The bistander thread

[bistander]

Hi Bi,

Exactly!, that is the point!

Basically We "stir up" an existing Field which starts a series of "perturbations" which goes beyond our generating system Space...invoking exterior energies into it, (from never, never land)

Thanks

Ufopolitics

Hey Ufo,
If you're interested, I stumbled onto a knowledgeable opinion on the subject. See reply #326 here:

https://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?topic=3718.msg82432;topicseen#msg82432

Good luck.
bi

[Ufopolitics]

Like examples of magnetic energy being entrained into electrical circuits or electrical energy being entrained into magnetic circuits. Maybe the right kind of field feedback can flip the axis of rotation 90 degrees in whatever direction wanted. Permanent magnets just keep on putting out for a long time.

Hello Lotec,

It is NOT about "entrained" Electric and Magnetic Fields, or Combining them.

The Principle am talking about is about Particle acceleration, where "the particle" is an Electron Beam and the "Acceleration" is achieved by a High Voltage Electric Field (Positive side) provides the Electron Beam to accelerate towards the Positive end.
Then I use Magnetic Fields JUST to deflect beam in a specific pattern, but NOT Necessarily this Magnetic Field is located within the HV Electric Field Space.
A Coil will Collect all the electricity stirred...or the Aether Perturbated.

It is not that complicated at all.


Regards



Ufopolitics

[lotec]

Hi Ufopolitcs, Thanks for further explaining your idea and clearing that up for me. When trying to rationalise things, I tend to run with the ball, and quite often in the wrong direction.

It sounds interesting, and will be following

Thanks Bi for the link, I had time to skim the last couple of pages on that thread, and am looking forward to going back there to follow up more closely on some of the links and ideas there.

Regards

[bistander]

Hey Ufo,
Still there? Found something for you:
310px-Cat_demonstrating_static_cling_with_styrofoam_peanuts.jpg From the caption:

"The electric field of the charge causes polarization of the molecules of the styrofoam due to electrostatic induction,"

Reference:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_field

and:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_induction

I have a question...and I will put it as simple as possible:
Do you think it is possible to achieve an Electric Field Induction?
No Magnetic Field involved on this Induction at all.

So the authors of that wiki article say yes to your question.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

Turion,
This issue about acceleration is irrelevant to operation of the generator in the expected application that is a constant source of power for a household or such. It is much like your magnetic neutralization and speed-up with load which are also irrelevant to operation. That's why I try not to argue about those because they don't matter. I was just trying to correct a false statement you made hoping you'd learn something from me, or Sir Newton.

Regards,
bi

bi,

You say acceleration of a heavier rotor is irrelevant to operation of a generator because when it is constantly running, the need to get it up to speed is irrelevant. You discount the fact that unless you CAN get it up to speed it is just going to SIT THERE and do nothing. And using a small motor to turn a heavy rotor will burn that motor up. You look out a window and sees a single tree , ignoring the entire forest around it. Everything affects everything else. If you burn up the motor trying to get the heavier rotor up to speed, what will you use to maintain that constant speed? So the fact that a heavier rotor requires a larger amp draw from the motor IS CRITICAL to a successful build despite what YOU attempt to argue.

You claim you never said that speed up under load or magnetic neutralization are worthless as I have claimed you said. The term you used is "irrelevant", so once again you choose to argue semantics rather than meaning. What you intended to portray is that neither of those concepts make any difference to the output of the generator. Once again, looking at a tree and ignoring the forest. You say magnetic neutralization is irrelevant to operation of the generator. In your "restricted view", perhaps. Magnetic neutralization DOES however, reduce SIGNIFICANTLY the amp draw of the motor TURNING the rotor, allowing the rotor to turn at a higher RPM on the same input, thus producing significantly MORE output for the same input. It also reduces the input to the motor since the motor can turn at the required RPM's for fewer amps. Thus reducing the overall input to the system. More output for less input. Significant? I think so.

