Vacuum triode amplifier - Floyd Sweet
in [Design]
|
Prev: uav matlab model
Next: power meter project
From: gabydewilde on 9 Sep 2009 17:16 On Sep 9, 5:29 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > which is energy, which is conserved. > Earth is the center of the universe! Heavier than air flying apparatus are impossible! When will you grow up and stop asserting bullshit? God is the almighty creator! Hallelujah!! Your imaginary energy construct is really something that doesn't exist. Then you also want to pretend it is conversated. What bullcrap! ROFL! The pretend game ends here. Prove the assertions, put up or shut up. Don't let your feelings of inferiority, your fear of the unknown and your child hood problems stand in the way. We all know you have a personality disorder, you have problems with logic and you don't know which side is up. Everyone agrees your brain is a stool. Science like that - eh?
From: gabydewilde on 9 Sep 2009 17:18 On Sep 9, 5:27 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > >Fer sure. And we'll send the CIA around to gather it and you up for > >"testing". > > Cool. I've always wanted to ride in a black helicopter. > You will be tested and tried out on location.
From: gabydewilde on 9 Sep 2009 17:24 On Sep 9, 10:05 pm, Rich the Philosophizer <philosobphi...(a)example.net> wrote: > > I first heard of Bearden and his "zero point generator" decades ago. > > In fact, the concept is so popular, it's used on Stargate Atlantis. > > But if it's possible, howcome he hasn't demonstrated anything? > Perhaps you need to look a bit more before making conclusions? Just a thought.
From: John Larkin on 9 Sep 2009 17:34 On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 14:16:52 -0700 (PDT), gabydewilde <gdewilde(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Sep 9, 5:29�pm, John Larkin ><jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> which is energy, which is conserved. >> > >Earth is the center of the universe! Heavier than air flying apparatus >are impossible! When will you grow up and stop asserting bullshit? God >is the almighty creator! Hallelujah!! > >Your imaginary energy construct is really something that doesn't >exist. Then you also want to pretend it is conversated. What bullcrap! >ROFL! > >The pretend game ends here. Prove the assertions, put up or shut up. COE is one of the axioms of physics. It's been tested millions of ways to all the measurement resolution available, and there have been no counter-cases. Some versions of string theory claim to prove it from more fundamental axioms. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy All it would take is one counter-case, one zero-point machine that actually works, to break the axiom. Go for it. Have you taken any serious physics courses? Are you in high school yet? John
From: gabydewilde on 9 Sep 2009 20:25
On Sep 9, 11:34 pm, John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > > All it would take is one counter-case. No you prefer the horse behind the carriage. You want to argue you don't have to look at anything because of your assumption. This applies to all previous non investigations. Your beloved theorem has been an erroneous assumption from day one. The millions of proofs you assert actually do not exist. They cant exist because closed systems do not exists. If you would respect the theorem you would apply it properly: The theorem merely suggests you should be looking for the source of the energy. It doesn't contain any excuse to be ignorant. Ignorance does not make proof. Truth by omission is not truth at all. On wikipedia Extremist and fringe sources we read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Extremist_and_fringe_sources "Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudo-academic, or extremist may only be used as sources of information about those organisations or individuals. An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded. Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance." * Here we keenly observe non mainstream views equated with extremism. * Here we keenly observe character assassination before investigation is the mainstream method. * Here we keenly observe how ignoring the evidence is evidence of ignorance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_energy "In physics, the zero-point energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical physical system may have and is the energy of the ground state." * Here we keenly observe Energy asserted to be "the ground state"[sic] * We furthermore observe how your free energy gestapo deletes all references it doesn't like using the Nazi rhetoric described above. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zero-point_energy&oldid=303621228#Proposed_Free_Energy_Devices "A German scientist has claimed to of successfully harnessed a small part of the zero-point electromagnetic vacuum fluctuations from space to mechanically propel a rotor, surmounting bearing friction. QED theory as well as successful experiments (tested in high-partial vacuum conditions inside a vacuum chamber to exclude ion wind thrusting) are mentioned in many publications.