Re: [Vo]:Fire From Ice: An engineering challenge

[Gibson Elliot]

 So you want to build a demon. That proverbial creature that can sort hot and 
cold bits. New research has created a wonderful Graphene energy harvester you 
might be interested in. I guess you could attempt to use minor spatial 
perturbations an use that. but for any real energy, ya just can't get past mass 
and acceleration without some serious joules. Did you know when Nitinol is bent 
it creates molecular heat in super elastic mode, and it goes through a similar 
cooling when it relaxes? food for thought my friend about energy differentials 
and thermal effects on an atomic scale. Always seems to come back to 
compression/relaxation phases don't it?
G 
On Tuesday, November 3, 2020, 01:04:59 PM PST, H LV  
wrote:  
 
 
This challenge is inspired by the title of Gene Mallove`s book "Fire From Ice".
A major engineering goal in the past was to make ice from fire. That is given a 
very hot reservoir and ambient temperature, build a machine which will cause 
water to freeze. 
Can a complementary machine be built which will cause water to boil given a 
very cold reservoir and the ambient temperature? Has this already been done?
Harry  

Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity

[Gibson Elliot]

John

So true! "Einstein considered General Relativity to be unthinkable without an 
aether." But he did it anyway now didn't he?

It would be nice to get her to come debate, but it would appear she's unwilling 
to risk a large reality change. A lot of work would be invalidated, careers 
undone, etc... if the aether were proven to be true, so don't hold your breath 
there friend. 

Gibson



 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2014 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
 


Einstein considered General Relativity to be unthinkable without an aether.



On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 6:21 AM, Kevin O'Malley  wrote:

Unfortunately, she said she is "more focused on General Relativity (gravity as 
geometry or the warping of space/time) than Special Relativity and 
therefore have little use for aether theories."
>
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:04 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint  wrote:
>
>Kevin stated:
>>“I'm debating someone elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far 
>>smarter and better educated than I am.”
>> 
>>Well invite the young lady into the dime-box saloon!!  The place could use 
>>some female energy…
>>J
>> 
>>-mark
>> 
>>From:Kevin O'Malley [mailto:kevmol...@gmail.com] 
>>Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:28 PM
>>To: vortex-l
>>
>>Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
>> 
>> 
>>John:
>>Do you have a citation for all these "many findings"?  I'm debating someone 
>>elsewhere and she is not only unconvinced, she's far smarter and better 
>>educated than I am.  
>> 
>>On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>Special Relativity has made the assumption that the speed of light is 
>>constant, this is despite many findings otherwise.   
>> 
>> 
>

Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity

[Gibson Elliot]

This IS why we continue to have these discussions! I really want to see this 
article as well Axil, this goes back to the work one of our previous members 
was doing with rotating magnetic fields embedded in a torroidal field. Shortly 
before they went offline that is. We had a few articles like this just before 
the establishment all nuts over "spooky action at a distance" where a claim was 
made that a particle arrived at a receptor, before it was supposed to arrive. 
Next thing you know academia was all over quantum entanglement. LOL Looking 
forward to this read...
 

Gibson



 From: Kevin O'Malley 
To: vortex-l  
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 4:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
 




Axil:


Can you point us to that writeup?  I find references to it on the internet but 
not the actual paper.  



On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:28 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

In an experiment, Yevgeny Podkletnov claimed to have sent a signal over a 
distance of 1 kilometer at a superluminal speed of 64C. 
>
>
>This was done using superconductive projections of a rapidly rotating magnetic 
>field. The signal was timed using synchronized atomic clocks.
>  
>

Re: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity

[Gibson Elliot]

Lunsford;

Before you go worrying about the reputation you would garner here, you may want 
to do a little research into why this place is called "vortex-l". The key part 
is "vortex". It is borne of those that speculate that the true nature of 
particles are vortices, not the standard model, and was founded by amateurs 
willing to openly speculate, not seek to garner credibility. That is left to 
the academicians who are already stuck in dogma.

Gibson (member since before LENR, when V. Schauburger was the primary topic)



 From: D R Lunsford 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, March 4, 2014 10:35 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Disproofs of Relativity
 


No one will ever take cold fusion seriously if they come here 
and read nonsense about how relativity is wrong. All of these specious 
arguments focus on the constancy of the speed of light.


What is never understood is that C isn't the speed of anything in 
particular. It is a parameter that characterizes the geometry of 
spacetime, which is no longer Euclidean. The structure of this geometry 
emerges from a very simple (group theoretic) analysis. The parameter C 
emerges out of the analysis and is either finite, or not. Experience 
shows that it is finite. The derivation is here, I gave it some years 
ago and this person has added commentary, most of which is helpful. Only simple 
algebra is required.

That light goes at C is incidental to the existence of a 
universal constant with the dimensions of speed. It does so because the 
corresponding field is massless. The most important point to be grasped 
is that one does not assume C=constant - this comes right out of the 
symmetry and homogeneity analysis. Euclidean geometry is also 
characterized by a constant - however it is imaginary, and corresponds 
to the "circular points at infinity" in projective geometry.

http://membrane.com/sidd/wundrelat.txt


-drl


-- 
"Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana." - Marx

Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility

[Gibson Elliot]

John

I agree with you, and I think the crux of the issue is that there are other 
experiments that have been misinterpreted as well. SR is a convenient way of 
explaining things away around the perceived absence of the aether. I have been 
working on a model that I think explains things better. I have recently been 
putting together a model of a so-called Black Hole. It's not a singularity as 
most would think. It is a massive torroidal aether waveform, currently physics 
wants to call the aether "dark matter", but that is simply aether in motion at 
a rate that makes it appear close to matter. I have finally figured out after 
decades of thought, how to prove my point, and that is that a black hole can be 
described mathematically under my model, in such a way, as to account for ALL 
matter/energy entering the structure without being collected into some 
fictitious singularity It is being converted into inertia and ejectile. There 
is nothing lost and the equations
 will balance! So I feel that is proof enough to begin with, and encourage me 
to further my study.  But that is another matter off discussion. 

 Poor Einstein went too far with the Doppler effect thinking that it could 
modify matter, or space for that matter. In fact, as you suggest, it's an 
illusion. When the second twin returns, his clock appears to run faster (the 
other side of the signal coming towards the train as you so elegantly point 
out), and in the end, the two differences cancel each other out. The twins 
remain the same age, poof! No time dilation. 

Physics is simply mired in explaining things in ridiculous terms that explain 
what we see is really happening to the aether. Different terms are used to 
describe the same thing that is all. It still works without SR and the broken 
rules of quantum physics. Remember Super Symmetry has been proven a failure 
already, this is not unexpected. When they can collect a Higgs Boson naturally 
occurring, and not as a result of being manufactured artificially then I might 
buy into that as well. For now, the Higgs Field is yet another end run on what 
we already know about aether.   

With respect,

Gibson



 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Time Dilation impossibility
 


On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

John, you make a lot of interesting arguments, but special relativity always 
seems to come through with the right answers.
>
 
Mostly true, but it gives the same answers as an entrained aether.
Remember that SR is largely based of a rehash of an aether theory anyway.

Additionally there are cases where it has failed and these cases are consistent 
with an entrained aether, apparently GPS satellite systems show such issues. 


>When I ponder these same issues I can always bring myself back to earth by 
>considering the behavior of a particle accelerator such as the LHC.  It is 
>hard to doubt that the protons are moving at very nearly the speed of light 
>since the time it takes them to complete one revolution around the track is 
>extremely well defined.  The distance is accurately measured as well, so it is 
>easy to make the velocity calculation.
>
 
Sure, but what of those disagrees with the concept that the protons are moving 
through an aether entrained by the earth reference frame?
And that a particle moving through the aether would be limited to less than C?

Additionally it could be that electromagnetic acceleration simply does not work 
past the speed of light, so even if it were possible for a particle to exceed 
the speed of light through the aether it might be impossible to get it there 
without a second reference frame to boost it.


>With the speed limit so well defined, you must ask yourself why this is so?
>
 
Because it is the speed limit (possibly not for everything though) of movement 
through the aether.

If the aether were entrained by a spaceship, it could exceed the speed of light 
without exceeding the speed of light locally.


>Time dilation is something that the observer determines as I have been saying 
>in earlier posts.  The particles that are moving at such a fantastic velocity 
>do not believe that they are any different than when at rest.  It so happens 
>that they are correct according to their instruments while all the other 
>observers in motion relative to them measure otherwise.
>

If you ramp up from particles to trains, or spaceships I think you will have a 
hard time envisioning this.