You say speed up under load coils are irrelevant to the operation of the generator. In your restricted view, perhaps. Coils that are wound correctly outrun Lenz. They neither speed up NOR slow down the motor. Unlike the coils in the video you use to "debunk" speed up under load coils which DO speed up the motor and therefore output LESS than they are capable of. Which YOU claim proves your point. I have said MANY TIMES that you do not WANT the coil to speed up the motor when under load because that is NOT giving the maximum output from the coil, yet this is the evidence to disprove its benefit? Correctly used, they outrun Lenz, which means there is no additional amp draw from the motor to overcome Lenz, so the motor can run at a higher speed on the same input thus producing more output FROM THE GENERATOR for exactly the same input TO THE MOTOR. Less amp draw from the motor means the motor requires less input to run at the exact same RPM. More output for less input. Significant? I think so. If the guy in the video had reduced the input to the motor until the coil was neither slowing the motor NOR speeding it up, he would have seen that the outputs of the two coils were the same, because the coil would be at its MAX output.. BUT input to the MOTOR with the "speed up under load coil" would be REDUCED at that point. He had to SLOW IT DOWN. Remember? Which means reduced input for the same output. THAT is its benefit.

These are all FACTS bi. That you choose to ignore them is laughable. People much more knowledgable than YOU, with much more experience in generator development and design have seen them and are implementing them in prototypes. But you keep on staring at that tree while the forest grows up all around you.

[bistander]

bi,

You say acceleration of a heavier rotor is irrelevant to operation of a generator because when it is constantly running, the need to get it up to speed is irrelevant. You discount the fact that unless you CAN get it up to speed it is just going to SIT THERE and do nothing. And using a small motor to turn a heavy rotor will burn that motor up. You look out a window and sees a single tree , ignoring the entire forest around it. Everything affects everything else. If you burn up the motor trying to get the heavier rotor up to speed, what will you use to maintain that constant speed? So the fact that a heavier rotor requires a larger amp draw from the motor IS CRITICAL to a successful build despite what YOU attempt to argue.

You claim you never said that speed up under load or magnetic neutralization are worthless as I have claimed you said. The term you used is "irrelevant", so once again you choose to argue semantics rather than meaning. What you intended to portray is that neither of those concepts make any difference to the output of the generator. Once again, looking at a tree and ignoring the forest. You say magnetic neutralization is irrelevant to operation of the generator. In your "restricted view", perhaps. Magnetic neutralization DOES however, reduce SIGNIFICANTLY the amp draw of the motor TURNING the rotor, allowing the rotor to turn at a higher RPM on the same input, thus producing significantly MORE output for the same input. It also reduces the input to the motor since the motor can turn at the required RPM's for fewer amps. Thus reducing the overall input to the system. More output for less input. Significant? I think so.

You say speed up under load coils are irrelevant to the operation of the generator. In your restricted view, perhaps. Coils that are wound correctly outrun Lenz. They neither speed up NOR slow down the motor. Unlike the coils in the video you use to "debunk" speed up under load coils which DO speed up the motor and therefore output LESS than they are capable of. Which YOU claim proves your point. I have said MANY TIMES that you do not WANT the coil to speed up the motor when under load because that is NOT giving the maximum output from the coil, yet this is the evidence to disprove its benefit? Correctly used, they outrun Lenz, which means there is no additional amp draw from the motor to overcome Lenz, so the motor can run at a higher speed on the same input thus producing more output FROM THE GENERATOR for exactly the same input TO THE MOTOR. Less amp draw from the motor means the motor requires less input to run at the exact same RPM. More output for less input. Significant? I think so. If the guy in the video had reduced the input to the motor until the coil was neither slowing the motor NOR speeding it up, he would have seen that the outputs of the two coils were the same, because the coil would be at its MAX output.. BUT input to the MOTOR with the "speed up under load coil" would be REDUCED at that point. He had to SLOW IT DOWN. Remember? Which means reduced input for the same output. THAT is its benefit.

These are all FACTS bi. That you choose to ignore them is laughable. People much more knowledgable than YOU, with much more experience in generator development and design have seen them and are implementing them in prototypes. But you keep on staring at that tree while the forest grows up all around you.

Hi Turion,

Facts?
Like things you make up?
You say:
"If the guy in the video had reduced the input to the motor until the coil was neither slowing the motor NOR speeding it up, he would have seen that the outputs of the two coils were the same, because the coil would be at its MAX output.. BUT input to the MOTOR with the "speed up under load coil" would be REDUCED at that point. He had to SLOW IT DOWN. Remember?"
I, in fact, don't remember it that way. So I checked the video. He did NOT adjust the input and his results were the same for standard coil and bifilar coil. Both loaded to 10 watts resistive, both showed 280 watts input on killawatt meter and both at 1728 RPM +/- 2 RPM. Input and output were equal and speeds were the same within 0.1%.

