systems which mutually
self-cancel these stray momenta.
Ultimately, we have a CoE break contingent upon an effective CoM break,
with the exploit confirmed at every stage in that process. The experiment
confirms the theory, literally mechanising the maths of OU. This isn't a
false-positive
om here to the first devices would be cool - i'm just an
obsessive hobbyist with no idea how to get this where it needs to be..
This warrants serious attention!
On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> We all wait for the first device with COP >2!
>
>
> J.W:
&
Just a heads up for anyone interested - i've succeeded in my long-held
objective of cultivating and harvesting a divergent inertial frame.
The energy density is whatever you want - just make up some high number and
you're good - and power density is basically that number times how many
cycles a se
The first law is specifically framed in terms of 'closed systems', yet what
constitutes full thermodynamic enclosure is always open to question.
Fundamentally, the system has to be open to a fundamental force constant,
and time. That could be the EM force constant, alpha, or the gravitational
cons
The ARV story is chaff; misdirection to fill the void with something
semi-plausible, at least to some degree of consistency, yet whilst only
providing bumsteer. The UFO equivalent of red mercury. Visitors' craft
are obviously surrounded by some kind of glowing orb phenomenon, commonly
assumed to
Multiple independent captures in HD and 60 Hz, using fixed focal length
phone cams with fixed apertures, showing macroscopic quantum effects at
ranges down to a few centimetres, are all out of focus butterflies? And
this is just one type of mini-UAP - there's others indexed in the list that
don't
7;t this an international sensation, setting the scientific
world ablaze?
What could even break such stupor? I know, i know, not blind; i'm obvs
asking in the wrong place..
On Sun, Aug 28, 2022 at 2:19 AM Terry Blanton wrote:
> Intervention is nigh:
> https://en.wikipedia.
Lots of amazing discoveries to plough through so i'll try keep it brief,
however a certain minimum of word-space is required just to summarise
current findings:
• there are multiple different alien beings visiting constantly
• there are multiple different humanoids using saucer craft
ie. imply
is so i'm just throwing it
out there - the JWST calibration shots of Jupiter show myriad large,
box-shaped IR silhouettes clustered around Europa's orbit (links in the
list); i could find no official explanation, thus far.. but hopefully
there's a perfectly prosaic one eh..
On Fri
of the Earth, hence infinitesimal, yet real and non-trivial..
TL;DR - you cannot introduce an effective CoM violation into an
otherwise-closed (isolated) system and not expect its net momentum to
change..
On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 7:28 AM Robin
wrote:
> In reply to Vibrator !'s message of S
I didn't put any on tick tok.
I didn't 'put' any anywhere.
Again, every day for the last few weeks i've come home from work and
checked YouTube for the last 24 hrs' UAP uploads.
I skip the dross, and categorise the rest. So, 'this one goes under this
header, this one belongs on that list, this
> If you want to believe in little green men, be my guest.
..so you haven't looked at any of the evidence? Just wanted to say hello eh..
Well on the off-chance you ever get bored, or really want answers to these big
questions, maybe take a look in your own time.. I don't see anyone else making
.. it's the same tech-base, not different / other aliens.. the
same ones are responsible for saucers, cubes, and orbs.. (and probably
ghost rockets and tic tacs too, IMHO)
It's not some cosmopolitan mix of local techno-cultures.. but one,
particular guest, that we have.
And right now, they seem
as, Mars, Venus *or* Saturn, mass
hysteria or hoax etc. etc.)
If i haven't made a hard-hitting case for these things here, with this
weight of corroborating video.. then i'm done - that's all i've got.. for
my part though, i'm reeling from the revelation.. it looks unequi
If you check the 'box-orbs' list, i now have at least two that clearly show
tethered pairs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZubVcEHtBlw
https://www.tiktok.com/@draw_my_town/video/7104013293471304965?lang=en
Same flight config too.. as if the lower one were perhaps siphoning some
fluid from the u
> Every moving thing on the planet does the same thing. However the net effect
> is
> zero..