Consider the example of a train on a circular track.
If you stand in the center of the circle you can easily see the people on the 
train, and their clocks.
initially your clock and theirs are in sync, but they start moving and you see 
their rate of time low, maybe almost stop if they move fast enough, you can use 
a stroboscopic light to make it easy to see their clock.
Perhaps years pass for you, but you only see the train clocks advance

Re: [Vo]:Quantum teleportation done between distant large objects

[Gibson Elliot]

Kevin

I couldn't agree more. To call it teleportation is like saying my PC is 
teleporting the characters of this email. Wrong terminology, chosen to generate 
sensationalism. Transmission would be more appropriate. There's one thing about 
the proof of entanglement that I have difficulty accepting. The comment was 
something to the effect that the observation changes the state and that is what 
is reflected in the entangled photon. So far I have not seen anything that 
suggests concrete data, a real predictable 1 or 0 has in fact been sent, 
received and decoded. It's all probabilistic, indeterminate. In such a way as 
to say, it got there or it didn't. So far this still sounds like theory.

Gibson



 From: Kevin O'Malley 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Quantum teleportation done between distant large objects
 


This isn't teleportation, it is transmission of information.  In this case, the 
information transmitted was spin state.  



On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM,  wrote:


>A very remarkable achievement --
>
>Quantum teleportation done between distant large objects
>
>http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jun/11/quantum-teleportation-done-between-distant-large-objects
>
>"...Their experimental set-up involves two room-temperature samples of
>caesium-133 gas held in glass containers and separated by about 50 cm. The
>aim of the experiment is to use light to teleport the collective quantum
>spin state of 10^12 atoms from one container to the other"
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Gibson Elliot]

John

Frank Wilczek, and I have extremely similar theories, my own model of the 
universe has an entrained aether. What NASA photographed as evidence of "Dark 
Matter", when 2 galaxies collided, and their shadowy fields kept on moving 
after the matter collided, is in my humble opinion direct evidence of entrained 
aether. It drags on matter and matter drags on it like a car going down the 
road. Leaves caught up in the wake of the vehicle are a perfect example of the 
effect. I also share the opinion that matter is as he suggests; "subatomic 
particles and quarks are actually dynamics and movements and vibrations and 
oscillations, or as he termed it music in the void."

I couldn't agree more. On top of that, my model also suggests that a "Black 
Hole" is a quasi stable (long decay) aetheric disturbance that would go on long 
after any matter in it's reach had been exhausted. Consumption of matter which 
it regurgitates as a pair of gamma streams is how it keeps going, matter-aether 
drag is responsible for the whole thing. Simple Newtonian Physics explains why 
undisturbed, it keeps on going, and going, and going. Also as a last statement 
on my personal theory, it suggests that there is a flow to aether around every 
physical object, between all objects, even on a galactic scale. As such there 
should be differentiated bands of aether flow that would look like fine clouds 
or ribbons of what appear to be matter or dark matter.

So what you have to say here John is not far off from my own theories, aetheric 
patterns and structures that will persist, should be quite possible.

Gibson



 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image
 


Please read this entire email, but if you don't, just read this:

So what evidence exists for there not being an entrained aether?
None.
You could argue that nothing really proves anything.
Even atoms are still just considered a theory, sure a popular one with tons of 
evidence.

Atoms are of course redefines, quantum physics changed understanding of the 
atom, was the previous model incorrect?
That is a very hard thing to answer, it certainly wasn't complete.

So this is evidence for a substance to space, for an energy that does not fit 
into the engineering and physics definition of energy.

Of course there is a lot of other evidence for that accepted by convention.

Now does one person feeling something prove it, well no.
But a significant percentage of people do feel this.
So taken over many people it proves there is something to this, probably more 
than just a convincing presentation and any normal eye bending bending images.

Something that can't be readily explained by anything other than either an 
aether or possibly quantum physics, and in the latter why as this worked based 
on a model for the former.

Feeling it in your hand as I do, as a strong physical sensation sure feels like 
proof, but only proof for me, not very convincing for others.

But must it be proven to investigate it?

It is exotic but still quite plausible.
It doesn't disagree with any established physics.

And it does agree quite well with a lot of other evidence.

There are (IMO stupid) people that question the existence of reality, as they 
consider reality could be a simulation on a computer.
So some would not consider reality proven.

And others consider the mind does not exist.

Let's say this, there is based on the evidence I have been able to gather 
definitively something that is not normally understood (and there is already 
some degree of evidence on list) and it follows the rules that I have found by 
modeling it on an aether.

It might be incomplete, but so far all evidence points to it being correct.
Is it an aether that is moving, or am I making waves in quantum probability 
fields, and is there a difference?
Maybe I am moving packets of ZPE, or maybe the aether exists but I am only 
moving various energy structures within in and not the substance?

With quantum waves (waves in what?) and waves in fields that exist in what?

Consider this, with all the evidence that space has a substance, frame 
dragging, Casimir effect and the like maybe we shouldn't ask what evidence 
there is for an aether, maybe we should ask what evidence exists that there 
isn't an aether?

Seriously, Einstein believed in one, And Michelson and or Morley still believed.
Their experiment only discounted that there in a lumiferious aether that the 
earth moved through (i.e. didn't drag with it).

But that would be a most improbable model.

So what evidence exists for there not being an entrained aether?
None.

And there is evidence against SR that supports an earth entrained aether.

And while I am an unqualified scientific armature, Frank Wilczek is a highly 
credentialed Nobel prize winning physicist and while I don't know if he would 
give this stuff a seconds thought (indeed, maybe he shouldn't if 

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Gibson Elliot]

John

Ok, I didn't read the email discussing the approach to the test. Makes some 
sense. I was one of those waving my hand up and down 3 inches from the side of 
the monitor, LOL. I'll try a few things at home this weekend where my 
co-workers wont think I'm completely nuts! By the way, LENR, Vortex energy, and 
quite a few other fringe research fields have been looked at with much more 
skepticism, don't let that dissuade you. I have seen some amazing things in my 
time, guess that's why I keep an open mind. I think you should get a web site 
up and running, post your research, and open your own forum. After you have it 
up and something for people to look at, you might find yourself with some 
additional contributors.

By the way, I am interested in how you are devising these images. You sound 
like you have a lot more into this than appears on the surface. I'd like to 
understand your approach better.

Gibson



 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 5:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image
 


BTW an added interesting detail.

I am finding that my hand can deflect the energy making there little to feel.
So to feel it, one should have your hand a few feet away from the screen inline 
with the assumed output and bring it in closer.

Just waving it up and down close to the right side of the screen might just 
result in the energy being bent by your hand. 

Please keep an open mind, I have sent images to many people and had very few 
negative reports indeed, and generally from people who felt later or previous 
images successfully.  

Even if we assume those who ignored me outright actually tried and didn't feel 
anything (which I very much doubt) then there are still far more who have felt 
than not.
Unless you count everyone of Vortex who is ignoring me of course :)

Another note about feeling energy from images, if you put your hand closer than 
3 inches to the screen most will stop working as the light does not convey far 
enough.

John


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:05 PM, John Berry  wrote:

To the RIGHT side of your monitor.
>
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 9:00 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>
>http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4113/shooterv6.png
>>
>>
>>Place your palm to the side of your monitor with palm facing edge of the 
>>monitor.
>>
>>
>>Another person from the list has emailed me privately to say they felt 
>>something very subtle in their hand inline with the horizontal line running 
>>through an earlier version of the image.
>>
>>John
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New more powerful image

[Gibson Elliot]

John

Left side of the monitor for the energy flow, correct? That's where I got the 
sensation. Warm on the left, cool on the right. I agree that there is 
allegorical information to suggest that Aether does respond to the mind. Look 
at the Orgone research, and M-State materials. All fringe stuff, but from what 
I have read, there are similar issues. I found your comments regarding changes 
in placebo  (double blind) studies baselines changing by double intriguing.  
Care to elaborate?

Gibson



 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Friday, April 19, 2013 2:00 AM
Subject: [Vo]:New more powerful image
 


http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/4113/shooterv6.png

Place your palm to the side of your monitor with palm facing edge of the 
monitor.

Another person from the list has emailed me privately to say they felt 
something very subtle in their hand inline with the horizontal line running 
through an earlier version of the image.

