COP 17 Heater | Rosemary Ainslie | Part 2

[ashtweth]

No answer yet from Glen? In the absence of such I'll assume it's OK. I'll try and get these posted over the weekend if I can't manage it sooner.

I've had a bit of a set back and am still smarting. The Professor who I wrote to, above, is a phsycist. He advised me that he simply 'does not believe' that we acheived those numbers. He stated that we've made a 'measurements' error and it is entirely 'improbable' that the test results are anything like the disclosed.

I countered that - in the event there was a 'clear' error in measurement then this would have been seen by the electrical engineering experts and that they would not have hesitated to point it out to us. I advised him that their expertise in measurement is greater than his own. He conceded this. Nonetheless. He is ADAMANT. There MUST be a measurements error. He BELIEVES that there is a measurements error. On this basis he will NOT do anything at all to recommend the advancement of the technology.

It seems that 'belief' is still the predominant factor in the evaluation of ANYTHING AT ALL. I had the dubious satisfaction of stating that this is NOT SCIENTIFIC based as it is on 'belief'. He put the phone down on me.

I shall complain about this attitude to the Dean of the Faculty and to the Assistant Registrar of the university. Personally I think this attitude is a disgrace and it should NOT BE ADVANCED BY ANY ACADEMIC PURPORTING TO TEACH SCIENCE. Surely there is some moral imperative that experimental evidence is still the 'acid test' of science.

I remember saying that due to the nature of the device and lack of knowledge on FREE energy from the faculties, that it would take 3 independent replications to present the full case or they will simply say its a measurement error.

Glen's Rep, H's and hopefully ours soon will be all the open source community needs to stand behind Glen's results. Funny how i said that was going to happen Rose, months ago, maybe people will listen to me now, WITH OUT REPLICATIONS YOU CAN DO ANOTHER STEORN AND HAVE TO DO THIS ALL AT THE GRASS ROOTS LEVEL. i FEEL LIKE A PARROT . Glen's results are revolutionary AS WE CAN REPRODUCE THEM. The Value in H and Glen is un matched, again we will apply this to prove our point.

Ash

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi b4FreeEnergy, i as well share your concerns. It seems almost everywhere else in this world this kind of intervention of supposed derogatory, whatever ones definition if that is, words are allowed and almost encouraged, but by some miracle, here where every word may have value and was admitted to be so, they still wiped messages away. Very concerning to me, though not surprising in this world thus far. You cannot force good behavior and retroactively editing definitely should be a concern to all here. Carry on.
peace love light
Tyson

[SkyWatcher]

one more thing, words inherently do not harm, its the actions and choices caused by such words that do harm, but not the words themselves. Therefore, it is up to each of us to decide what actions and choices we take based on others words.
peace love light
Tyson

[witsend]

...a thread will be self-regulating in the end anyway.
...it’s not that nobody reacted on such things and there was no change in behavior. Now it’s not even possible to read it all again and make up your own mind. Some pieces are still there, some are wiped away. Some people saved what was there already off-line, etc, etc...
A really thin line to walk on!
Best regards,B

Hi B,
I think we were all given 'fair warning'. If you want a 'copy' of the thread I have it on file and can send it to you.

I think the 'rule' that was followed here is that damning allegations were deleted together with the defence against those allegations. It regressed into a squabble that was somewhat infantile and about as destructive as a bar brawl. Contributing members end up 'punch drunk' or 'knocked senseless'. And I see no advance of science or progress of anything at all under such circumstances. Also. This forum more than any other is a 'haven' for the advancement of 'free energy technology'. That this thread was salvaged is a tribute to that intention. Good gracious. Just look at what goes on on other forums and elsewhere in society. We need this protection. And it is a real comfort to find that we can depend on it here.

And I entirely endorse the 'fair handed' way that this was dealt with. You will note that as many of my posts were deleted as were others. But nothing is precluded from discussion. We are, however, earnestly advised to 'discuss' rather than squabble. And while there is absolutely NOTHING that we are precluded from discussing, what is prescribed, as I understand it, is the quality of that discussion.

[witsend]

I remember saying that due to the nature of the device and lack of knowledge on FREE energy from the faculties, that it would take 3 independent replications to present the full case or they will simply say its a measurement error.

