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 least a number of the FE and AG devices to numerous to list? Is your aether largely entrained by matter? Assuming it is how can it be motivated to flow through matter? If it is what effects will occur, will spins be aligned? Will fields (magnetic, electric, spins/torsion) of the matter be carried on the aether. If the aether is compressed what will happen? (many experiments indicate antigravity results) And how could the aether be compressed? Is acceleration/deceleration relative to the aether the source of inertia? Can matters coupling to the aether be changed? I seriously don't think you have answered any of these questions. It seems all you do is explain the mundane. On 3/3/07, John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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 first I have heard of your theory. But what good is a theory? What experimental evidence is it based on and how does it help us develop this tech? (don't answer too soon I'm going to take a quick look over your pdf's. (evil format btw) http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf > > > > You believe matter can be created? > > http://www.16pi2.com/files/APM-Construction-of-Universe.pdf > > > > You want mathematical proof that the Aether Physics Model is correct? > > http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_binding_energy_equation.pdf > > > > What more do you need? Do you expect me to single handedly answer every > question anybody could ask about physics? Do you expect me to design and > build every possible free energy device and make it available through > Wal-mart? There is only so much a person can do, especially when they are > dirt poor. > > > > I don't get involved with the discussions because the cynics don't care > and those seeking the truth don't listen. > > > > Dave > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty > > > > 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 believe > that energy can't be created, nor would it be true to say that apparent > energy production has ever been observed, nor would it be true to assert > that energy creation is illogical or unsupported my the equations, the > opposite it true - doubters, I invite you to challenge me on that) or > possibly liberated from some near infinite storehouse of energy. > > There is ample evidence of course and all the 'needles' are pointing in > the same direction creating a coherent picture as to how this works. > > Most of the rest of Vortex seems more interested in arm chair stuff > regarding various forms of nuclear energy, and math to prove what can't be > done. (only to ignore math that proves it can be done) > > IMO there are only 2 things that are of any use in this area, #1 is > researching as many devices as possible (difference there is you and many > others may assume many are 'defective' without reason) to get an > understanding of what is going on. > Let the correlations, the anomalies and clues paint a picture, resist > projecting an image of how they work and just let the data speak to you. > > 2# Experiment, though IMO to be likely to experiment successfully > (unless you just have the knack as some do) you should take what you have > learned from #1. > Also unless you have some idea, some understanding of how it works (not > theory but observation of phenomena and inescapable conclusions) and some > interest in learning more you aren't creating a new branch of physics, just > a curious device. > > 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. > > I believe in a fluid aether (actually of the 3 possibilities: SR, static > aether and dynamic aether only the last one is logical or sensible, SR is > impossible and a static aether little better) which is the key to > Antigravity and Free Energy. > > The interesting thing about that is I was strongly opposed on both > counts (any link between FE & AG and the existence of a fluid aether) but > the evidence when you really honestly look is overwhelming and inescapable. > > We don't need to be looking more selectively, we need to be looking from > a greater distance to get the overall picture. Just look at all the > evidence, only you may not see the connections you expected, I didn't. > > You can't get to new land by using old maps, you can't use old physics > based on impossibilities to do what it considers impossible. > What I'm saying isn't crazy at all, simply follow the evidence and > remember it doesn't have to make sense to you, it just has to make sense. > > Realize that the limits man has placed have always been in error, indeed > the beliefs of every age are shown to be wrong so put less weight in the > limits of your thinking and the current consensus and more on the evidence. > (and go find interesting evidence) > > Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't > possible trumps the evidence I'll never know. > > /rant > > On 3/2/07, *Michel Jullian *<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 other resources, not a question > of believing or not (no sensible person can doubt that alternatives to huge > tokamaks are possible for abundant clean energy). > > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Berry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com > > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 8:39 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty > > > ... > > Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling > the > > glass or emptying it? > ... > > >