Screenshot_20200624-174429.png

Back to the other crap you just threw out here, most generators are not even brought on-line until they settle to synchronous speed and operate at that speed continually. There is no acceleration of rotor under normal operation. It is constant RPM. Therefore, per Newton's laws, mass is irrelevant.

I never said that mass would not affect power required to change speed of the rotor. I made that clear from the beginning. And so does Isaac Newton.

You told everyone you'd have tests and proof on your generator by January 6, 2020. Almost 6 months later, still, you show nothing. You never will.
Regards,
bi

[BroMikey]

ignoring the entire forest around it. Everything affects everything else. If you burn up the motor trying to get the heavier rotor up to speed, what will you use to maintain that constant speed? So the fact that a heavier rotor requires a larger amp draw from the motor IS CRITICAL to a successful build despite what YOU attempt to argue.

You claim you never said that speed up under load or magnetic neutralization are worthless as I have claimed you said. The term you used is "irrelevant",

. But you keep on staring at that tree while the forest grows up all around you.

When I did these experiments during last school year if the rotor was speeding up a bunch the output would drop to 15ma and if I went back a few terminals to reach the exact point of the NULL there was no speed up but the coil went from 15ma to 70ma at the same 40vdc range.

BYE doesn't experiment, yer barking up the wrong tree. Of course at these low power levels peeps would wonder why I spend my time on it since it won't power the house (10,000 watts) Maybe a game of bridge sounds better to them.

Bye's generation is hard to reach, not much left upstairs.

[Turion]

bro,
You and I both understand that a the guy in the video wasn't comparing apples to apples. You actually have to do the experimenting to understand these facts. The guy in the video has done some great testing and I really appreciate his information on using ferrite cores, but he is still trapped in a box and is trying to force the facts to meet his expectations instead of letting the facts SET his expectations.

Hi Turion,

Facts?
Like things you make up?
You say:
"If the guy in the video had reduced the input to the motor until the coil was neither slowing the motor NOR speeding it up, he would have seen that the outputs of the two coils were the same, because the coil would be at its MAX output.. BUT input to the MOTOR with the "speed up under load coil" would be REDUCED at that point. He had to SLOW IT DOWN. Remember?"
I, in fact, don't remember it that way. So I checked the video. He did NOT adjust the input and his results were the same for standard coil and bifilar coil. Both loaded to 10 watts resistive, both showed 280 watts input on killawatt meter and both at 1728 RPM +/- 2 RPM. Input and output were equal and speeds were the same within 0.1%.


Back to the other crap you just threw out here, most generators are not even brought on-line until they settle to synchronous speed and operate at that speed continually. There is no acceleration of rotor under normal operation. It is constant RPM. Therefore, per Newton's laws, mass is irrelevant.

I never said that mass would not affect power required to change speed of the rotor. I made that clear from the beginning. And so does Isaac Newton.

You told everyone you'd have tests and proof on your generator by January 6, 2020. Almost 6 months later, still, you show nothing. You never will.
Regards,
bi

bi,

You're correct, the speeds for BOTH coils in the video were EXACTLY THE SAME. That is my point and you missed it entirely Possibly that's MY fault because my explanation wasn't clear enough. BECAUSE he ran the "speed up under load coil at the SAME speed as the other coil, it wasn't outputting to its MAXIMUM potential. He needed to slow the motor down so that the "speed up under load coil" was neither increasing the speed of the motor NOR allowing LENZ to inhibit the speed of the motor. If he had done that, as I have done many, many, many times, he would have seen the MAXIMUM output of the coil, which would have been the exact SAME output as the single filler coil at a LOWER MOTOR RPM. BUT, if he SLOWED THE MOTOR to accomplish this, the INPUT to the motor would have been LESS, while the output of the two coils would have been exactly the same. THAT is my point, and it is a FACT.

He had to SLOW IT DOWN. Remember?" I, in fact, don't remember it that way. So I checked the video. He did NOT adjust the input and his results were the same for standard coil and bifilar coil. bi

When I said "He had to slow it down, remember? I was talking about my example. In my example HE HAD TO SLOW IT DOWN to get the speed up under load coil's maximum output. When you slow the motor down to get the maximum output of the coil, you have LESS INPUT to the motor. If you will notice, that is the EXACT SAME THING bro Mikey has seen on the bench and points out in the post above.

As to the argument over Newton, go back and look at my original statement. I said the larger rotor would require more amps, and you jumped all over that. The larger rotor DOES require more amps, and you cannot dispute that. I INCLUDE the fact that it requires more amps to get a larger rotor up to speed. YOU EXCLUDE that fact to sound impressive and attempt to prove yourself superior, which you decidedly are not. LOL.