...Funny how i said that was going to happen Rose, months ago, maybe people will listen to me now, WITH OUT REPLICATIONS YOU CAN DO ANOTHER STEORN AND HAVE TO DO THIS ALL AT THE GRASS ROOTS LEVEL. i FEEL LIKE A PARROT...

Ash

Hi Ash,

Of course you're right. Golly. You always are. But your exposure to all things 'anti' free energy is profound - given the sheer volume in time and effort that you've applied here. An example to us all Ash,. And it's a blue print that I don't think any of us could manage. Certainly not without those rare insights that come from an almost encyclopedic knowledge of the history of these technologies and their massively inappropriate resistances.

On the plus side, however. While there is one member of one campus that is refusing to 'believe' anything at all related to Glen's unequivocal results or my 'quivocal' (is there such a word?) LOL - he's only ONE. For the last 3 months I've seen academics look to these claims with more interest and less antagonism that I've ever managed. And that is entirely due to the fact that the test was replicated and done under such taxing and stringent test conditions. And with such flair and panache. On the whole - resistance has been crumbling. Such a pleasure to note this. I'm still inclined to believe in the 'impartiality' of the MOST of our esteemed professorial contingent. They just need to be younger and less entrenched in 'beliefs'. LOL.

[b4FreeEnergy]

Hi B,
I think we were all given 'fair warning'. If you want a 'copy' of the thread I have it on file and can send it to you.

Hi R, if you have a copy yes please send it to me. Don’t forget to ‘zip’ it and DON’T password protect or you will be offending rules again…

I think the 'rule' that was followed here is that damning allegations were deleted together with the defence against those allegations. It regressed into a squabble that was somewhat infantile and about as destructive as a bar brawl.

There is no better description for it but now the story is not complete anymore, certainly not for somebody new to the thread and starting from scratch. There were argues between you and other people and there were probably good reasons. The world and the rest of the thread readers may know that and make up their own opinion about it. Now it is like that happily married couple next door that never has a fight, never any arguments only roses, moonlight and endless love. Maybe we should wear pink glasses as well?

Anyway, I rest my case here but I still don't think it is a good idea to 'clean' the thread and I hope the carrier pigeon arrives one of these days.

Cheers,
B

[witsend]

Hi R, if you have a copy yes please send it to me. Don’t forget to ‘zip’ it and DON’T password protect or you will be offending rules again…

LOL. Not sure how to zip it but will ask. I'll try and get this to you by this evening. And I was given certain guarantees on delivery. I think by the 2nd May? Let me know.

So excited B. You must post us results - GOOD OR BAD. Can't wait.

Bart, I've just sent you a zipped file. Let me know if you get this.

Edited

[witsend]

Guys - this is a link that was given by Suchayo on another thread. Fascinates me as it is precisely what my thesis is pointing to. There are differcences - but minor. This is really well written.

Correa PN, Correa AN
Exp Aetherom, Series 2, Vol. 2A, 11:1-36 (November 2001)

[AS2-11 cover]


From Descartes' Plenum of subtle matter defined by its luminous character, through Spinoza 's Light and its effects of Colour and Shadow, to the classical electromagnetic theory of a luminiferous aether and modern ZPE theories, the problem of the Aether has always been posed as inseparable from that of Light, the action and transmission of Light. This often entailed a direct reduction of the concept of the aether to that of Light - as is the case with Spinoza -or to that of the electromagnetic field - as is the case with ZPE theories. The situation with Descartes is different, as with Maxwell and Lorentz, because here an implicit division is made between the Aether as support system and Light as either a corpuscular or an undulatory event. It was this concept of an aether as a support of Light which SR made superfluous, 'liberating' Light in the form of an electromagnetic field of constant speed for all inertial mass, and converting all Matter into opaque forms of Light. Thereby, however, Light retained its primacy in physics and natural philosophy. One can contemplate GR as an attempt to eliminate this lingering primacy of Light in SR, by making Light heavy and thus subject to conditioning by the gravitational field, with the result that the gravitational aether becomes a geometric structure where the null intervals of Minkowski Spacetime become the curved geodesics of GR's Spacetime.

But making Light heavy is only a way of either attributing the Dark (fuscum subnigrum) to Matter (as was done with the missing mass) or reducing it to a geometry of Light. The only philosopher to seize the Dark as the matrix from which Light and Colour emerge, was Leibniz. His approach to the problem of the vacuum ("there is no vacuum") and his contention in First Truths that neither Space nor Time are things but multiplicities of a continuum that cannot be divided into points, intimate that the fundamental property of a Plenum is not Light but Darkness.