Reciprocity is obviously broken for effectively-reactionless
accelerations however. Let me try restate the conundrum more clearly:
• gravity's a mutual attraction between masses / inertias as observed
Turning the subject 45° on an axis for a moment, a large hovering diamond
was filmed by multiple witnesses in Columbia the other day, links added to
the list.
Could it be the same hovering diamond-shaped craft from Nick Pope's
infamous office poster of a similar sighting in Scotland?
Reverse-engi
> Obviously no one has heard of them, because you just invented the name.
I first saw that term in reference to the box-shaped object that flew
uncomfortably close between two military jets travelling in the opposite
direction - this particular incident often given as an example of why the
phenom
I've been trying to bite my tongue for fear of lowering the tone, but the
sheer weight of corroborating evidence for this phenomena must by now be
worthy of Vorts' attention.
Some weeks back, YT began showing me suggestions for UAP videos. I'd
watched the David Fravor interviews after the NYT expo
> So progression from 18th century theory of Boscovich to modern physics
Fascinating, i was unaware of Boscovich's contributions, great
first-principle reasoning though..
There's still a good bit of unfinished business with certain 18th-century
breakthroughs that've languished, but don't get me
in add: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/schr.html
IE. equivalent, not conflicting..
> here is an example
> Absorption and Stimulated Emission by a Thin Slab Obeying the Lorentz
> Oscillator Model
It's a quantitative formulation from classical first principles, sans
Schrodinger.. whereas the wave equation approximates the time
evolution of the wavefunction; you could describe a s
> I have been doing more reading about the history of stimulated
> emission. Einstein formally introduced a quantum version of the concept in
> 1917.
> Therefore you might think that it is only possible in a quantum
theoretical
> context. However, subsequent mathematical work has shown that a form
The Anomalous Magnetization of Iron and Steel, B. Osgood Peirce 1912:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20022770?seq=2
The effects seem to pertain to high dv/dt impulses however.. not to
mention antique metallurgical samples (the high-Sv kind).
Modern electrical steels OTOH are designed to be high
> Think of little magnets arranged end to end. NSNSNS etc. Not only do they
> attract but the field is cumulative, and as it
> get stronger it "convinces" other magnets to align the same way.
Variability of domain pinning strengths (individual domain wall
coercivities) is one cause of Sv per Ruthe
The guy's claiming that induced B in 'electrical steel' climbs to 500% of
applied H.
He's basically claiming runaway self-induction, apparently as an inherent
property of this material.
So what to make of it? Applying an H field induces a B field, giving their
combined field density M, or net ma
The La Palma eruption continues to surprise and confound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXhfSNFAUuk
..no longer a case of guesstimating the stored potential energy, so much as
the ongoing processes apparently replenishing it.
What's been bugging me for some time is that OU solutions solve them
> His failures are waaay past 'E' in the alphabet.
..well as someone up to hexadecimal figures i maybe have a low bar;
whatevs, SOMETHING's going down next Thursday so don't forget to cast a
weary eye that way even if you're not stocking up on popcorn (me neither,
honestly).
One or two contributo
Hi Bob, cheers for the thoughts but it obvs wasn't really a serious
exercise - the bosonic nature of the D2 molecule and nucleus, along with
the high magnetic moment of Ni as a potential short-range polarising factor
just seemed to offer up a possibly-fertile axis of coherence; scaling up
might sim
In light of Rossi's apparent lead i'd be looking at the possibility of
spontaneous formation of novel condensates. The D2 diatomic molecule being
a boson presents an obvious soft target for aligning spins to cohere into
shared lower-energy quantum states, the different magnetic moments of the
elec
Magnetic 'over' and 'under' unity interactions are spectrum conditions of
the same basic effects of magnets doing what they always do - there IS no
deus ex machina when we throw back the curtains and see how the trick was
achieved!
EM OU - if not OU per se - is nothing so exotic as mundane dynamic
> Cars are structurally complex. Just consider rubber balls of equal size and
> use their deformation as a measure of "damage". If the two rubber balls
> move towards each other they will deform an equal amount when they collide.