As to not showing anything on my generator., I have showed SEVERAL people that the magnetic neutralization works. I have showed several people that the NEUTRAL Tesla coils can power a load without affecting the performance of the motor. I have shared videos of these FACTS. I just haven't shared them with YOU. LOL. There are people who are posting on the forum RIGHT NOW who have seen these videos. I just haven't made them available to the general public per my agreement with Aaron. Oh, and the visitor who came to Greyland's shop saw that both of those things; NEUTRAL coils and magnetic neutralization, are of benefit. One he has already developed BEYOND what I have done, and the other he will be incorporating into his generator design.

I promised Aaron I would not post videos of inputs and outputs until after the conference. And there is still a possibility I may make a trip up there at some point to do a video. But sooner or later all this is going to become mainstream. And a lot sooner than I would have expected only a month or so ago.

[bistander]

bi,

You're correct, the speeds for BOTH coils in the video were EXACTLY THE SAME. That is my point and you missed it entirely Possibly that's MY fault because my explanation wasn't clear enough. BECAUSE he ran the "speed up under load coil at the SAME speed as the other coil, it wasn't outputting to its MAXIMUM potential. He needed to slow the motor down so that the "speed up under load coil" was neither increasing the speed of the motor NOR allowing LENZ to inhibit the speed of the motor. If he had done that, as I have done many, many, many times, he would have seen the MAXIMUM output of the coil, which would have been the exact SAME output as the single filler coil. BUT, if he SLOWED THE MOTOR to accomplish this, the INPUT to the motor would have been LESS, while the output of the two coils would have been exactly the same. THAT is my point, and it is a FACT.



When I said "He had to slow it down, remember? I was talking about my example. In my example HE HAD TO SLOW IT DOWN to get its maximum output. When you slow the motor down to get the maximum output of the coil, you have LESS INPUT to the motor,

As to the argument over Newton, go back and look at my original statement. I said the larger rotor would require more amps, and you jumped all over that. The larger rotor DOES require more amps, and you cannot dispute that. I INCLUDE the fact that it requires more amps to get a larger rotor up to speed. YOU EXCLUDE that fact to sound impressive and attempt to prove yourself superior, which you decidedly are not. LOL.

As to not showing anything on my generator., I have showed SEVERAL people that the magnetic neutralization works. I have showed several people that the NEUTRAL Tesla coils can power a load without affecting the performance of the motor. I have shared videos of these FACTS. I just haven't shared them with YOU. LOL. There are people who are posting on the forum RIGHT NOW who have seen these videos. I just haven't made them available to the general public per my agreement with Aaron.

I promised Aaron I would not post videos of inputs and outputs until after the conference. And there is still a possibility I may make a trip up there at some point to do a video. But sooner or later all this is going to become mainstream. And a lot sooner than I would have expected only a month or so ago.

Turion,
All smoke, mirrors and BS from you. All the crap about magnetic neutralization, speed-up under load, and multifilar coils does nothing to prove your claim of greater output power than required input power.

I never said your little tricks were worthless. I just say they don't contribute to power and efficiency at load operating as a power generator, therefore irrelevant when it comes to proof of your claim. Possibly those tricks have value somewhere else, so I don't say and have never said they're worthless. I really don't care about your magnetic neutralization and speed-up under load. Those are straw man arguments by you because you can't back up your claimed performance.

BTW, I think that fellow's video does an excellent job at debunking Thane's claim to fame and also demonstrates what's behind what you see with your version of coil design, which is creating excessive power dissipation at no-load which subsides under load giving those naive observers the illusion of something beneficial. You don't recognize it. I don't care. It doesn't enter into the useful power equation no matter how much you talk about it. Just prove your over-unity (free energy) claim, please.
Regards,
bi

[bistander]

...
As to the argument over Newton, go back and look at my original statement. I said the larger rotor would require more amps, and you jumped all over that. ...

Really you should go back and look at the original statement. You said "heavier" not larger.

[Turion]

It was heavier BECAUE it was larger. And as usual, you are wrong about everything. LOL. How much are you paid to spout the crap you spout? I'll say this much... you certainly are determined to hide the truth from people. I hope you are proud of yourself.