The Aetherometric Theory of Synchronicity (AToS) takes up Leibniz 's contention that the aether is not Light but the Dark, which alone explains how Light emerges when the Dark interacts with Matter to confer motion to it. We review Reich 's orgonometric theory of Light, and in particular his concept of an underlying aether excitation wave. Reich 's theory is seen as a precursor to the aetherometric concepts of Light and the Dark. AToS suggests that Light is only a secondary pathway whereby energy returns back to the Dark. The Light spectrum is subdivided into discontinuous (ionizing) and epicontinuous (blackbody) portions, because only the latter results from the interaction of Matter with the Dark, while discontinuous Light results from the disintegration of Matter. But the Dark itself is not homogenous, being split in kind between life-beneficial energy (OR)and life-inimical energy (DOR). AToS holds that the Dark understood in this way designates the electrically ambipolar massfree radiation that serves as one of the major components of the Aether. It is this radiation which, through secondary superimposition, condenses massbound charges, and interacts with the latter to confer to them electrokinetic energy that, once shed, gives rise to blackbody photons which return the energy back to the medium. The nature of the underlying Dark continuum, and its very split in kind, becomes thereby reflected in the biochemical and biophysical nature of blackbody Light, which AToS splits into HFOT (high frequency optothermal - true blacklight) photons and LFOT (low frequency optothermal) photons. HFOT Light is indicative of an underlying DOR action just as LFOT Light is a sign of OR activity. It is the epicontinuous spectrum of Light that betrays the structure of the actual continuum of the electric aether. If the problem of Light is not separable from the problem of the aether, of the Dark, the latter, in turn, is not subsidiary to the problem of Light. As demanded by Leibniz, we must think the Dark independently from Light - as much as from Matter, even if it is the Dark that links both Light and Matter and transmits the excitation waves that produce Light. This Dark is in a permanent state of motion; it is a subtle imponderable energy that carries no mass. One of the major challenges this process of conceptualization poses to AToS is the understanding that the Dark does not just consist of electrically ambipolar massfree radiation. Free electric wave energy forms an electric continuum with definite frequency limits, but this continuum in turn is only a differentiated part of a much greater aether energy continuum formed by nonelectric massfree energy that one may designate as latent - because its 'heat 'is insensible and thus invisible, or because it appears, to modern physics at least, to lack any physical characteristics. The challenge that future presentations will pose is the experimental identification of the physical characteristics of latent aether energy, and of the differentiation process that produces electrically ambipolar massfree energy.

Thanks for this Suchayo. I'm blown away by these guys. Are the brothers?

[admin]

Things said in this thread were not always nice and beautiful but what I always wonder in such ‘intervention ‘cases is: “who will be the judge”?
Will it be the administrator just because he’s the administrator and based on what, his infallible judgment? How do you choose between something that is ok and something that is not ok? When is it censure and when is it well done? I was not always happy about the ‘style’ used in this thread but I don’t have a good feeling about those interventions either, a thread will be self-regulating in the end anyway.
If anything written or posted here can be wiped away just like that how can you ‘trust’ this site and will it be any better than government ‘secretizing’ I don’t know what? People sometimes differ in opinions and sometimes it gets rough but that’s part of it. It’s not that nobody reacted on such things and there was no change in behavior. Now it’s not even possible to read it all again and make up your own mind. Some pieces are still there, some are wiped away. Some people saved what was there already off-line, etc, etc...
A really thin line to walk on!
Best regards,
B

Hi B,

To answer your questions:

“who will be the judge”?

The Forum Admins. There are four of us.

based on what, his infallible judgment?

Based on our FALLIBLE application of the Forum Guidelines, colored by our Mission and Statement of Faith

How do you choose between something that is ok and something that is not ok?

Forum Guideline Specifically our application of -

Questionable posts that threaten to disrupt the purpose, flow and good nature of this forum will not be tolerated.

messages that could be considered offensive, inflammatory or that are aimed at starting problems with other members.

