Excellent reasoning John :)
Talking about glasses, what we need _now_ IMHO is good glasses allowing us to
see through the haystack of defective designs/proposals, so we can concentrate
on the few needles that may hide in there. It's a question of not wasting
scarce time, energy, money and
thomas malloy wrote:
Jones Beene wrote:
Terry
In fact according to another scientist's controversial theory, we may
be headed in the direction of a Maunder Minimum,
... which... to Meander into cold cynicism, is another solution to the
global warming problem.
I have previously
Hi John,
The answer is easier obtained by taking two glasses, one full and one empty,
and then taking half of each. If a glass is already empty, taking half of
it doesn't fill it. It only makes sense to take half of a full glass.
Dave
_
From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL
Nick,
Nick Palmer wrote:
Paul, you seem to think that just because you have used a computer
modelling program (LT Spice) that it's predictions are necessarily
reality. If the initial assumptions and parameters that were modelled
and programmed in are in error it won't be of much use to
On 3/1/07, Nick Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course once
you have done this, then the world will also beat a path to your door but I
suspect that hell will freeze over first.
Well, Nick, the energy must come from somewhere.
An engineer dies. He arrives at the Pearly Gates, but they
May work in the new world of welfare but never in the saloon at Dime Box Texas.
The characters that inhabit a Texas beer joint are a microcism of the US
Congress. For sure a fight will start as soon as somebody takes a sip outa
somebody else's mug.. half full or half empty.. the fight
RC Macaulay wrote:
May work in the new world of welfare but never in the saloon at Dime Box
Texas. The characters that inhabit a Texas beer joint are a microcism of the
US Congress. For sure a fight will start as soon as somebody takes a sip outa
somebody else's mug.. half full or half
On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what would happen if I
placed an appreciable price, say $100.
You would receive a citation and be fined for running a business
without a license. Soon, you would be audited by the IRS and they
would trump up some charges against
The good thing about this thread is that anyone with a computer can
pretty-much call themselves an expert climatologist, as there are few
pundits with phoney-baloney PhD's who can can actually prove them wrong.
Show any expert (getting a fat Federal paycheck for felicitous
science consulting)
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder what would happen if I
placed an appreciable price, say $100.
You would receive a citation and be fined for running a business
without a license. Soon, you would be audited by the IRS and they
would trump
On 3/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wow, such pessimistic POV or humor.
The latter. Didn't you recognize the method of suicide from Alice's Restaurant?
Terry, so positive I repell electrons.
The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly) that it is possible to
have a simple electrical device (actually an aetheric electrical device)
that generates any desired level of energy, most here don't. (so why are
they here?)
The energy being probably created (there is simply no reason to
John Berry wrote:
The problem is there is much that most ignore due to ***LIMITS*** they assume
exist and if these more spooky things did exist they assume couldn't be
understood or engineered.
Sad, but very true.
Regards,
Paul Lowrance
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim
ought to be possible.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
You believe matter can be created?
During the Renaissance (and before), many reasonable people scoffed at the
idea that the Earth is spinning.
The main (non-religious) objections were:
1) If the Earth is spinning then why doesn't the Earth move below a stone
thrown straight up.
2) A body that is not anchored to the ground should
David Thomson wrote:
Hi John,
You’re just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you
claim ought to be possible.
http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf
You believe matter can be
On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked Grimer how he dealt with the MMX results, and he never replied
... for whatever that's worth. But maybe he just overlooked the post.
Maybe he didn't get it. His email address has changed since he went
broadband. Also, I don't
Terry Blanton wrote:
On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I asked Grimer how he dealt with the MMX results, and he never replied
... for whatever that's worth. But maybe he just overlooked the post.
Maybe he didn't get it.
It was a post to Vortex, back when he was
On 3/2/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I never bought his theory to start with so going into his forum to ask
him for details would be more like just taking a jab at him than
actually sincerely asking for information.
Well, in my experience with Brits, they like the verbal
From John Berry's we can do what ever we want if we just get the old rocks
out of our head message:-
Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't possible
trumps the evidence I'll never know Quite so. Tell Paul...
Paul Lowrance has come up with a theory that if he
Nick Palmer wrote:
From John Berry's we can do what ever we want if we just get the old
rocks
out of our head message:-
Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't
possible trumps the evidence I'll never know Quite so. Tell Paul...
Paul Lowrance has come up with a
On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Thomson wrote:
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you
claim ought to be possible.
On 3/3/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully
quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim
ought to be possible.
Not quite sure what I'm meant to be guilty of, this is the
-Forwarded Message-from Akira Kawasaki
From: What's New [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Mar 2, 2007 2:41 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday March 2, 2007
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 2 Mar 07 Washington, DC
1. FIRST AMENDMENT: HIGH COURT TAKES
Ok, that didn't take long.
I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments your
theory is based on.
I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to
output free energy or create (so-called) antigravity.
Does it explain the vast majority, or at
Paul wrote:-
Nick, Answer this. If it is possible to capture energy from ambient
temperature then wouldn't you want to know how?
Obviously, but we already know how you propose to do it because you already
told us over and over. Nanometre scale arrays of LEDs and noisy
diode/resistors.
Nick Palmer wrote:
Paul wrote:-
Nick, Answer this. If it is possible to capture energy from ambient
temperature then wouldn't you want to know how?
I wish you luck in your endeavour.
Please don't leave now.
If I can demonstrate how you can store energy taken from ambient
John Berry wrote:
It is the only possible model as SR is illogical
Well, that sure shoots down SR.
If so, how you do you account for the results of the Michelson-Morley
and Sagnac experiments in your model? These two brought down the
classical aether theories, along with
Nick Palmer wrote:
From John Berry's we can do what ever we want if we just get the old
rocks
out of our head message:-
Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't
possible trumps the evidence I'll never know Quite so. Tell Paul...
Paul Lowrance has come up with a
On 3/3/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
It is the only possible model as SR is illogical
Well, that sure shoots down SR.
SR has many logical inconsistencies, you can't not be aware of this.
There are many situations where SR simply can't work though I
Harry Veeder wrote:
mv^2/r is the _derived_ centripetal force on an object rotating relative to
an inertial frame of reference. If the Earth is assumed to be rotating then
v = 0 for the satellite and the satellite's equation of motion is:
GMm/r^2 - ma = 0, and a = GM/r^2
If the
On 3/1/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Harry Veeder wrote:
If any divergence between inertial and gravitational mass is
ever found, however small it may be, it will be a an enormous blow to
the validity of GR, because it will imply that gravity is /not/ a
fictitious force,
32 matches
Mail list logo