John

Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Gibson Elliot]

John

You may want to start collecting information from those that do respond to you. 
Blue sky, but If you could get Genetic information you might be able to 
identify certain correlations between images/structures and the people who feel 
them. Or focus on those with strong reactions. I suspect that you have 
developed quite a few images, could you send me all you have available? No 
indications of active or inactive, just numbered. I'll set things up at my lab 
to do a blind study. If you could give pantone numbers for the colors you use, 
I could have them printed by a local printer to exact specification, and 
checked "blind" across as many people as I can expose to them.

Do you have any data regarding how far away a person can feel effects of 
various images? Any that can be felt further away? My thinking here is that 
piling them one on top of the other might affect each other. Aether does 
permeate everything and so shielding or isolating them could be an issue. Hence 
the questions about distance. I may have to bring cards into range one at a 
time.

Gibson


 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
 


Subtle changes in the image and it would be very different.

Ok, here, I made 2 images, I wanted them to look almost identical, one is 
active and one isn't, I just went ahead and labeled them, so if you wanted a 
blind test no luck.

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png

I was limited as to what I could do to keep the images similar in  form, but 
make one strong and the other off.

If the effects was simply due to seeing some vague representation of an Ahnk 
then both images have that.

Now this is not the best image to start with, and not the best if your ability 
to feel any effect is marginal, but worth a shot.

The image is very sensitive to any manipulation of colours, so if your monitor 
or videocard is set to vivid, or has a gamma correction, brightness or contrast 
or other manipulation so the exact colour values aren't delivered, this entire 
image could be quite relatively inactive.

I will work on an image suitable for scale testing, face up and face down might 
be imperfect especially because once energized it can retain some activity 
despite reduced lighting. but a boost is observed from turning a light on.

John


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

These are very unusual
images. They do elicit emotion. 
> 
>Some of that could be
based on similarities to known symbolism as opposed to an aether effect, but
then again, that symbolism itself may derive from some kind of primitive
understanding of the way that optical images interact with brain neutrons. The 
“shooter”
is reminiscent of Navaho art and the latest/strongest to Egyptian imagery.
> 
>I shrunk the second one
down to get 9 on a page, then printed cut and stacked the images to see if
there was anything which showed up on a gram scale (comparing face up to face
down). There was nothing objective, but I am using a laser printer so the color
did not contribute.
> 
>Jones
> 
>From:John Berry 
> 
>Has no one tried it yet?
> 
> 
>And a 3rd  image to try to feel, this contains
recent development with some previous ones.
>http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png
> 
>All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people
report they don't feel anything.
> 
>Again, best in a dark room (but not required).
> 
>Feel for any sensations.
> 
>http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png
> 
>http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Gibson Elliot]

John

My big HP monitor is too hot at even 4 inches for me to feel anything with my 
palm but the heat coming off the thing. Part of it may in fact be that I have 
to force my hand at an odd angle to do this and that causes stresses in the 
hand, ligaments, vessels blood flow etc...

Are you using a CRT or  flat display? Keep in mind what allows people to "feel" 
a sensation from these is going to differ from person to person as you have 
observed. In my case, visually, and what I feel inside my head is I suppose my 
sensitivity. I have felt CSE effects from various structures when nobody with 
me could. Those I could feel with my palm. So some people will likely be 
attuned to different effects.

Gibson

 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 4:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
 


Subtle changes in the image and it would be very different.

Ok, here, I made 2 images, I wanted them to look almost identical, one is 
active and one isn't, I just went ahead and labeled them, so if you wanted a 
blind test no luck.

http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/9209/activeandinactive.png

I was limited as to what I could do to keep the images similar in  form, but 
make one strong and the other off.

If the effects was simply due to seeing some vague representation of an Ahnk 
then both images have that.

Now this is not the best image to start with, and not the best if your ability 
to feel any effect is marginal, but worth a shot.

The image is very sensitive to any manipulation of colours, so if your monitor 
or videocard is set to vivid, or has a gamma correction, brightness or contrast 
or other manipulation so the exact colour values aren't delivered, this entire 
image could be quite relatively inactive.

I will work on an image suitable for scale testing, face up and face down might 
be imperfect especially because once energized it can retain some activity 
despite reduced lighting. but a boost is observed from turning a light on.

John


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

These are very unusual
images. They do elicit emotion. 
> 
>Some of that could be
based on similarities to known symbolism as opposed to an aether effect, but
then again, that symbolism itself may derive from some kind of primitive
understanding of the way that optical images interact with brain neutrons. The 
“shooter”
is reminiscent of Navaho art and the latest/strongest to Egyptian imagery.
> 
>I shrunk the second one
down to get 9 on a page, then printed cut and stacked the images to see if
there was anything which showed up on a gram scale (comparing face up to face
down). There was nothing objective, but I am using a laser printer so the color
did not contribute.
> 
>Jones
> 
>From:John Berry 
> 
>Has no one tried it yet?
> 
> 
>And a 3rd  image to try to feel, this contains
recent development with some previous ones.
>http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png
> 
>All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people
report they don't feel anything.
> 
>Again, best in a dark room (but not required).
> 
>Feel for any sensations.
> 
>http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png
> 
>http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png
> 
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?

[Gibson Elliot]

John 

I examined your images in series from your last post, and I have to say at the 
very least I could feel sensations in my head as I gazed upon them. 

Mind you, as I initially just skimmed your emails, I didn't see the part about 
your expectations before I wrote the following, and it appears I felt what you 
had indicated, unprompted no less!

The first seemed to affect my auditory center in the right brain, the second, 
seemed to give me the feeling of a flow left to right cross hemispheric, and 
the final (most recent) a slight twisting sensation.

It would be interesting to see what might be revealed in a P.E.T. scan. I tend 
to be hyper-sensitive so to feel something in my head does not entirely 
surprise me . I will say I have not tried them in a dark room yet. Just so I 
know, should these be viewed from the screen or from a printed paper. Big 
difference there. Screen = emitted columnar light flowing at a right angle to 
the earths gravity/aether flow, whereas printed is reflected/absorbed 
wavelengths and diffuse light in line with the aether flow. 

Each would have differing effects on local aether.  I would expect that, if 
printed, the best application would be to place a hand below the page to allow 
gravity flow to pass through and modify aether flow like a filter, the hand or 
head even, located below the image would feel something as a result. 

I think you should read this http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm, I 
believe you'll see as I did that the authors story suggests creating 
aether/gravity circuitry, a bit like what you're doing. I have a feeling this 
stuff is related somehow. His would be more of a 3D circuit made of matter 
voids akin to microwave circuitry, whereas yours seems to be a bit more on the 
end of the relationship between aether and photon in a 2D sort of way. 

All very intriguing John!

Gibson


 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Any experimenters, aether theorists here?
 


Has no one tried it yet?



On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:56 AM, John Berry  wrote:

And a 3rd  image to try to feel, this contains recent development with some 
previous ones.
>http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/6251/rotational.png
>
>
>All in an effort to reduce the odds of having people report they don't feel 
>anything.
>
>
>Again, best in a dark room (but not required).
>
>
>Feel for any sensations.
>
>
>
>
>On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:43 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>
>A worthwhile improvement for both images:
>>
>>
>>http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/1139/lateststrongest4.png
>>
>>
>>http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/6029/shooterv54.png
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:32 PM, John Berry  wrote:
>>
>>I sent the wrong image by mistake, the first link should have been this one:
>>>http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/4411/thelateststrongest2.png
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:RE: !CSETI!Key2Samahdi:GODthinks inTORSION-WAVES: Deep-Thought Lives!SENTIENT-COMPRESSED DATA WAVE/AexoTCW(HyperSpace-Tachyon(speed)CarrierWave/TESLA-Team

[Gibson Elliot]

Dude that gave me gooosebumps.



 From: Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan 
To: "vortex-l@eskimo.com"  
Sent: Monday, April 1, 2013 8:09 PM
Subject: [Vo]:RE: !CSETI!Key2Samahdi:GODthinks inTORSION-WAVES: Deep-Thought  
Lives!SENTIENT-COMPRESSED DATA  
WAVE/AexoTCW(HyperSpace-Tachyon(speed)CarrierWave/TESLA-Team
 

 

 

 
! ! !KEY 2 SAMAHDI:  Our minds THINK/PRAY/MEDITATE aka Generate TORSION WAVES! 
! !
Yea Dude; that's right; Torsion Waves. . . like. . . broadcast outa our BRAINS. 
. . cool! ~^)
 
TORSION WAVES are the AexoDarkSpace Tachyon(speed) SUPER-M-BRANE CARRIER WAVE 
aka 'TCW.'
 