When is it censure

We do not censure.
cen·sure play_w2("C0196100") (snshr)n.1. An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.
2. An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.

tr.v. cen·sured, cen·sur·ing, cen·sures

We do censor whenever we see a post not complying with forum guidelines.

cen·sor play_w2("C0195600") (snsr)n.1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.



when is it well done?

Hopefully every time.


how can you ‘trust’ this site

You can trust that anything posted will stay posted unless it violates forum guidelines.


will it be any better than government ‘secretizing’ I don’t know what?

Since the government uses much broader strokes to censor than our simple forum guidelines, to us, the conclusion is yes, it is better.

It is really not so thin a line. It is pretty simple. Disagreements (such as what I am expressing with you right now) criticisms, etc. are fine, even needed sometimes to break through to a new level of exploration. HOWEVER, they need to be conducted in a manner that is respectful/not personally insulting a member...it is pretty easy to challenge concepts/ideas/findings without denigrating an individual member on a personal level.

We, the Admins, take full responsibility for letting so many posts that were inflammatory go. We should have caught it much earlier and then the conversation could have continued without the personal insults.

This was our fault, we simply were not watching, and we apologize.

for your questions!

[witsend]

Guys - for those that are interested. Here's the thing about current flow. Forces, such as gravity or electromagnetism or the strong nuclear force - are ascribed to a field. The thing about a field is that it is considered to be 'smooth' or consistent in all its parts. Typically mainstream see a 'messaging' system between the 'field' and visible matter, this controlled by virtual particles - or nuances. These are particles that have a brief life span that lasts for brief fractions of a second up to I think it is 18 minutes - something in that order - which latter example is the neutron's anticipated 'life span'. In any event. The lifetime of the proton, the electron, the photon and the neutrino are considered, by contrast, to be infinite.

If there is a weakness in my arguments, and I'm sure that there are many, it is invariably because I'm a dogged literalist. Whatever. I cannot see that a photon is the required 'messaging' particle in the electromagnetic interaction. Gluons for the strong nuclear force and bosons for the weak - are different. They've been seen. Gravitons for gravity? That's still to be proven because they - unlike gluons and bosons, have not been seen. They're still theoretical. But photons are NOT. They are known and measurable. While photons or 'light' may be evident and as associated with 'heat' and the 'heating' of resistors and elements, it is yet possible to run an electric current without the emission of any light or heat at all. The average copper wire in electric circuitry can stay at ambient regardless of a current flow within that wire. Where then is there this evidence of these photons?

Wiki definition of electrons assures us that an electron cannot 'share the same path' as another electron. They are inherently repulsive. This was first pointed out by Pauli and formed the basis of his exclusion principle. So profound was this insight that it enabled the systematic development of the periodic table which covered the full range of both known and yet to be found atoms. And that development stands as a remarkable tribute to classical physics and the 'predictability' thereby enabled by such insights.

Whatever is the basic 'material' of current it cannot therefore be ascribed to the flow of electrons. This is simply used as a 'concept' to enable an understanding of current flow. It is NOT IN ANYWAY to be associated with the actual flow of electrons. This wide 'misconception' is acknowledged by most physicists but, unfortunately, is not taught within most engineering departments. Current flow DOES NOT comprise the flow of electrons.

[sucahyo]

Thanks for this Suchayo. I'm blown away by these guys. Are the brothers?

I am glad you find it usefull. They are husband and wife.

Check their tesla coir experiments too.

[sucahyo]

Current flow DOES NOT comprise the flow of electrons.

That may depend on what people think about what electron really is. Some may think that your zipon is electron.

[witsend]

That may depend on what people think about what electron really is. Some may think that your zipon is electron.

Hi Suchayo. Husband and wife? golly. I need to read up more. Is there any more comprehensive access to their work through the internet?

I don't think the electron can be confused with the zipon. If the zipon exists it is a magnetic dipole. The electron is always negatively charged. But I agree that the mass of the zipon - outside of the 'field' could very well make it a lepton - possibly bigger. That's for the boffins to determine.

[sucahyo]

.

Hi Suchayo. Husband and wife? golly. I need to read up more. Is there any more comprehensive access to their work through the internet?

Yes, Aetherometry, the Science of the Metrics of the Aether contain many free files and their abstract.

[witsend]

.

Yes, Aetherometry, the Science of the Metrics of the Aether contain many free files and their abstract.

Thanks very much. I'll check it out.