> If one rubber ball is resting against a massive wall and the other
FWIW momentum is conserved (time-invariant), whereas conservation of energy
is a consequence of CoM..
The real meat and potatoes here is that any 'energy' derivation always has
an equivalent metric comprised of the same components as momentum, just
evolving differently (ie. mV compared to ½mV²) -
This IS interesting, good find..!
So once again, a common theme seems to be that the experimental conditions
focus energy onto electrons at small spatiotemporal scales, causing exotic
quantum states. Note in section 5 tho it is suggested that the density /
weight of the material is integral to th
..i'll just repeat the same point here i made at ECW; the KE / momentum
derivations from the tracks alone proceed on an assumption of CoE and CoM,
hence the findings of stupendous mass / energies / superluminal values of
'V'.
Yet surely a saner explanation is that, rather than burning off a finit
..dropped the video link there:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=341Yk4k51uY&feature=emb_logo
Watching this later, right up my street thanks..
Probably been mooted before; but could the anomalous acceleration be due to
outgassing of hydrinos?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Goodenough
Doh! Miles away.. (besides, could've had Josiah Gibbs)..
'Electret' - that was the word - but yep, something a bit different here..
albeit still amenable to calorimetry i should think.
"Quote: A subthreshold swing is demonstrated below the thermal limit in an
electrochemical cell that mimics a gate-to-channel circuit cell in a FeFET,
surpassing the lim
If self-oscillation is phonon-driven - and also forms the source gradient -
then it's an effective 2LoT violation.
Doesn't rule out an EM / ZPE source of course, but Occam would suggest
that's redundant..
So, unlike Steorn's ferro-electric caps or whatever it was they were doing
(foggy now)..
Making no assumptions as to the existence or nature of time and space, we
can reduce their defining properties to more fundamental propositions:
• there are information processors (us)
• thus there is, implicitly, 'information', the actual substance and
format of which is determined by our form
Thank you - but sorry, what's "MEP"?
Last night i fully resolved the gain principle - it WASN'T caused by the
spin and brake cycles sinking counter-momentum to gravity as intended.
The basis of the system is an interaction that moves a pair of masses
across the diameter of a rotating axis, whilst
The answer is N3 - and the same reason crashing a car into a concrete wall
is twice as severe as a head-on collision of equal relative velocity, since
it's the vehicles' speeds relative to the ground that enumerates and
underwrites the value of 'velocity' in the KE equation, not their speed
relativ
NR
researchers are up to.. mech. OU / reactionless momentum leaves everything
else in the dust.. obsolescence. White elephants all round. And it's open
research you're being invited to review.. to assist with, even..
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 6:38 PM Terry Blanton wrote:
> What does
..rather than trying to re-summarise the whole thing here, anyone
interested should review my current thread on the BWF; currently looking
at 471 Joules in, for 854 Joules out, with an uncertainty of +/- 0.4
Joules, from this interaction:
https://i.ibb.co/BPVMtbV/Fully-Active-low-res.gif
(that's
Found an interesting paper last night - moreso in its assumptions, than
conclusions - but i thought it worth sharing, in relation to my current
state of progress..
I'd been thinking about the exploit i'm chasing down; to recap, as we all
know, gravitational potential energy (GPE) is given by multi
th me being
the high priestess of the great lord Anumpti Nunu's toothbrush (or else who
are the messages coming from?).
On Sat, Sep 14, 2019 at 3:15 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> LOL some years ago i had an interesting discussion re. 'monopoles' on
> PhysOrg:
>
>
> https://p
LOL some years ago i had an interesting discussion re. 'monopoles' on
PhysOrg:
https://phys.org/news/2014-01-physicists-synthetic-magnetic-monopole-years.html
...suffice to say, colour me skeptical.. ;)
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:29 PM Jürg Wyttenbach wrote:
> Axil:
>
> Even if you post this n
d
begins earthing positive momentum instead. The 'relative vs absolute'
FoR's / momenta don't survive rotation into perpendicular planes, and i'm
still an idiot..