Joachim Hauser DEUTSCHLAND:  Dr. Hauser has MASTRED 
'synthetic-tech-broadcasting' 
AND RECEIVING Torsion-Waves! ! !
 
Torsion Waves cross the Bubble-Universe INSTANTLY in what is called via 
TRANSAEXODARKSPACE
moving @ VIRTUAL-NO-TIME/VIRTUAL-NO-DISTANCE. . .


 

 *RELIGION CALLS 'IT' GOD/YHWH aka Infinite All Mind aka I AM WHO AM* and GOD 
thinks in TORSION WAVES!

 *Tachyon(speed) hyper Compressed-Data-fractal coded M-BRANE is the UBIQUITOUS 
hyper-SENTIENT super-CARRIER WAVE.'*
 
 
Deep-Thoughts: ALL ENERGY is a FRACTAL-CODED hyper-compressed & VIRTUALLY 
INFINITE. 'sentient-self-propogating/self aware' TACHYON-speed CARRIER WAVE.  
 
IN SHORT:  Russian Aethyr Physicist call it AETHYR; I call 
'Hyperspace-AexoDarkEnergy SUPERPLASMA'  & religion calls it GOD.
 
 RE:  The Tachyon(speed)carrier Wave of Base-Ambient-Energy speed-density of 
Space-Time-Normal bubble-universe Interstellar space AND ITS ROOT ORIGIN as an 
extension
of AexoDarkEnergy Tachyon(speed) HYPERSPACE(virtually infinite carrier 
parent-adjacent-parallel SPACE virtually INFINITE).
 
Space Time Normal TCW= BAE-Constant of 1'E'nergy speed-density. & thus 'M'ass= 
1'E' x C^2quared.(light-speed-squared)
 
Aexo-DarkEnergy-HYPER SPACE's hyperBAE-Constant= (AEX= 1'E'x 
C^3ubed).--->(light-speed-cubed)
 
aside:  "Methinks that Carl Jung may have more to do with Fractal Geometry 
Encoded Data-enscription than he might have thought were possible(if he had 
ever known of 'computer-software data-code enscription')."
 
1st Posit BIG-BANG EXPANSION FORMULA(and this accounts for the HYPERSPEED 
original big-bang expansion of our BUBBLE-UNIVERSE @ 'Space-Time-Normal' Base 
Energy Density & this OUT-OF/from the 'centre' of a routine HIGH-DENSITY 
AexoDarkEnergy 'Maelstrom-Fractal-Toroid 'hyper lowered 
eye-centre/Einstein-Rosen 'nexus-window:'  
 
THIS below DESCRIBES in 'formula' the RAPID THINNING & EXPANSION of 
plasma-breaching/Einstein-Rosen Transdimensional Portal ingress of 
AexoDarkEnergy HYPERSPACE superplasma which is the SIMPLE STRAIGHT-FORWARD 
CAUSAL AGENCY of the BIG-BANG:
 
*The AexoTCW/AexoTachyon(speed)Carrier-Wave is 'HyperSpace' & is also a 
HYPER-COMPRESSED fractal-wave data-encoded medium.  The Big-Band-Expansion 
energy-formula for the  Intra-Bubble-UniverseTCW is {TCW>speed-density= 
E/C^3ubed x C^3ubed= 1E= BAE-Constant  BIG-BANG expansion of the 'inside' of 
our Bubble Universe.  The ulitimate AexoHyperSpace Tachyon Speed carrier wave 
is simply the 1E-BAE/Base Ambient Energy Constant of our 'low-pressure 
'bubble-universe's' further MULTIPLIED/ACCELERATED by C^3ube(light-speed-cubed) 
equalling the Hyper-BAE-Constant  of EC^3ubed 
Aexo-Tachyon(speed)darkenergy-HyperSpace eg. the 
FRACTAL-HYPER-DATA-COMPRESSED-CARRIER-WAVE-infinite ALL-MEDIUM.
 
*!IT'S ALIVE!*  The AexoHyperSpaceTCW Data-Code is embedded as 
FRACTAL-GEOMETRIC Progressive-code & as a DYANAMICALLY-KALEIDOSCOPICALLY
~(SENTIENT & VOLITIONAL)~infinitely & evolving & cascading SUPER-MEDIUM  of 
course is OMNI-AWARE & comprehensively-self-developing  INFINITE-GESTALT-MIND.
AND ALL ENERGY=The Omni-Sentient-BEING--->HAPPENING>including--->US & 
all  Universes  within AEXO-HYPERSPACE'S infinity.
`
 
The TCW Fractal Geometric Code IS(potentially) accessable & decipherable via 
FRACTAL-GEOMETRIC ANALYSIS software designed to analyse the BACKGROUND-Field.  
 
The New-Frontier: FRACTAL-GEOMETRIC PATTERN-RECOGNITION Software.
 
?Query?-->Who is writing(will write) this software &/or who is underwriting 
this effort?
 
2nd Posit:  A single 'Tesla-prodigy' is known by 'psi-science' to sometimes 
show up as
'group' in that Tesla, Marconi, Edison, etc. seemed to show up as a 'pack' to 
goad eachother
on; but the next wave might be a Heaven-ordained 'Tesla Team' to bring 
particular 
GESTALT-AEXOVERSALLY TIMED advancements to the planet a strategic-destined 
@ the next 'planetary chapter's' beginning. . . These groups 'could' be the 
HARBINGERS
of something REALLY BIG!
 
These Tesla-GESTALT-Collectives tend to 'find & recognize each-other' as a 
defacto function of 'psi-connectivity.'  They represent an unified symbiotic & 
synthesized SINGLE GESTALT organism.  The Tesla-cohesive 
gestalt/group-functionality would tend to exhibit a minimum of what 
we-westerners sometimes call EGO-INTERFERENCE within their internal 
interactive-function(s).
 
BIG IF here:  'If' the 

Re: [Vo]:Lockheed: Prototype 100 MW fusion reactor in maybe 5 years

[Gibson Elliot]

Hey Jack-O

I've been looking through the Thrive site and cannot locate the video you've 
been mentioning, could you post a link for me please?

Gibson



 From: Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Lockheed: Prototype 100 MW fusion reactor in maybe 5 years
 

 
LOCKHEED MARTIN QUASI-'fusion' PORTABLE REACTORS:  This technology is a spin-off
of LHM's Chief Scientist R.A.(Ned)Allen's participation within NASA's Advanced 
Propulsion
Research Project under Whitt Brantley.
 
NASA's David Adair had contributed theory on what he called 'controlled-fusion' 
escalation
WITHIN what would otherwise would be referred as a conventional chemical fuel 
reaction
within 'HUTCHISONesque-TORUS FIELD NEXUS CONTAINMENT' chambers
which portray/elaborate upon the EXACT SAME POSITS of Foster Gambles TORUS 
FIELD/Gyro
Toroidal ZPE field containment technology. . .
 
Within the above 'mouthful' it has been amply demonstrated by MALLOVE, 
HUTCHISON(and
many other credible Scientists/Engineers etc. that at the very CENTRE-NEXUS 
point of a 
Gyro-Toroidal/TORUS FIELD is the ZPE ACCESSING foculizing point of 
Einstein-Rosen 
cross-spectrum HYPER-PLASMA.
 
And this ingressing hyper plasma MAGNIFIES CONVENTIONAL CHEMICAL REACTION
TO (extremely high)COLD FUSION OVERUNITY YIELD of EMP power and the
ELECTRO-MAG TOROID 'bottle' containment SUPRESSES HIGH CALORIC expression
but magnifies HIGH EMP-Gravionic yield. . .
 
For all of this the 'hardware' is remarkably simple(see prototypes in the 
THRIVE-DVD) but
the effect though simple in form is MIND BOGGLING in function. . .
 
You all in QUEST OF COLD FUSION have been on the threshold of uniting the simple
GYRO-TOROIDAL/TORUS FIELD NEXUS as the PLATFORM(reaction chamber/bottle) of 
quasi-(Cold)-Fusion sustaining
hyper-gravionic ingress transpectrum super-plasma.
 
KNOW THIS:  If Lockheed Martin's successes in ADVANCED PROPULSION (per delay 
agreement with NASA) are
NOW allowing them to exploit these 'reactors' (I've called Plasma-Breach 
Reactors); FINALLY; is a less than
subtle indicator that the behind the scenes ADVANCED PROPULSION R&D is far 
along beyond merely creating
functional prototypes.
 
