
> So I can give powerful and detailed mechanisms...  Theory...
> And many (more than not) can feel the energy so lack of instrumentation is
> not a hard problem.
>
> There is zero cost related to simple levels of experimentation with
> graphics or even bits of wire.
>
> Developments can be shared with others rapidly, and experiments can be
> tried at incredible rates, lifetimes of work can be done in months!
>
> It can and has been objectively proven to be real...  (though people
> feeling energy from hidden devices and other such tests)
>
> And utterly fail to attract interest, even to evidence that this is the
> phenomena behind Antigravity and Free Energy can be abundantly demonstrated.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:52 AM H LV  wrote:
>
>> HOW TO SEE | Joan Miró
>> https://youtu.be/N2mrK33gCYE
>>
>> <> looks at us,” Joan Miró is a perfect subject for our series "How to See."
>> Here, on the occasion of the exhibition "Joan Miró: Birth of the World,"
>> curator Anne Umland and the artist’s grandson, Joan Punyet Miró, examine
>> the ways in which Miro worked to achieve a heightened state of awareness in
>> which to paint. Hear about the monsters of the subconscious, the way that
>> history guides the moral imperatives of his art, and why he loved New York
>> City.>>
>>
>>