I will only comment when you'll have released the power consumed by the 100kg
lifter ;-)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 7:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: lifter in a accelerating frame
Harry Veeder
Hi Stephen,
When you say Aether Physics model, do you mean aether as in
luminiferous aether, the hypothetical medium in which electromagnetic
waves propagate?
When I say Aether Physics Model, I mean a fluid-dynamic-quantum Aether,
just as it is explained in the paper.
If so, how you do you
Hi John,
For instance how electricity works is a theory, how magnets work is a
theory, how gravity works is a theory.
But that something we call electricity exists is not a theory, that
magnetism exists is not a theory, that gravity exists is not a theory.
There is a difference between
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 first I have
heard of your theory.
But what good is a
Hi John,
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
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in
this mailing list after this message.
John Berry wrote:
On 3/3/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Berry wrote:
It is the only possible model as SR is illogical
Thank you for the civil and cogent reply; I'll dig through it and
respond in detail later this weekend; don't have time right now. I also
don't have time to dig into your paper right now, but will tackle that
later also.
I'm actually interested in alternative theories of this-and-that, and
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
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
Hi Stephen,
(It just sets my teeth on edge when someone opens a discussion of this
sort with a blanket assertion that SR is internally inconsistent,
which, thankfully, you didn't do.)
The Aether Physics Model stands on its own. It is not necessary for me to
trash SR by pointing out its major
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
(It just sets my teeth on edge when someone opens a discussion of this
sort with a blanket assertion that SR is internally inconsistent,
which, thankfully, you didn't do.)
The Aether Physics Model stands on its own. It is not necessary for me to
trash SR
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Some would say that's passive aggressive Stephen A. Lawrence.
Just a little bit of an ad hominem? I guess some means you, eh?
Yes, I think you are passive aggressive. I think you have a negative
interpretation to my statements. I am very direct and address
Paul stop antagonizing people it's not fun any more.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Quantum Thermodynamics
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Some would say that's passive aggressive
Michel Jullian wrote:
Paul stop antagonizing people it's not fun any more.
Michel, could you please stop the personal stuff. What gives you the right to
post a personal statement as above while I do not have the right? I will debate
anyone on this matter in private. You think you are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
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
This is the only valid scientific way that I know of, to use ambient or
environmental heat, to achieve (arguable) overunity. Any school kid can
do this on a very small scale (few bubbles), but if you are only looking
simply for a single example for that contention, for whatever purposes -
then
Jones; Nice, but I personally do not feel that the issue is that of OU H2
production to seal a Hydrogen fueled environment.
I have stated on vortex before that the problem is not in getting the
Hydrogen (nullifying Faraday), but what do you do with it when you get it?
I will stick my big fat
Hi Stephen,
On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General
Relativity.
Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general
relativity in the absence of mass (flat background space).
Say what?? GR was derived completely independent of SR. The link to SR
Ron,
but lets assume I can provide Hydrogen from water in excess of COP1. Now what
are we going to do with it
where the conversion does not eat up this gain? ICE engine is out!
I may have to disagree on this point, as I am optimistically looking for
continued advances on several fronts.
Yes and no.
I will not state a COP figure, but you are a pretty good man on guesses ;-).
okay I'm being a bit mean, you are close to factual.
Is not my point proven? We have the cart before the horse so to speak? If
someone were to present a technology that would offer what we are talking
about
Jones, your musings prompted the following idea here:
1/ There exist well known mechanical-to-heat converters with a COP3, namely
heat pumps used for heating purposes sucking the heat from ambient air: you get
3 to 4 times more heat out than the energy you have put in (probably much more
since
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 01 Mar 2007 15:02:39 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
Terry Blanton wrote:
http://physorg.com/news91888237.html
UFO science key to halting climate change: former Canadian defense minister
A former Canadian defense minister is demanding governments
I can't believe they let my post through, I KNEW it was a good idea to post it
during a total lunar eclipse! As many as possible of you guys please let me
know if you received it too, let they know the free energy revolution is on the
march!
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel
Oh I remember now, Jones doesn't get my posts for some reason. But surely
others got them? Robin? Anyone?
Or wait, did they... did YOU send the two posts back to me only
Michel
- Original Message -
From: Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, March
On 3/4/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi John,
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
OK, if the MIBs didn't intercept my posts which they probably didn't (no one
has knocked at my door yet), it must be that my scheme was simply not clear
enough to provoke feedback. I'll try and make it clearer through a practical
embodiment:
Say we have an insulated hot water reservoir,
Hi John,
I have a list of Yes/No questions at the bottom if you could please take 1
minute to answer them.
We agree that there is a fluid aether which is matter entrained and
apparently on some other points too, I have the experimental side, you have
the model covered so let's make an effort
On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in
this mailing list after this message.
Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as it took too long to type
to be ignored.
John Berry wrote:
On 3/3/07,
On Friday 23 February 2007 03:11, thomas malloy wrote:
Zell, Chris wrote:
What conspiracy fans miss is that if all their theories are
correct, it's all futile and irrelevant. How so?
In the first hour of C to C AM last night Alex Jones of infowars and
prisonplanet.com was interviewed.
I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity
here.
David Thomson wrote:
Hi Stephen,
On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General
Relativity.
Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general
relativity in the absence of mass
John Berry wrote:
On 3/4/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this
topic in this mailing list after this message.
Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as it took too
Paul Lowrance posted;
Please let me know if you ever want to debate the idea that your
passive aggressive ways of life is better than my direct ways of life.
Correct me if I'm wrong Paul, but you seem to believe that it is
possible to reverse the 2nd Law with an electromagnetic machine.
Vortexians;
Last night's guest on C to C AM was David Hawkins the author of
http://www.hawkscafe.com . Those of you who hold to the idea that 9/11
was a conspiracy will love his site.
Mr. Hawkins bills himself as a forensic economist, and you have heard
the truism, follow the money. If what
32 matches
Mail list logo