ONE WONDERS why not many are 'crying' about the fact that OVER-PRINTING of our 
currency is turning
our 'pounds/dollars' into so-much WORTHLESS LIRE'.
 
BUT ECONOMY is merely SECONDLY at the mercy of CURRENCY MANIPULATION; but the 
REAL FOUNDATION
of WORLD POWER is as always per ECON-101   based on GUNS & BUTTER. . .
 
Sorry to say:  That if LOCKHEED-MARTIN now(finally) is 'allowed' to extend this 
technology to ENERGY; that
first it became SUPER-WEAPONS. . .
 
PER Dr. OPPENHEIMER:  "We have now become DESTROYER OF WORLDS."  but 'maybe' 
something 'out-there' watching
has the TRUMP-CARD power to PULL OUR PLUG. . . 
 
Epilogue:  Old Story about the King of the FIRST BABYLON related that old King 
Nebudcanner DECLARED HIMSELF TO 
BE A GOD;  and in the face of that arch 'conceit' a 'watcher & an holy one came 
down'(and pulled his plug; so to speak) oopsy that! ~;)
 
IN SHORT:  BHO is 'hoping rather desparately' for the LHM-quasi-'fusion' tech 
to come on line even more quickly that 5 years;(AND
THATS WHY THE PUBLIC ANOUNCEMENT BECAUSE BHO's OFFICE IS PUSHING IT 'hard;' but
he's spitting against the wind;  it won't help him. . .
 

> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:46:45 -0500
> From: pagnu...@htdconnect.com
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Subject: [Vo]:Lockheed: Prototype 100 MW fusion reactor in maybe 5 years
> 
> Courtesy of nextbigfuture.com -
> 
> Lockheed may have a design for a small low cost fusion reactor
> - prototype may be possible in 5 years:
> 
> http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/new-google-solve-for-x-lockheed.html
> 
> I have looked for, but not found, patent applications.
> Does anyone have more information?
> 
> -- Lou Pagnucco
> 
> 

Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions

[Gibson Elliot]

Ed, Jed

I have to poke my head up on this one. All you have to do is look at the SBIR I 
believe its called. Been a while since I looked at it. It's the DOD/DOE wish 
list they publish for public bidding. Small tech firms can look at this list 
and propose creating the item. They get multiple rounds of funding etc.. yah 
dee ya dee ya. So I was looking at this thing what 10 years ago. On the list 
were EATER, a robot capable of harvesting organic material in the field for 
fuel. Any organic matter. Just think, robots that clean up all evidence, grass, 
trees, people, animals, yes you saw correct PEOPLE. We are after all organic. 
The second project that struck me as particularly terrifying was another 
project for robotics designs that can re/assemble themselves, yeah it's the 
golden army, it WILL run autonomously until all life on the planet is 
destroyed. All it will take is one hacker, one glitch, one terrorist who 
doesn't realize what he's done.

Gibson



 From: Edmund Storms 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Cc: Edmund Storms  
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tech Predictions
 

Now Jed, you are agreeing with my conclusion. Should I take the opposite view 
as you normally do? 

 My belief is that mankind will eventually find ways and means to destroy all 
life as we know it. We are almost at this level now. The only question is 
whether these means will be used. That is where the nature of the mind and its 
irrational features become important.  Will the leaders be able to control 
insanity in the population effectively or will these leaders be insane 
themselves?  People in the US are now trying to find ways to control the 
insanity that occurs on a small but growing scale,  which shows itself most 
vividly when schools are shot up.  How do we control the insanity that the 
suicide bomber exhibits by exploding  car bombs in the heart of a city? Where 
does the insanity of leaders in North Korea end? Now, as you note, drones may 
give everyone a tool to gum up the works. 

Ed




On Feb 25, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:

David Roberson  wrote:
>
>
>We have survived this long by some means so I assume that we will continue to 
>do so into the future.
>
>
>I do not see the logic of that! That is like saying we have survived countless 
>wars, so why should we worry about a full-scale nuclear war?
>
>
>In 1914 people said war is war, machine guns will not make much difference, 
>and valor will win the day just as it always has. They were wrong. 9 million 
>soldiers were killed. Valor made no difference in the face of artillery and 
>poison gas.
>
>
>Technology can profoundly affect the nature of war, or domestic violence, for 
>that matter. Suppose those autonomous little cold fusion powered robot killing 
>machines I have predicted become possible. Suppose they become very cheap and 
>reliable. Anyone, anywhere will be able to murder anyone else. I mean anyone 
>anywhere in the world, without getting caught, and without leaving a trace of 
>evidence. Think about that if you want a case of the heebee jeebees! Think of 
>all the people who want to kill political leaders. Or the jihadists who have 
>it in for authors such as Rusdie, and film makers. Or any disgruntled 
>ex-husband, or some nut who has it in for one group or another: homosexuals, 
>black people, Catholic School girls . . .
>
>
>I can think of many other nightmare scenarios. I put a few in my book. I left 
>out some, too.
>
>
>I do not think cold fusion can easily be used to make small nuclear bombs. But 
>if it can, it might lead to worst catastrophe in human history. I have been 
>aware of this for a long time. I discussed it with Martin Fleischmann and 
>others. As I said, we have been thinking about ways to deal with the problem. 
>There may not be any good way!
>
>
>- Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:XO-Dark Space Physics

[Gibson Elliot]

Jack
 
Maybe you should consider that, if the XO space is where all the energy is 
coming from then perhaps XO-Light Space Physics is more apt.
 
Gibson
 


 From: Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 7:47 AM
Subject: [Vo]:XO-Dark Space Physics
  

 
A Friend has coined my physics model as "XO-Dark Space Physics."
 
It reminds me of FROM RUSSIAN WITH LOVE. . . 
 
Considering that the BAD OLD RUSKIs built the first proof of 'proof' of concept
Plasma-Breach Reactor from my designs & specs. . . . maybe 'XO-Dark-S-Physics' 
is appropriate.
 
Odd thing;  as a kid I think I wanted to be Green Lantern; NOT Darth Vader. . . 
~:)

Re: [Vo]:PRIMER FIELDS CORNY DODGE of MISINFORMATION/ Space-Time-Conquered and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.

[Gibson Elliot]

I checked out that primer and found it to be extremely interesting. Now 
obviously his credentials may be in question as in  
http://crackpotwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/another-winner/ but that doesn't 
dismiss some beautiful exotic imagery. And well, the whole "he doesn't work at 
CERN" is a statement I at least cannot prove or disprove. 
 
Much of what he has shown, not said (believe it or not) conforms to my own 
modified view of physics. I would really like to see his explanation for how 
the cup shaped magnetic fields are created in space and at the atomic level. He 
completely ignores discussing what creates these magnetic fields. Duh- probably 
planned on it in later parts. I can olny guess and hope he shows more, even if 
only as food for thought.
 
In my model these fields do exist much like he expresses them in his graphic 
overlays. Fact is I have a 10 year old drwaing that illustrates the very 
configuration depicted around what we erroniouslty call a "black hole". Granted 
it doesn't happen instantaniously, and the model shows that the event goes from 
shperical  at low energy density levels to the dual toroidal fields as the 
thing evolves. 
 
I guess the final debate will be how these fields are created, axeo-dark-space 
or localized field flow, or some other thing, only time will tell. I am 
expecting the idea will be presented in a chicken/egg fasion where the 
perspective will be matter is organized by the magnetic field and the mqgnetic 
field is created by the matter. I do like elements of Jacks model and (again, 
believe it or not) I almost agree with him, in some of the interactions, 
however I do not have an ingress/egress mechanism. Just a basic localized flow 
or pattern existing in the usual media.
 
In the primer, the injection of high energy into the magnetic field is a 
vaulable way of showing the behavior of things in the fields that are naturally 
occurring, but all it does is illustrated the field effects. None of this 
explains how these magnetic fields are created. But I do have to say, it is 
very exciting to see this stuff.
 
Gibson
 


 From: Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 5:17 PM
Subject: [Vo]:PRIMER FIELDS CORNY DODGE of MISINFORMATION/ Space-Time-Conquered 
 and Shaking Current Theories to the Core.
  

 
SILENCE IS NOT GOLDEN but is rather PHONEY, & CHEAP, & WEAK, COWARDLY, & CRUD. 
. .
 