[9] The operating principle of the device can be partially explained by the Casimir force in connection to the scientist's theory that zero-point fluctuations from space can be influenced by electric and magnetic fields in the same manner normal electromagnetic waves can." * Here we keenly observe how observable facts enjoying many citations and theoretical explainations can still be referred to as "A CLAIM" The sources provided: http://philica.com/advancedsearch.php?author=223 You don't have to question reliability because by your logic this is terrorism. Verification and Conversion of the Energy of the Zero-point Oscillations of the Vacuum http://public.rz.fh-wolfenbuettel.de/~turtur/physik/ Definite Proof for the Conversion of vacuum-energy into mechanical energy based on the Measurement of Machine Power http://philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=155 References 1. Turtur, C. W. (October 2007). Two Paradoxes of the Existence of electric Charge. arXiv.org/abs/0710.3253 2. Turtur, C. W. (February 2008). A Motor driven by Electrostatic Forces. PHILICA.COM, ISSN 1751-3030, Article number 119 3. Turtur, C. W. (June 2008). Conversion of vacuum-energy into mechanical energy. The General Science Journal, ISSN 1916-5382 4. Turtur, C. W. (Dez. 2008). Conversion of Vacuum-Energy into Mechanical Energy under Vacuum Conditions. PHILICA.COM, ISSN 1751-3030, Article number 141 5. Giulini, D. and Straumann, N. (Sept. 2000). Das Rätsel der kosmologischen Vakuumenergiedichte und die beschleunigte Expansion des Universums. arXiv:astro-ph/0009368 v1 6. Tegmark, M. (July 2002). Measuring Spacetime: from Big Bang to Black Holes. arXiv:astro-ph/0207199 v1, Slightly abbreviated version: Science, 296, 1427-1433 7. Riess, A. G. et. al. (May 1998). Observational Evidence from Supernovae for an Accelerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant. arXiv:astro-ph/9805201 8. Tonry. J. L. et. al. (May 2003). Cosmological Results from High-z Supernovae. arXiv:astro-ph/0305008 9. Goenner, H. (1996). Einführung in die Spezielle und Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie. Spektrum Akademischer Verlag, ISBN 3-86025-333-6 10. Pauli, W. (2000). Relativitätstheorie. Nachdruck im Springer- Verlag, ISBN 3-540-67312-1 11. Schröder, U. E. (2002). Gravitation. Verlag Harri Deutsch, ISBN 3-8171-1679-9 12. Wheeler, J. A. (1968). Einsteins Vision - Wie steht es heute mit Einsteins Vision, alles als Geometrie aufzufassen ? Springer Verlag 13. Lindner, A. (1997). Grundkurs Theoretische Physik. Teubner Verlag, Stuttgart. ISBN 3-519-13095-5 14. Mandl, F. and Shaw, G. (1993). Quantenfeldtheorie. Aula-Verlag, Wiesbaden. ISBN 3-89104-532-8 15. Turtur, C. W. (May 2008). A magnetic rotor to convert vacuum- energy into mechanical energy. PHILICA.COM, ISSN 1751-3030, Article number 130 16. Jackson, J. D. (1981). Klassische Elektrodynamik. Walter de Gruyter Verlag. ISBN 3-11-007415-X 17. Becker, R. and Sauter, F. (1973). Theorie der Elektrizität. Teubner Verlag. ISBN 3-519-23006-2 18. Turtur, C. W. (April 2008). Conversion of vacuum-energy into mechanical energy: Successful experimental Verification. PHILICA.COM, ISSN 1751-3030, Article number 124 19. Brown, T. T. (Nov. 1928). A Method of and an Apparatus or Machine for Producing Force or Motion. U.S. Patent No. 300,311 20. Brown, T. T. (June 1965). Electrokinetic Apparatus U.S. Patent No. 3,187,206 21. Turtur, C. W. (September 2008). A QED-model for the Energy of the Vacuum and an Explanation of its Conversion into Mechanical Energy. PHILICA.COM, ISSN 1751-3030, Article number 138 22. Solomon, D. (2003). Some remarks on Diracs hole theory versus quantum field theory. Can. J. Phys. 81: 1165-1175 23. Solomon, D. (2005). Some differences between Diracs hole theory and quantum field theory. Can. J. Phys. 83: 257-271 24. Solomon, D. (2006).Some new results concerning the vacuum in Diracs hole theory. Phys. Scr. 74, 117-122 25. Xue, S.-S. (2001). Possible vacuum-energy releasing. Physics Letters B 508 (2001) 211-215 26. Xue, S.-S. (2003). Magnetically induced vacuum decay. Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 013004 27. Chubykalo, A. E., Pope, V. and Smirnov-Rueda, R. (1999). Instantaneous Action at a Distance in Modern Physics: Pro and Contra. Nova Science Publishers. ISBN-13: 978-1-56072-698-9 28. Beitz, W. and Küttner, K.-H. et. al.(1990). Dubbel - Taschenbuch für den Maschinenbau , 17.Auflage. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 3-540-52381-2 "All it would take is one counter-case" - John Larkin ta-ta Total score: John Larking: No score, disqualified Gaby de Wilde: Good points, strong arguments. Extra points for style and truthery ___ http://blog.go-here.nl |