Follow by Email

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

the inconvenient truth relating to our philosophies on science


The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
   Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
   Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Omar Khayyam

If we could see gravitons we’d know everything about gravity.  If we could see electrons we’d know everything about electricity.  If we could see the interaction of particles with each other then we’d know everything about the strong and weak nuclear forces.  We can’t see them.  We can’t even see an atom.  And we certainly can’t see the forces to explain them.  We can only speculate.  And when and if we do speculate then we’re no longer being scientific.  We’re being philosophical. 

The confusions that have been visited on this noble art of science is based on the philosophical reach that science is now trying to usurp.  A scientist does not have the disciplines of logic that are required for philosophy any more than a philosopher has the required acuity of observation and measurement that a scientist has.  The difference is only in this.  A philosopher does not, as a rule, dabble in science.  But our scientists are shamelessly dabbling in philosophies.  And it is all being done with such disgraceful parade of poor logic that, in the fullness of time, these last pages of its history are likely to remain as a source of more than a little embarrassment.   Whole chapters of scientific progress – based on nothing but pure speculation and the accidental use of concepts that partially work and partially don’t work.  And all of it presented with a kind of intellectual flourish – a parade of self aggrandisement that would rival the pride of Lucifer himself. 

What I find disgraceful, what is entirely inexcusable is that all this bad logic is hidden behind an obscure, in fact, an entirely incomprehensible techno-babble.  Terms are presented as acronyms and all is justified in the language of algebra.  Complex equations drift into ever greater complexities that would confuse God himself.  And all is intended simply to hide the manifold confusions that actually bedevil science itself.

It is possibly understandable that our experts feel required to explain ‘all’.  But these explanations are drifting into realms of obscurity  that have nothing to do with reason or logic or common sense or indeed science or philosophy.   It has simply become pretension.  What’s euphemistically referenced as theory is actually just  obscure gibberish masquerading as deep intellectual knowledge.  It makes the toes curl.   One must be ‘trained’ in science – of necessity.  It is not meant to be understood - certainly not as propounded by our experts.  Their intention is to flaunt a familiarity with complex abstractions.  And to own up to a lack of understanding would be to let the side down – to somehow admit to the disgrace of not actually being able to see the emperor’s new clothes. 

Let’s explore some of the confusions – let’s actually focus on the bare facts - on some of those manifold contradictions which our mainstream experts defend.  Starting with current flow.  Now.  We all know that electrical engineering is the applied knowledge of the electromagnetic force – so ably unfolded by Faraday and quantified by Maxwell.  And so widely applied in today’s technological revolution.  Our satellites, our trips to distant planets and more to come.  Our internet – our computers – our – cars – our measuring instruments, and on an on.  Examples of their skills are evident everywhere.

And yet.  Amongst all those able, those skilled engineers – the vast majority will insist that electricity is the result of electrons moving through their circuits in the form of current flow.  No matter that Pauli’s insights depended on the simple fact that electrons do not share a path. No matter that we have never been able to get electrons to move in the same direction without forcing them by the application of some very real energy.  No matter that electrons have a like charge and we could not get them to co-operate with each other in a shared environment any more than we can get to souths of two magnets to co-operate.  No matter that no-one has ever found ‘spare’ electrons inside circuit wiring.

And if the glove still doesn’t fit – then try another explanation.  We are now told that the actual current flow is the result of one valence electron somehow influencing a neighbouring electron – in a kind of domino effect.    Now we’ve got over the ‘shared path’ problem and that ‘no loss of electrons’ number.  This would certainly account for current flow.  But the problem is this.  Our scientists know the speed at which one valence electron would influence another valence electron.  And it would take up to half an hour for it to travel through the average two meters of circuit wire before it would reach the light to light it or to reach the kettle to heat it.  There would be a required delay between the switching of the switch and the lighting of the light to get that process started.  But, in all other respects it could – otherwise – have been a reasonable explanation.  But it’s self-evidently spurious.   

So.  If that glove doesn’t fit then try yet another.  We all know that if electrons were the actual ‘thing’ that was transferred from our generators by our utility supply sources, then those generators would need to supply an almost inexhaustible amount of electrons that somehow turn into photons that also somehow light whole cities – all of them linked, as is often the case, to a single supply grid.  The truth is that no utility supply source would be able to access that many electrons.