PAUL HARVEY:  The 'Rest' of the Story~:) ~This 'video' pretty well nailed it 
just TURN OFF THE LAME NARRATION! ~:)


So-called "confirmation bias" must have had some adaptive value.  I wonder what 
it was or perhaps even is?


(I had no problem believing that the videos were real and not fake, though, of 
course, some are "constructed." Not a problem.)

Bill gets it right. The "scientific" explorer works as hard as possible to 
*refute* the new discovery, and documents that work meticulously. Because the 
*mind* -- which very much wants to be "successful," and we love to be "right" 
-- will forget all contrary evidence and only remember confirmation.


The human mind is a pattern-recognition machine, a very efficient and powerful 
one. We can readily find patterns in random data. For a scientific theory, we 
must do more than see a pattern. We must then, from the pattern we have 
detected, make predictions that can test the pattern, and we must keep thinking 
about how we might be wrong, rather than about how we might be 
right.___
 
* * *VORTEX MES AMI ! ! !~:) !Spit on the monitor; I'm laughing out loud 
again!~:{D>typical of Tyson:  Neil De Grasse Tyson & NASA: tell the 'story' 
only INSIDE-OUT & BACKWARD & somewhat
out've the sides of their mouths:  THE IRONY & HYPERBOLE' HERE IS MASSIVE & 
EVEN CORNY! ! !
 
HOWEVER IF YOU KNOW THE WHOLE AEXO-DARK-SPACE 'Causation' of the 'EM-Bowel 
shaped 'PRIMER FIELDS' and it's AEXODARKSPACE-SOURCE; then the GLARINGLY 
OBVIOUS QUESTION:
 
?IF MASSIVE BOWELS magnetic fields are determining & shaping the relative 
gossimer-density of polarized EM-Plasma there in Space-Time-Normal: ? WHY THEN 
IN THE INVERSE does this MISLEADING you-tube PRIMER FIELDS PRESENTATION beg to 
mislead us SO DISENGENUOUSLY? ? ?  And the answering question is:  
 
?HEY OUT THERE IN SPACE WHERE ARE YOUR MASSIVE BOWELS?. . . DUH. . . . . The 
answer is 'Parallel-Parent Adjacent AexoDarkSpace.  And they purport to 
DISPROVE AexoDarkSpace/Black Holes(massively observed) and and ALL OF THE 
UBIQUITOUS Parallel & UniverseSURROUNDING AEXO-DARK-ENERGY INFLUENCE such as 
ACCELERATING GALAXIES that
GAMMA RAY BURSTER and are SWALLOWED by SURROUNDING Parent-Adjacent 
AEXODARKSPACE?!!?  Oops; forgot that one
huh!?
 
?Can anybody say, "HIDING THE TECHNOLOGY. . . . much. . . duh. . . and POORLY 
at tha

Re: [Vo]:intro-edit*TIME-TRAVEL-TECH Einstein-Rosen Bridge/'Spooky Action at a 'trans-TIME' distance. . .

[Gibson Elliot]

No, medical marijuana wouldn't make someone believe they were the actual 
character they were portrayed as in a science fiction book. I was reluctant to 
slam this guy despite the obvious. I looked across the web and found him all 
over the place. Mostly in a science fiction book "Phobos", and in self 
aggrandizing soft science presentations on this and other fringe science 
baords. "Phobos" was about the Mayan proficiency. Well, now that that has 
passed... 

He says he consults with some government agency, but those guys are pretty 
quick to squelch anyone revealing actual government secrets under the treason 
laws. They do so quietly and without reservation. So if he's still talking. 
Well you know what that likely means, he needs his meds. His style of writing 
is easy to spot with all those CAPS. 

Personally I have issues with general/special relativity as Einstein puts it. I 
believe he did the scientific community a disservice in certain respects, not 
all, but quite a few. Observational tweaks work great, but I think he 
overstepped the bounds of reality with some of his theories (granted, 
erroneously accepted in my opinion by the general community) like the twins 
theory. But I digress... I personally think a religious rant has no place in an 
openly scientific forum. The two are generally exclusive, unless you're looking 
to prove gods existence through science. Sadly you can't. 

If anyone wonders where I'm coming from, you only have to look at Tesla's 
theories concerning matter consuming space. That's all I'm going to say 
specifically till I have finished the math, then I'll present my theories. And 
yes I know that the general ideas were dismissed after Michelson-Morley. My 
ideas have been a long time in development, and are based on what we actually 
observe of the universe rather than theory. It's really a beautiful thing when 
you see how simple it all really is, but alas, time is removed as a dimension, 
along with all the complexities. Sorry, no extra dimensions, just 3. No fabric 
of space, no holes, black white, grey, temporal, dimensional, or otherwise. 
Just a simple mundane 3D space with time travel always happening forward. 

Gibson Elliot
Engineer - Inventor, with a background in Robotics, Computer Science, 
Mathematics, Medical devices, and yes I hold patents in theses fields, look me 
up on Google patents, everything that was munitions grade is unavailable for 
obvious reasons. And now for the deluge of insults, bring it on, flaming has no 
effect on me. When you're right...



 From: John Berry 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:intro-edit*TIME-TRAVEL-TECH Einstein-Rosen Bridge/'Spooky 
Action at a 'trans-TIME' distance. . .
 

Maybe acid.


On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:49 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

Medical marijuana?
>
>
>On Thursday, January 10, 2013, John Berry  wrote:
>
>I am reluctant to ask, but what makes you believe that this is a useful form 
>of communication?
>>
>>
>>What is it about this list that attracts such non-sense?
>>
>>
>>I am all for fringe science, but this is all straight jacket stuff.
>>
>>
>>Ugh.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Jack Harbach-O'Sullivan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Jack O'Sullivan//RE: Jake Lev Harbach-General Science Journal
>>>
>>>* * *POINT LEAD Hyper-Speed//Focused HyperGravionic PROPULSION is CURRENT 
>>>REAL TECHNOLOGY: and
>>>that propulsion system REACTOR on the 'back-pulse' literally 'ratchets the 
>>>reactor (and craft) back-against' the flow of
>>>TIME STREAM within SPACE-TIME NORMAL because the PLASMA-BREACH REACTOR'S tap
>>>transdimensional-AexoDarkSpace/HyperSpace ENERGY FIELD-inflow quite 
>>>literally SURROUNDS 
>>>the REACTOR & CRAFT suspending it 'paritally' OUT of the SPACE-TIME NORMAL 
>>>field-flow of 'existence'
>>>while in operation.  
>>> 
>>>THIS IS CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. . . I am a Transdimensional Physicist, and I 
>>>consult
>>>for the National Aeronautics & Space Administration and the Defense Advanced 
>>>Research Projects Administration Ltd.
>>>
>>>
>>>* * *Anyone who has dropped off their children at grammar school at the 
>>>playground before classes
>>>who has ever paused to listen to the children at play perhaps has noticed 
>>>that if you 'distance' your
>>>hearing a bit, the play shrieks at chasings etc. remarkably resemble any 
>>>similar group of young kids
>>>

[Vo]:remove unsubscribe please

[Gibson Elliot]

remove unsubscribe me please someone!

Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2

[Gibson Elliot]

Mauro,
 
Well, I didn't expect that... um... thanks for the sympathetic ear in a rather 
dismissive world. I'm actually touched, which I didn't expect. Been feeling a 
bit jaded lately, I guess, I needed that.
 
I will take some time in the very near future and write up a brief summarizing  
my collective theories. At the moment I have some priority irons in the fire, 
releasing a web site for a major undertaking, by months end...  Sometime in 
Feb, if things go smoothly.  Until then...

Gibson
 
 

--- On Thu, 1/28/10, Mauro Lacy  wrote:


From: Mauro Lacy 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 6:24 PM


Gibson Elliot wrote:
> Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm
> perhaps we could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his
> equations work?
>

I know that LR is flawed also. I very much would like to hear your
explanation.

