No offense, but IMHO this conversation is silly and a waste of time. I
generally prefer to converse with people at Vo that are primarily interested in
research geared toward generating so-called "free energy." Are you are working
on such research? If it's fine with you, lets try and put an end to this
conversation. See my comments below.
David Thomson wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>> No, my definition of thugs is people working for the cause to suppress
> technology considered dangerous in the hands of terrorists or rogue
> countries such as Iran or North Korea.
>
> You mean like machine guns, hand grenades, and nuclear bombs?
No.
> And what business do you have providing
> technology to rogue countries in the first place?
I am researching technology that would move energy contained in ambient
temperature as a source of usable power.
>> If that breaks your laws of physics then so be it.
>
> What does it matter to you whether it breaks my laws of physics?
This needs clarification since it makes no difference to me if it breaks your
laws of Aether physics. No offense, but for the moment I have zero interest in
an Aether theory.
> It's the establishment you need to impress with your extensive knowledge, not
me. If
> you claim to have new technology, you need to show the science behind it
> does not violate any known laws of physics and adds something new that we
> didn't know before.
People often confuse technology, theory, and interpretation of a theory. My
primary focus is on designing a so-called "free energy" machine based on
magnetic avalanche theory. It's my goal to design a machine that is
self-running, provides appreciable continuous usable power, and requires an
appreciably small amount of energy to start such a machine. That is a
technological goal. Second focus is to explain the technology in terms of physics.
> Certainly your "new technology" doesn't have anything
> to do with using a battery in a new way, upside-down for example. What do
> you think you could possibly have figured out that hundreds of thousands of
> top minds working directly for the military haven't already thought of?
I see that as fuzzy logic. There always has and will be individuals that make
breakthroughs in technology, theories, etc. etc.
> Unless you have found a new way to quantify physics, or added new laws, you
> haven't got any "new technology."
I see that as fuzzy logic. Individuals have and will continue to develop new
technology based on present physics theories.
>>> You ought to be careful; you are starting to sound like a conspiracy
>>> theorist with an imaginary agenda.
>
>> No, I go by the laws of probability.
>
> And the laws of probability prevents you from sounding like a conspiracy
> theorist because...? It didn't catch that. You're still sounding like a
> conspiracy theorist.
Allow me to clarify. I place high probability the U.S. government would try and
prevent new technology that could easily lead to weapons of mass destruction. I
place high probability there are highly intelligent people within the U.S.
government. I place high probability such intelligent people are attempting to
prevent such technology.
>> Are you the guy with the Aether theory of everything?
>> If so then when are you going to start on the list provided in another
> thread?
>
> Are you telling me what to do? Would you like me to tell you what to do?
>
Please take a look at what you replied to. Both of my statements were
questions. My two questions did not tell you what to do.
Regards,
Paul