So.  Again.  Another glove.  Another qualification.   We are then told that actually the electrons themselves are ‘free floating’ and they intrude into the material of the conductive wiring.  They do not come from the supply source itself.  Which also means that these electrons that are somehow detached from any particular ‘home’ – are floating about in the air belonging to no atoms – just free for the taking.  And we must now get our heads around the problem that not only is our atmosphere saturated with these previously undetected little numbers but that they can move into the circuitry – all over the place, straight through the heavy barriers of insulation which was first applied to prevent this from happening, precisely because it’s impossible for electrons to breach this insulating material.

Challenge any scientist, any chemist, on any of these points and, in the unlikely event that they continue the conversation, they will do so in a loud voice and with more than a hint of exasperation.  What gets me every time is their usual defence based as it is on the statement that I should not question ‘what has been known and used for centuries now ’.  Somehow this is sufficient justification.  And God alone knows why because it certainly it’s not logical.  I would modestly propose that in the light of so much improbability – it may be proposed that – whatever else it is - current flow is NOT the flow of electrons, nor, as I’ve seen it suggested even on these forums, the flow of protons, or ions or anything at all that belongs to the atom.  Else it would be logically evident.  And it is not.  

Then to attend to other confusions especially as it relates to gravity.  Gravity – a weak force – apparently permeates the universe and acts as a kind of ‘glue’ on matter.  It only attracts.  It never repels.  If, indeed, all began as a Big Bang – then all that energy will systematically deplete until there is a kind of Big Crunch – where all disappears into the void that proceeded that bang.  Just as the electron is the ‘carrier’ of electrical energy – the graviton is philosophised to carry the gravitational energy.  But the graviton has not been seen.  Yet all is explained as if such a particle were extant.  Millions of dollars, euros, rupees, whatever, have been spent on trying to find some evidence in the vast space time continuum around us and beyond us -  in those seemingly infinite reaches of space.

Where is the  evidence of this little particle?  Not even the faintest of faintest of these ripples has been found.  Not a whisper.  Not a shadow.  Notwithstanding which we’re assured that this lack of evidence is actually not a problem.  It is not considered to be sufficient reason to preclude the particle nor to discontinue the experiments.  We are told to ignore the ‘absence of evidence’.  A trivial requirement, a small stepping stone.  Because eventually this required evidence must surely come to hand.  And until then – and in its absence  – it is to be regarded and referenced as a FACT.  This because our philosophical scientists are no longer requiring evidence to support a theory.  It’s enough to just balance those interminable equations – those  indecipherable and incomprehensible sums.

Now.  While it is understood that gravity is attractive – and ONLY attractive to all matter – for some reason our universe is not drifting towards a Big Crunch.  On the contrary.  Space is EXPANDING. And this is now also referenced as  FACT.  It seems that it’s enough for two schools to have reached the identical conclusion to establish a new scientific reality.  No-one questions the logic that supported this conclusion.  But there’s a small caveat.  The galaxies and stars and planets are not expanding.  It’s the actual space between them that – like poor little Alice stuck inside a rabbit hole – that is actually growing ever bigger and bigger.  And all this space is expanding at a predictable rate and is responsible for systematically propelling great clumps of matter apart from other great clumps of matter – all at a consistent and quantifiable velocity. 

Those that subscribe to this new evidence are careful NOT to reference the evidence of galaxies colliding – as this would put paid to their sums.  And those that do not subscribe – carefully do not reference these same galaxial collisions – for the same but opposite reasons.  I’ll get back to this point.  But for now the point is this.  If space is expanding, and yet galaxies collide – then that expansion is either not smooth or the galaxies themselves drift through space with varying velocities that would introduce a marvel of chaos to the otherwise and seemingly ordered and structured condition of our universe.  

Then more confusions.  We are told that nothing can exceed light speed unless it also had infinite mass.  Really?  In which case does that explain why photons that have no mass are able to travel at light speed?  And then what does one do with this famous equation where E = mc^2?  If the photon’s mass is zero then zero times any value greater or smaller than 1 – remains ZERO.  Where then is all this energy that moves at photon at light speed?  The truth of the matter is that science took a wrong turn somewhere and is reluctant to ‘go back’ so to speak.  Somewhere – somehow – the answers that were given as an explanation for all the forces were also somehow based on some erroneous foundation – a flaw in its structure.  And I would humbly suggest that this may have everything to do with the need to speculate on the properties of forces that remain invisible and particles that can only be studied by inference.