>  
> That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a
> fantasy for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial
> interest of the current pack of Space/Time theorists, String
> theorists, and CERN would like get a multi billion dollar black eye.
>  
> Lets just wait for the "GOD" particle NOT be found and see what other
> absurd theory rises. I will never be able to stomach Quantuim
> mechanics or any other system that violates rules simply because of
> scalar effects. The whole of SR only applies to observation, it does
> not prove that changing your speed effects time, except in thought
> experiments, the twins theory is bogus, and cesium clocks have been
> proven to change rates when you change gravity, or rather the
> proximity to gravitational field center.
>  
> Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect
> in my book!
> Gamma is just a near final decay state of matter when run through a
> grinder such as a "Black hole" which is a simple either cyclone
> or what current flock refers to as "Dark Matter". I rant, and this
> will all come out soon anyway. And hey without peer reviewed
> materials none will take this seriously anyway, so why do I bother?
> just frustration I guess.
>

There's no reason to be frustrated. Time for some quotes?

Understanding. n. A cerebral secretion that enables one having it to
know a house from a horse by the roof on the house. Its nature and laws
have been exhaustively expounded by Locke, who rode a house, and Kant,
who lived in a horse.

    Ambrose Bierce


For in thy Naught I trust to find the All.

    Goethe. Faust.

Best regards,
Mauro




  

Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2

[Gibson Elliot]

Re-examine the deliberate glossing over of scientific fact? Hmm perhaps we 
could look at Lorentz and what he threw away to make his equations work?
 
That's unlikely to occur, why throw out SR when you can keep chasing a fantasy 
for billions of dollars year. It is not in the best financial interest of the 
current pack of Space/Time theorists, String theorists, and CERN would like get 
a multi billion dollar black eye. 
 
Lets just wait for the "GOD" particle NOT be found and see what other absurd 
theory rises. I will never be able to stomach Quantuim mechanics or any other 
system that violates rules simply because of scalar effects. The whole of SR 
only applies to observation, it does not prove that changing your speed effects 
time, except in thought experiments, the twins theory is bogus, and cesium 
clocks have been proven to change rates when you change gravity, or rather the 
proximity to gravitational field center.
 
Ether is consumed by mass, that's gravity, a pretty measurable effect in my 
book!
Gamma is just a near final decay state of matter when run through a grinder 
such as a "Black hole" which is a simple either cyclone or what current flock 
refers to as "Dark Matter". I rant, and this will all come out soon anyway. And 
hey without peer reviewed materials none will take this seriously anyway, so 
why do I bother? just frustration I guess.
Let time be the final judge...
 
Gibson



From: Mauro Lacy 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michaelson Morely vs V^2/C^2
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010, 4:26 PM


Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
> On 01/28/2010 03:05 PM, froarty...@comcast.net wrote:
>   
>> I have a problem with the M&M experiment. They assume an aether that
>> moves with respect to space yet SR
>>
>> uses a right triangle rule where the spatial rate is assumed to be
>> perpindicular to C. Why isn't gamma considered proof of ether?
>>     
>
> The 'ether' has no properties which can be measured, or so it appears at
> this time.  Gamma is considered proof that the length and time
> contraction which is described the Lorentz transforms is 'legitimate' or
> 'real' or anyway 'measurable'.  However, the assertion that "the
> geometry of space is pseudo-Riemannian with metric signature [-1,1,1,1]"
> is just as useful for describing the conclusion as the assertion that
> there is an ether, and it requires fewer assumptions.
>
> In short, the geometric interpretation of gamma, absent any detectable
> ether dragging, reduces the existence of the ether to an unproved and
> (theoretically) unprovable assumption.  Consequently, Lorentz ether
> theory, as an alternative to special relativity, is neither testable nor
> falsifiable and can consequently be said to be not a valid theory.
>
> The ether can't be proved not to exist, of course.  But it apparently
> can't be proved *to* exist, either, unless someone comes up with solid
> evidence of ether dragging (which is *not* predicted by LET, Lorentz's
> most mature version of ether theory).

The Michelson & Morley experiment did in fact detected an ether drift.
Only smaller than expected, of around 8 km/s, instead of the expected 30
km/s. In a curious travesty of the scientific method, that fact was
later taken as evidence for the inexistence of the ether...

Read the Gezari paper
Experimental Basis for Special Relativity in the Photon Sector

for a very good summary of the experiments and effects that supposedly
confirm Special Relativity...

The M. Consoli and E. Constanzo paper,
The motion of the Solar System and the Michelson-Morley experiment

gives an impressive explanation for the divergences between observed vs.
real velocities, which also accounts for the different experimental
results obtained in different experiments, including the extensive and
careful experiments done by Miller.
The proposed explanation belongs originally to Cahill and Kitto, and its
consequences are mind boggling, if you take the care and time to reflect
about them.

All this is published since at least five years in the arxiv. Maybe it's
time to start taking notice.




  

Re: [Vo]:Contropedia

[Gibson Elliot]

Can't blame them when someone is spending their time teaching people how to sue 
Wikipedia. The afflicted need to realize that if they depend on soemthing like 
Wikipedia as anything other than just another resource, they will make 
mistakes. To sue someone over your own mistakes is a major cop out. Why sue 
except to make money. I really like Wikipedia, but do my own research. Thanks 
for trying to kill something I at least have the intelligence to use.
 
Go sue someone who deserves it, like yourself!
Gibson Elliot

--- On Tue, 1/26/10, Terry Blanton  wrote:


From: Terry Blanton 
Subject: [Vo]:Contropedia
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 8:42 AM


http://www.bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article088.htm

Wikipedia Doesn't Like Me ...

Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen

Saturday, January 2nd, 2010

Wikipedia's General Counsel, Mike Godwin, is sending me nasty emails.
Apparently he doesn't like me telling people how bad Wikipedia
actually is, and he definitely doesn't want me telling you what to do
about it - when it effects you personally.  He actually, the other
day, said I "was trying to destroy Wikipedia..."

Stand back while I turn down my testosterone levels.

Even though, in some ways, it feels good to have some people think I'm
that kind of powerful, I can't really claim credit for what's
happening to Wikipedia. The whole world is beginning to realize that
Wikipedia is being run by the social equivalent of a pimply twelve
year old.

Wikipedia is coming apart.  What I'm offering is a remedy for its
victims.  How?  I'm telling people how to sue Wikipedians in the
Courts to stop them from victimizing others.  I've got the formula to
beat them (and I'll tell what that is further into the article) - and
Mike Godwin doesn't want me to talk about it.  He says:

"Thank you providing evidence of intent to engage in strategic
litigation aimed at shutting down Wikipedia."


Yup, he really said that.  Let me adjust that testosterone knob one more time.

Mike, I don't need to destroy Wikipedia.  It is doing that to itself.
I'm actually trying to help you guys, but you're not listening.  The
WHOLE WORLD is trying to help you, and you are not listening.  You
need to make some changes - and here's why...

Critics like Oliver Kamm of the London Times said in his November 25,
2009 article:

"The persistent decline in the number of Wikipedia editors may signal
the end of the dominance of a remarkable online resource. It cannot
happen too soon. Wikipedia is routinely cited in online articles as a
substitute for explanations of concepts, events and people. It has
thereby coarsened public culture. It is an anti-intellectual venture
to its core.






  

Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done correctly?

[Gibson Elliot]

I would think that running the device with the axis tilted 45 deg. off center 
to the left, and then to the 45 deg. off center to the right, would allow for 
normalizing out the effects of mechanical shifting or warping. This is a simple 
problem to resolve. I am planning on building a small, very small version of 
the device with a laser diode, etc... in a much smaller form factor on a single 
substrate. This should minimize any mechanical issues. Using a CCD pickup and 
computer to analyze the motion in much finer detail should also help. Anyone 
spare some parts? Small high grade mirrors etc.. to set this up?

Gibson

--- On Thu, 9/10/09, Harry Veeder  wrote:

From: Harry Veeder 
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally done 
correctly?
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009, 9:48 AM



- Original Message -
From: OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson 
Date: Thursday, September 10, 2009 9:53 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment finally
done correctly?

> I was speculating that my second suggestion might help deal that
> question, hopefully:
> 
> > Another suggestion might be to simply place your hand against the 
> beam> splitter components (if such components are accessible to 
> manual touch) and
> > apply a gentle amount of "manual" force, as if one was attempting to
> > simulate the effects of gravity. My bet is that the interference 
> waves will
> > move based on manual intervention.
> 
> Again, my suspicion is that the interference waves will alter due to
> "manual" intervention, simulating the force of gravity.
> 
> It seems to me that some kind of a simple experiment like this ought
> to at least be tried.

I have no doubt the fringes will shift by pushing against this
particular beam splitter.
What one needs is a "sag-o-meter".
Wait... doesn't this apparatus perform this function?