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 10:44 AM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ride carefully. 😉
>
>
" a 50% accumulator? So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to 133%."
eek i meant "3 to 150%", duh, need slepp..
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:55 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> ..on 2nd thoughts, isn't it a 50% accumulator? So 2-cycs to unity, 3 to
> 133%..
>
> And MoI's obvi
1 = 4 cycs @ 25% etc.
Suffice to say if real, it ain't dolphin-friendly.. but does it even work?
On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 6:12 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> Magic Roundabout
>
>
> You're standing on the edge of a turntable, holding a heavy flywheel in
> your hands.
>
> B
Magic Roundabout
You're standing on the edge of a turntable, holding a heavy flywheel in
your hands.
Beginning with both axes parallel, spin that baby up..
..then rotate its axis 90° into the perpendicular plane. This exerts a
precessional torque, which is earthed through the turntable's rigid
w, it's a free-for-all bonanza!
"Don't you wanna haggle for it then?"
On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 1:48 PM Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wrong. I fear I could never understand Vibrator.
> You are right about Not the Steorn Forum. Cynics all, apart from Tim
>
>
ed. No energy or momentum can get in or out without being
explicitly measured. The ONLY form of energy the motor is able to provide
is torque * angle.
I AM very much amenable to error - no one will be more surprised than me if
this turns out to be legit - but all indications so far are that
;.
Anyone able to understand these terms should be sitting up and taking
notice.. this is NOT some prank.. it's a sincere "alert!" & request for
backup..
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 11:44 AM Vibrator ! wrote:
> Hi John, and thank you so much for taking an interest!
>
>
> their rotors have to be accelerated with respect to their stator to a speed
> of twice the original rotation rate. I suspect that this action takes
> exactly the 8J that gets added to the system giving a total of 16 after
> this action. Moving the orbiting masses to their respectiv
here is no accounting gap that might signal the
presence of a further input energy source. This is simply a measurement of
elementary classical forces interacting, not a machine design - a
simulation, not mere animation, and furthermore the gain's being calculated
in real-time, in duplicate - i
It looks to me like a fait accompli, but i might as well be claiming prince
Albert in a can. Yet i NEED to know whether this is real or crass error.
Some kind of resolution!
It's just basic mechanics - force, mass & motion. I know there's people
here with a good grasp of classical physics - and
ngle most compelling evidence for OU of
any kind that i have ever seen.
Seriously, it is nothing less than proof positive - comprehensive,
definitive, unassailable.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 2:09 PM, John Berry wrote:
> Vibrator, do you have a machine that generates energy, a device that
> po
own little piece of road that your car
simply drags along beneath it, then you could keep raising momentum against
it without that velocity and thus distance increasing! IOW, CoE is
enforced by N3. Effective violations of the 3rd law 'create' mechanical
energy, by raising momentum on t
can't enlist
any help with it by the w/e i'll post it up here, though i'm setting my
expectations low, just as you are..
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:20 AM, John Shop wrote:
> On 5/06/2018 2:40 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> Your view of what is conserved and why is too simple, an
eek 'touch wood'. Jinx.
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 12:04 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> Agreed. A great equaliser. Burst bubbles all round. Brexit for everyone!
>
> As for fame or fortune, not interested in the former but i currently live
> on about 8K so a pot to piss in would b
Agreed. A great equaliser. Burst bubbles all round. Brexit for everyone!
As for fame or fortune, not interested in the former but i currently live
on about 8K so a pot to piss in would be nice. Still, that's no reason to
bury it like Bessler did. And we all benefit from the results, so long a
7;m looking at..
With both effects harnessed, not only can we reach 299792458 m/s , but we
can do so using 299792458 times less energy than would normally be
required. Not that we haven't got infinite energy to play with of course,
but still, waste not want not..
(before anyone dives overboar
to show you something that shatters such certainties..
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 5:25 PM, John Shop wrote:
> On 4/06/2018 11:19 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
> . . .
> The only precondition there is that we can apply a force between two
> inertias, which nonetheless only accelerates
on carries all that
> momentum in the opposite direction.