And the TRUTH is that both magnetic neutralization and outrunning Lenz work and have been PROVEN to work. Which means a small motor with just enough input to turn the rotor is free from both the magnetic drag of the coil cores and the negative influence of Lenz. This allows you to add as MANY coils around the rotor as you want until you get to the power output you desire with very little increase in the amp draw of the motor. It is not a “little trick” it is a FACT. If you see no value in that you are blind and really not worth anyone’s time. The best part is, others have seen this now, so YOUR attempts to discredit and debunk have failed. The horse is finally out of the barn and there is no locking it back up.

[bistander]

It was heavier BECAUE it was larger. And as usual, you are wrong about everything. LOL. How much are you paid to spout the crap you spout? I'll say this much... you certainly are determined to hide the truth from people. I hope you are proud of yourself.

And the TRUTH is that both magnetic neutralization and outrunning Lenz work and have been PROVEN to work. Which means a small motor with just enough input to turn the rotor is free from both the magnetic drag of the coil cores and the negative influence of Lenz. This allows you to add as MANY coils around the rotor as you want until you get to the power output you desire with very little increase in the amp draw of the motor. It is not a “little trick” it is a FACT. If you see no value in that you are blind and really not worth anyone’s time. The best part is, others have seen this now, so YOUR attempts to discredit and debunk have failed. The horse is finally out of the barn and there is no locking it back up.

"been PROVEN to work."

Show me, prove, any little trick of yours which actually produces more output power than required input power on a sustained basis. You can NOT. Prove the claim you made publicly years ago that your device (generator) outputs 1800 watts while requiring less than 300 watts input.

"hide the truth from people."

You speak of truth but you promote a falsehood. I promote science and fact. That's the truth.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

bi, You are not in charge. As my daughter used to say to my son, "YOU are not the boss of me." YOU are nothing more than a small man with an opinion, who won't build it himself so has no way of knowing whether my claims are real or imagined. It is your OPINION that it cannot work. It is my opinion that it does based on the tests I, and others, have run over the past several years. Have YOU done those tests? No, you have not. You must point to the incomplete work of OTHERS to attempt to support your positions, because you have no work of your own to support them.

Are you incapable of building a coil that puts out 120 volts at 1.5 amps? I doubt that EVERYONE here is. If that is possible, then having a generator with 12 of them on it is possible. Which is what I have. MOST generators would have a problem turning a rotor past those coils because of Lenz, and because of magnetic drag, so would see no benefit. I have showed how to do it for little cost in amp draw by the motor. No increased amp draw because of Lenz, and no increased amp draw because of magnetic drag, which you insisted goes away at speed and does NOT. Everything I have shown is easy to verify or disprove, yet you have disproved NONE of it. WHY? Because you build nothing. You contribute nothing. You advance nothing. You discover nothing. Your only contribution is as some self appointed "defender of the truth" Where is your cape and your mask? YOU have no idea what the truth is, so instead you defend your "opinion."

Here are some simple questions for you bi.
Is there a drag on the motor turning the rotor caused by the rotor magnet moving past a coil with an iron core when the motor is turning the rotor at the motor's rated rpm for the input voltage. Yes or no?
If so, can that drag be neutralized? Yes or no?
Is it possible with a coil wound in the Tesla manner to turn the rotor fast enough to outrun the negative effect of Lenz? Yes or no?
Can a Tesla wound bifilar coil put out the same volts and amps as single filler coil does? Yes or no?
Is the required rpm, therefore the INPUT TO THE MOTOR the same to achieve the same output from both coils? Yes or no?
Can a coil be wound to output 120 volts at 1.5 amps with a rotor containing 12 magnets spinning past it at 2800 RPM? Yes or no?

The problem is, you have NO IDEA, because you haven't built anything like this, so you depend on crap you have read or things you have heard for your "opinion." All you have is opinion. I have an actual machine that I can test. Just because I am not sharing those results with YOU doesn't mean they haven't been shared.

And by the way, what "falsehood" or LIE is it that I am promoting? Thats an easy one. Even YOU should be able to come up with SOME kind of an answer to that one.

But just for fun bi, here's some data for your. Still no inputs and outputs, but data that magnetic drag exerts a tremendous COST on the efficiency of generators that I have eliminated in my design through the use of magnetic neutralization.


Constant voltage of as close to 36 volts as I could get running off a power supply.