One of the more intriguing obsessions of our mainstream scientists is their interest in particle manifestations.  The neutrinos are the smallest and they're also considered to be stable.  But these little numbers could just as easily been seen as a really small photon or a really small electron - and the electron neutrinos - like the electron - theoretically also has it's anti particle – its twin.  These are the only stable particles together with the photon, the electron and the proton.  And they’re considered to be infinitely stable which is a really long time.

But the thing is this.  All other particles  – whatever their frequency, their mass, their lack of it, their charge, whatever - they all last for really small fractions of time.  Their duration can be measured in terms of quadrillionths of a second - or quintillionths - and so on - getting progressively smaller and progressively more improbable.   Here's the puzzle.  For some reason when one slams one particle into another - inside a bubble chamber - then from the interaction of two stable particles comes this 'particle zoo'.  It's been described as the creation of a really complex fruit salad from a chance meeting of two fruits.   Those myriad particles that manifest for such a brief moment of time - simply decay.  They disappear back into the vacuum of space.  And the proposal is that somehow these manifest particles are the product of that interaction.  It's so energetic that it would be absurd to balance out the energies in terms of thermodynamic laws.

Matter here has multiplied -  inexplicably and exponentially.  Strawberries, plums, apricots, pineapples, grapes, quinces, oranges, apples, and on and on - from the chance interaction of a banana with a small tomato.  So our scientists put paid to that energy equivalence - that all important sum that dominates science in every other respect - and they simply look at the conclusion of that experiment – to what happens after the manifest miracle of so much coming from so little.  And in as much as the final product of that interaction is less than the manifest particles that decay - then what is left is precisely the right combination of particles which then evidence a perfect conservation of charge.  One can almost hear the sigh of relief.

No-one, notwithstanding the evidence of this manifest matter in all it's varieties and that variety is widely considered to be potentially infinite - not one of them have suggested that, just perhaps, they are disturbing some kind of matter in the field that holds these particles.  Why is this not considered?  Could it not be that in the moment of interaction all that becomes manifest may be those particles in the field that were first invisible - and after impact, become visible - and then they decay?  That way - and only in that way - would they be able to argue conservation of anything at all.

This is the blind spot, the weak spot - the Achilles heel of our scientists.  There is an evident need or a compulsion to uphold to one inviolate truth regardless of how well it fits with the evidence.  According to mainstream -  energy cannot be created.  And NOTHING can exceed light speed.  My own question is this.  How would we be able to measure anything at all that exceeded light speed?  In our visible dimensions light is the limit to our measuring abilities.  It's the gold standard.  Actually it’s all we’ve got.  We’ve nothing smaller and nothing faster to compare it against.  If anything moved at faster than the speed of light then light itself would NEVER be able to find it.  It would, effectively be invisible. 

Which brings me round to my favourite topic and to another 'inconvenient truth' - to borrow a phrase from Al Gore. Around about the time when Heisenberg and Bohr were forging the foundations of Quantum mechanics, Zwicky, a Polish immigrant to America - saw something that was only enabled by a new found access  to new and improved telescopes.  What became evident were galaxies, in the millions, where prior to this there was nothing beyond our Milky Way Galaxy.  And what was also evident was that the mass measured in the galaxies, was simply NOT enough to hold those galaxial structures together.  If gravitational principles were to be universally upheld - then by rights - those great big star structures should have unravelled or should be unravelling.  Neither was evident.  He then superimposed the requirement for what he called 'missing matter'.

Over time those early results have been systematically ratified and refined.  In effect - many scientists - our leaders in the field of astrophysics - have proved, conclusively that galaxies themselves are held bound by what is now referred to as dark mass - from what is proposed to be dark energy.  In effect -  they've uncovered a new - hitherto unknown FORCE.  No longer are there four forces.  There appears to be every evidence that there is this fifth force - and like a fifth column - it's well hidden but pervasive.  But the new and insuperable puzzle is this.  It's invisible.  Yet it's everywhere.  And we have no reason to doubt this evidence.  Our scientists' ability to measure and observe is unquestionably exact.  But, and yet again - they then make yet another nose dive into yet another explanation for the inexplicable.  All around are frantically searching for its particle - the 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'.  We are back to an Alice in Wonderland world - looking at an upside down reality - a bizarre universe that must first and foremost, obey any and every rule that our mainstream scientists propose - no matter their inherent contradictions.