>
> I personally cannot see where there would be a cost of energy though for
> the photon to be coming from.
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 3:37 AM, John Shop wrote:
>
>> On 1/06/2018 5:35 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
unded it. Not "close, but i'm running out of hamsters". There
was a fully-grown African bull elephant perfectly concealed in the custard
bowl, and i've totally harnessed it, by "accelerating without
accelerating", and now nobody will believe me and it's so unfair
@Chris
You're kind of on the right track, if not quite for the right reasons yet,
but yes, i've concluded i ought to make a full disclosure within a few days.
I'd wanted to 'do the right thing' and minimise the chances of causing
harm, also giving UK academia first dibs. No one's taken the bait
n or workaround. Hence
there is no need for any contradiction with the standard applications of
CoM and CoE. No further magic required. OU depends upon CoM and CoE doing
exactly what they're supposed to, without fail, in both time and space..
but especially with regards to time.
On Mon, Jun
rom each end to finally meet somewhere in the middle,
resolving the available physics with the available evidence, and realised
some years ago i was following a yellow brick road to an inexorable
conclusion, whilst almost everyone else was hacking at the thickets with a
blunt toothbrush. I eliminate
ction of a perpetual
> motion machine . It would be like going back in time to the 17th century
> and proposing an alternative science of motion to Newton's mechanics
> without relying on any physics that came after Newton such as EM theory or
> quantum mechanics. It would requ
to?
You up for juggling another hot potato?
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Brian Ahern wrote:
> How can anyone validate when there is no data from a five year old
> system?What is claimed for the device? Where is a video of the unit
> running?
>
>
Jun 3, 2018 at 4:05 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> I've only started this thread in the attempt to get independent data.
>
> It's been just over a week since achieving certainty. None of the uni's
> are responding to my crank emails, for some strange reason.
>
> Perhap
m:* Frank Grimer <88.fr...@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 1, 2018 5:33 PM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Successful Mechanical OU
>
> No, no, no.
>
> On 1 June 2018 at 21:15, Terry Blanton wrote:
>
> Grimes, Damn autocorrect.
>
> On Fri,
Jun 2, 2018 at 8:52 PM, Nigel Dyer wrote:
> Its already been built and generating copious amounts of energy, or at
> least that is what they claimed it would do...
>
> http://rarenergia.com.br/
>
> Nigel
>
>
>
> On 31/05/2018 18:27, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> I&#x
gt;>>
>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 4:11 PM Terry Blanton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018, 1:42 PM Vibrator ! wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> @Chris - Weird, reminiscent
@Chris - Weird, reminiscent of some kind of frame-dragging effect, or
'remanence' of the Higgs field? Sounds pretty whack either way, but hey
who am i to talk..
The effect i'm using is utterly pedestrian and unremarkable in every way,
except for the net result. It really is just a matter of force
The simulator (WM2D) ultimately assumes that coordinate space itself is
'stationary', and since the excess momentum is sunk to this, it can't be
measured at the moment. So the system has to be simmed in relation to a
mobile point-source for the applied force - such as a horizontally-f
this type of toy could go viral. people
> would buy it just to understand how it could work. Try the toy industry.
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> @John - cheers mate, like i say, i have indisputable proof-positive
>> already, it's just a ques
>> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:15 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>
>>> correction: Ideally film the construction
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:13 PM, John Berry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi vibrator. The "right" people are hard to fine.
>
ely WANT to share it. But while a pot
to piss in would also be nice, ethics and safety come first.
A uni visit WOULD seem the best way to start.. i just don't see how i can
even reach that first hurdle, is all. Nobody with their head screwed on
would or should have the slightest inter
I've always been of the same opinion... up till now.
The thing is, a real model is inherently suspect - defeating its ostensible
purpose. Batteries and motors can be hidden, etc.
Suppose you surround your build with meters. Meters for everything.
Meters FOR the meters. All cross-referencing pe
I've found Bessler's gain principle. The energy density's obviously
'infinite', and power density's limited only by material constraints.