Turning just the motor. 4200 RPM at a cost of 1.3 amps

Turning just the rotor 3800 RPM at 7.7 amps

With 4 coils in place 3533 RPM at 12.53 amps

So with four coils in place I lose almost 300 rpm which reduces the output of ALL the coils as generator coils. That's a 7% LOSS in production with just FOUR coils in place.
With four coils in place, the amp draw goes up almost 5 amps and increases the COST of running the machine 61%. And that's with just FOUR out of the twelve coils in place. Still think eliminating the drag is just a "little trick" that doesn't affect the output of the machine? You know less than NOTHING about what is possible.

I have given you the data that PROVES what I say is true. Is that the proof you want? NO. Of course not. You will never be satisfied, nor will you ever admit you are just WRONG.

[bistander]

bi, You are not in charge. As my daughter used to say to my son, "YOU are not the boss of me." YOU are nothing more than a small man with an opinion, who won't build it himself so has no way of knowing whether my claims are real or imagined. It is your OPINION that it cannot work. It is my opinion that it does based on the tests I, and others, have run over the past several years.Have YOU done those tests? No, you have not. You must point to the incomplete work of OTHERS to attempt to support your positions, because you have no work of your own to support them.

Are you incapable of building a coil that puts out 120 volts at 1.5 amps? I doubt that EVERYONE here is. If that is possible, then having a generator with 12 of them on it is possible. Which is what I have. MOST generators would have a problem turning a rotor past those coils because of Lenz, and because of magnetic drag, so would see no benefit. I have showed how to do it for little cost in amp draw by the motor. No increased amp draw because of Lenz, and no increased amp draw because of magnetic drag, which you insisted goes away at speed and does NOT. Everything I have shown is easy to verify or disprove, yet you have disproved NONE of it. WHY? Because you build nothing. You contribute nothing. You advance nothing. You discover nothing. Your only contribution is as some self appointed "defender of the truth" Where is your cape and your mask? YOU have no idea what the truth is, so instead you defend your "opinion."

Here are some simple questions for you bi.
Is there a drag on the motor turning the rotor caused by the rotor magnet moving past a coil with an iron core when the motor is turning the rotor at the motor's rated rpm for the input voltage. Yes or no?
If so, can that drag be neutralized? Yes or no?
Is it possible with a coil wound in the Tesla manner to turn the rotor fast enough to outrun the negative effect of Lenz? Yes or no?
Can a Tesla wound bifilar coil put out the same volts and amps as single filler coil does? Yes or no?
Is the required rpm, therefore the INPUT TO THE MOTOR the same to achieve the same output from both coils? Yes or no?
Can a coil be wound to output 120 volts at 1.5 amps with a rotor containing 12 magnets spinning past it at 2800 RPM? Yes or no?

The problem is, you have NO IDEA, because you haven't built anything like this, so you depend on crap you have read or things you have heard for your "opinion." All you have is opinion. I have an actual machine that I can test. Just because I am not sharing those results with YOU doesn't mean they haven't been shared.

And by the way, what "falsehood" or LIE is it that I am promoting? Thats an easy one. Even YOU should be able to come up with SOME kind of an answer to that one.

Hi Turion,
Let's stick with the "one": You claim your device, a generator, will deliver output power of 1800 watts while using less than 300 watts. That is impossible, therefore a falsehood. You make the claim. Burden of proof is on you. Period.

All the rest from you is besides the point. What I talk about and promote is real science and fact with hundreds of years of application and millions of proofs. What you've done is to make a public claim of something which is quite remarkable. Man up and stand behind your words.

I've addressed lots of those questions before only to be ridiculed when I am relaying very solid scientific evidence and fact. I don't intend to waste more time doing it again. It's here in the record. I haven't deleted my old posts. They stand, as true today as they were when I wrote them.

Regards,
bi

[Turion]

Not impossible. Therefore not a falsehood. Just your opinion. No proof that it is false at all. I have showed exactly WHY it is possible, yet you claim these "Facts" are nothing but tricks. Again, your opinion. I provide evidence, data, in support of these facts, and you disregard it. The data is not "Beside the point" The data IS the point. It hasn't been done before because people didn't understand the principles that make it possible. Just like people said flight was "impossible" until they understood the principles that made it possible. If you were in charge we would never have learned to fly. If you continue to adhere to the old ways it will NEVER be possible for you. And since that is the "science" and the 'truth" you support, good luck.

You are wrong about something else. There is no burden of proof on me just because I made a claim. I am allowed to present information, which is what I have done. What you choose to do with that information is up to YOU. Don't blame your failure on me.

The thing about your posts is that they are as incorrect today as they ever were, and you have learned nothing. Or at least you PRETEND to have learned nothing.