:-)

harry




  

Re: [Vo]:Re: centripetal force question

[Gibson Elliot]

Just nit pcking, but I'd disagree, It may even spin in
the opposite direction if the wheel reaches the jet
stream at the right point. 

Not being too serious here, who is to say if from the
God perspective the ferris wheel appears to turn or
the earth appears to turn. 

However, from the ground since YOUR stationary point
of view is from the earth, then the ferris wheel would
appear to turn, not the other way around. ;^)

G

--- OrionWorks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On 7/20/07, Harry Veeder  wrote:
> > I made a drawing of the situation I was imagining:
> >
> > http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/world-ferriswheel.html
> >
> > A ferris wheel located on Earth's equator.
> Initially a brake prevents the
> > wheel from turning. After the brake is released
> and assuming the axel of the
> > wheel is frictionless, will the orientation of the
> wheel remain unchanged as
> > the Earth revolves?
> >
> > Harry
> >
> 
> Harry,
> 
> Nice Illustration. What graphics package do you use?
> 
> I should think that the ferris wheel will appear
> stationary to a
> ground observer - after the break has been released.
> IOW, from a
> so-called gods-eye view, away from the planet's
> surface, the ferris
> wheel will be seen to be rotating at the same RPM
> speed as the planet.
> The RPM bestowed on the ferris wheel via inertia
> once the breaks have
> been release will not have changed, therefore the
> wheel will appear to
> rotate at the same RPM speed as the Earth as
> perceived off of the
> planet,  but will appear stationary to a ground
> observer.
> 
> Does anyone wish to disagree? Did I miss something?
> 
> Regards,
> Steven Vincent Johnson
> www.OrionWorks.com
> 
> 



  

Luggage? GPS? Comic books? 
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz

Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this

[Gibson Elliot]

In  case you were wondering how this was done still,
see this link on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_base

Explains how you can switch on and off this powerful
magnetic base.

G

--- Harry Veeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> you'll have to describe the application you have in
> mind.
> Harry
> 
> On 11/7/2007 1:18 PM, Stiffler Scientific wrote:
> 
> > Would that not be great? Can you see the
> application?
> > 
> > The $16 is small, but the drive to the store is
> 1hr each way so I thought I
> > could save a trip if someone had the answer that
> said 'nothing new here'.
> > Never can tell where stuff of interest will pop up
> :-)
> > 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:12 PM
> > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
> > 
> > 
> > might the switch move some sort of magnetic
> shielding?
> > 
> > Harry
> > 
> > On 11/7/2007 1:00 PM, Stiffler Scientific wrote:
> > 
> >> That was my thought, but 44lbs of pressure on
> this little switch, even
> > with
> >> a little gear change seems a bit much don't you
> think?
> >> 
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Paul Lowrance
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:55 PM
> >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:How are they doing this
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I believe the switch merely pulls the magnet back
> away from the face.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Stiffler Scientific wrote:
> >>> The link dd not work after pasting it here,
> >>> 
> >>> use the following item# to search for it; 
> 93329-2NDA
> >>> 
> >>> -Original Message-
> >>> From: Stiffler Scientific
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 12:31 PM
> >>> To: Vortex-L
> >>> Subject: [Vo]:How are they doing this
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Turn the magnetic field on and off with a slight
> movement of a switch,
> >>> unless I am drawing a blank here this device
> could be interesting?
> >>> 
> >>> Here is a link to it.
> >>> 
> >>>
>
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/displayitem.taf?function=Search
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> > 
> 
> 



  

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel 
and lay it on us. http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 

Re: [Vo]:US Lost

[Gibson Elliot]

Stiffler:

We would more than survive, if pre-WWII America is any
indication. We are capable of producing much more than
we need. Though it might be tough at first, I believe
we would quickly respond to the needs of the nation by
picking up manufacturing of goods we should already be
making here. More people would be employed in the long
run and we would be far less susceptible to outside
influences.

G

--- Stiffler Scientific
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I would like to gain insight to the Vort's view on
> the following question.
> 
> If the US could Seal all borders, nothing IN from
> anywhere, could we survive
> without anarchy?
> 
> Would we become a starving, unable to self support
> nation?
> 
> 



 

8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time 
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news

Re: [Vo]: Diodes capturing Ambient energy - BINGO!

[Gibson Elliot]

Try buying surplus night vision goggles, or another
component that has the device you want. You might be
able to scavenge parts...

Just a thought

G
--- Paul Lowrance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> More discoveries.  It appears a HgTe photodiode is
> just about the ultimate 
> material for this research. It has a band gap of
> zero eV!  Various amounts of Cd 
> (Hg[x-1]Cd[x]Te) increases the band gap to whatever
> value you want. Here are 
> some interesting quotes -->
> 
> Quote #1 from WikiPedia:
> ---
> Owing to its cost, the use of HgCdTe has so far been
> restricted to the military 
> field and infrared astronomy research. Military
> technology depends on HgCdTe for 
> night vision. In particular, the US air force makes
> extensive use of HgCdTe on 
> all aircraft, and to equip airborne smart bombs. A
> variety of heat-seeking 
> missiles are also equipped with HgCdTe detectors.
> ---
> 
> Quote #2 from WikiPedia:
> ---
> The main limitation of LWIR HgCdTe-based detectors
> is that they need cooling to 
> temperatures near that of liquid nitrogen (77K),
> ***TO REDUCE NOISE*** due to 
> thermally excited current carriers
> ---
> 
> Note the bold text in Quote #2. This material is so
> noisy they need to cool it 
> to 77K, otherwise the voltage noise is incredible
> ... bingo!
> 
> This is so ironic. Why are most desirable things
> come at such high cost? 
> Everyone loves ice cream, but the calories.  I would
> give just about anything to 
> experiment with a p-n HgTe photodiode, but it's
> ridiculously expensive. Would 
> they even sell it to me?
> 
> Furthermore, this material has ultra wide bandwidth.
> 
> Mercury(II) cadmium(II) telluride (HgCdTe):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HgCdTe
> 
> band gap image diagram:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:HgCdTe_Eg_vs_x.PNG
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Paul Lowrance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Paul Lowrance wrote:
>  > Hi,
>  >
>  > The following is an important consideration for
> those interested in the
>  > very real upcoming technology that will capture
> significant continuous
>  > energy day or night from ambient temperature
> (surrounding air and Earth).
>  >
>  > Silicon and Germanium are what is called
> *Indirect band gap* material.
>  > This means Si and Ge are inefficient at emitting
> and receiving
>  > radiation.  Although recent technology has made
> it possible to make Si
>  > LED's, but that's more complex.
>  >
>  > The following link contains a very nice table of
> different
>  > semiconductors showing which materials are
> Indirect and Direct band gap -->
>  >
>  >
>
http://www.chemistry.patent-invent.com/chemistry/semiconductor_materials.html
>  >
>  >
>  > Therefore, it seems highly advantageous to
> perform experiments using the
>  > following materials -->
>  >
>  > * Indium Antimonide (InSb) 0.17 eV
>  > * Indium Arsenide (InAs)  = 0.354 eV
>  >
>  > InSb is the best choice for capturing room
> temperature black body
>  > radiation. I believe the above are direct band
> gap materials, which
>  > means they are efficient at receiving and
> emitting radiation.
>  >
>  > It's too bad Germanium is indirect band gap. 
> Sure glad I discovered
>  > this before heading out to buy various Ge diodes.
> :-)  Tom Schum placed
>  > 32 germanium diodes in series, which resulted in
> ~1 uV. What would be
>  > terribly interesting is to see the vast
> difference an InSb or InAs LED
>  > would make.
>  >
>  > It seems unrealistic to use a $108 to $175 MID-IR
> LED for a replicable
>  > experiment.  Very few people would spend $108
> just to verify that
>  > ambient temperature energy is capturable. People
> who already believe
>  > don't need it.  One almost needs to pay a skeptic
> to view an experiment
>  > that goes against their beliefs.
>  >
>  > There is one alternative, and that's the $10 1550
> nm LED, made of
>  > InGaAsP, but I'm not sure present instruments
> could measure the effect
>  > at room temperature. I calculate the effect would
> be ~100 million times
>  > less than the $175 4900 nm LED. The presence of
> Ga greatly increases the
>  > band gap, unfortunately, which is why this LED is
> only 1550 nm.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Regards,
>  > Paul Lowrance
>  >
> 
> 



 

The fish are biting. 
Get more visitors on your site using Yahoo! Search Marketing.
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/arp/sponsoredsearch_v2.php