A propulsion application is also implied, but not yet tested.
I've put together some WM2D sims, independently metering all component
variables of the input /
https://phys.org/news/2017-11-theoretical-quark-fusion-powerful-hydrogen.html
ions become relevant down
there, and i am partial to the notion of an active vacuum.. but all angels
and pinheads to me i'm afraid..
On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 6:20 PM, bobcook39...@hotmail.com <
bobcook39...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It seems Vortex-l has a new voice in Vibrator!. It fits
The torque is undoubtedly a thermal / radiative asymmetry between upper
(warmer) and lower (cooler) sides of the levitated sphere.
However even if it's due to the random, turbulent airflow caused by the
temperature gradient and evaporation, it's rectifying to consistent
momentum the same way a pin
The motion is powered by the applied current, explained in the synopsis.
Ie. input energy is converting to work. The anisotropy is a material,
structural or reactive property, not a fundamental field property.
Obviously there is chiralty and 'handedness' in nature, but what i was
attempting to ad
Curl and divergence of B are zero. Maxwell's own metaphor of "vortices"
for dipoles is literally shown to be inaccurate by the theory. Likewise,
there is no such thing as "field lines" inherent to the field, and their
formation is purely a feedback effect from dynamically self-organising
dipole c
e its absence.
The argument that a claimed non-classical thruster can't work because it
would violate classical laws just seems kinda redundant.
On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 5:55 PM, Stephen A. Lawrence
wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2016 12:46 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> What's wr
wrote:
>
>
> On 12/29/2016 12:31 PM, Vibrator ! wrote:
>
>> Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of
>> their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of
>> physics" - is surely re
Offering the implied presence of classical symmetry breaks as evidence of
their impossibility - ie. "it can't be right because it'd break the laws of
physics" - is surely redundant; the claim is explicitly a classical
symmetry break, that's its whole prospective value, and reason for our
interest.
Interesting thoughts from Jones here - certain viscosity effects result in
systems with time-dependent net energies - and negative hysteresis losses
would indeed be OU, since the "induced" B field would be automatically
changing under zero applied H field, and a freely-alternating
(time-varying) fi
> BTW, I uploaded a video of another realization of this cw spinning
> experiment at
> https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA
>
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *Vibrator !
> *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re:
s cw spinning
> experiment at
> https://youtu.be/-XKbRrea-CA
>
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *Vibrator !
> *Date: *Wed, Mar 23, 2016 23:15
> *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com;
> *Cc: *
> *Subject:*Re: [Vo]:Obtained stable magnetic bound state of locked counte
e of
> magnets spinning in same direction as 'counter gearwise'. He hed obtained
> cgw with a composite magnet assembly apperently self running. I had
> obtained cgw with two diametrically polar. magnets and I recall I reported
> on vortex. But on this floating magnet setup magnets sp
nshaw doesn't apply, but the combination of levitation and
counter-rotation is still cool.. would make for a neat executive toy..)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Vibrator ! wrote:
> What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically
> polarised (poles on opposite fa
What are the relative polarities - are they axially or diametrically
polarised (poles on opposite faces or same face)?
Assuming axial magnetisation and that both are common permanent magnets,
the floating weight is levitated by reuplsion in apparent defiance of
Earnshaw's theorem (since, per Farad
the desk i knock it off, so does that
PE's corresponding relativistic mass fluctuate as i move it around?
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:28 AM, David Roberson wrote:
> -Original Message-
> From: Vibrator !
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Tue, Mar 15, 2016 10:32 pm
> Subject: R
es and infinities. Which doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong
of course, but should set alarm bells ringing..
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:42 AM, H LV wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:32 PM, Vibrator !
> wrote:
> > That's conflating relativistic mass with rest mass.
is being
performed by the spent energy. One can only assume it is from this frame
that Shawyer resolves the anomaly. He calculates the correct amount of
thrust for the expended PE and simply ignores the anomaly from the
non-inertial frame...
On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 9:05 PM, wrote:
> In reply t
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