Why should the particle be visible?  Is this still to do with the obsessive requirement to disallow faster than light speed?  Are we getting ready set, go - to confuse the hell out of another hundred years or more of theoretical physics - simply to adhere to relativity concepts?  Has the time not come - with respect, where we can concentrate of 'field' physics and explore the implications of this - rather than impose a 'field' condition on known particles that none of them are able to constitute a field.  No known stable particles are able to move together.  Electrons and protons are, effectively, monopoles.  Neutrons decay within twenty minutes.  Photons irradiate outwards and can only share a path when their rays are deflected unnaturally.  Nothing known is capable of sustaining a field condition.  So WHY do our learned and revered insist on imposing a standard particle construct on a field?  It is the quintessential condition of forcing a square peg into a round hole - of fitting one incorrect fact into another incorrect fact - in another endless circular argument.  Again, with respect, has the time not come, in fact LONG overdue, to revisit - not so much our answers, which are increasingly shown to be incorrect - but to revisit our questions about physics?  I personally, think that time would be well spent in exploring the conditions required for a sustained field.  And I think the evidence now is overwhelming that the field itself holds matter - and, for obvious reasons, this unhappy, this uncomfortable, this inconvenient truth - needs to be fully explored.  Just perhaps a whole world exists out there that remains out of touch of our actual realities.  It leads - we follow.  It proceeds in one time frame - and we interact with it in another time frame.  That way - just that one small inclusion into our theoretical constructs - and we would be able to reconcile so much with what is evident.  I suspect it's our aether energies - and reference to this has now been long been considered to be politically incorrect.  Perhaps the time is now that this poor, abused concept be revisited and revitalised by our theoreticians.  Certainly we may then salvage some logical coherence that is entirely exempt in current thinking.

a little known fable


Again, dear reader, I submit another account of the atttempted theft of knowledge that has been put in the public domain.  Like the previous exercise - it's submitted as a faithful account of my experience on the forum.

Once upon a time a rat pack boarded a ship that claimed to supply FREE FOOD FOR ALL - FOREVER.  The rats themselves were sceptical and talked amongst each other saying 'how so?' and 'could this be true?'.  To gain a full understanding of such an extraordinary truth they flattered the ship's captain saying that he was 'graciously bountiful' and 'remarkably beneficent' to make this a free gift available to deck hands, and passengers alike.  And 'could the captain please show them, the rat pack the art required to liberate this 'free food for all forever' technology?  The ship's captain relied on open source technology to ensure that prior knowledge of the art would not be violated.  He then took the rat pack through a step by step recipe and - in the fullness of time - the rat pack learned the 'trick' required for precisely this liberal liberation of so much natural bounty.  Whereupon the leader of the pack said  -  'This is entirely my invention.  Should any of you care to learn more then you must defer to me and refer to me and none other than me'.  He went further.  'And I alone will then take this knowledge from this ship to many ships.  And while I'm thus busily engaged, while I'm AT it, let me assure you - in which ever expedient way I wish it, I will fabricate lies and bend the truth that those many ships know that this ship's captain knows not whereof he speaks.'

Where upon the rats left the ship - thinking that they had now gnawed a hole in the bows of that ship that would make it sink.  In this they were ill advised.  In the immortal words of Conrad - 'who would have thought that there was so much float' left in that little ship?


The good ship BOUNTIFUL under the stewardship of CaptainYou’reOnYourOwn was left bobbing around on a cruel sea.  Water gushed in at a gaping hole where the Rat Pack had breached its bows.  The brave crew on board called out for assistance from other ships within hearing distance.  But all such calls were ignored.

In the fullness of time CaptainYou’reOnYourOwn was drenched by the waves that spilled over the bows of the ship.  Chilled to the quick the captain was no longer able to steer the good ship and the remaining crew appropriated the lifeboats and said their farewells to their former leader.  The good captain went down with the ship and the crew signed treaties with the ratpack that now had wrested possession of the secrets to the freefoodforever technology. 

That’s a lot of ‘f’s.


copyright registered and belonging to Captain You’reOnYourOwn  aka CaptainYOYO

more about the troll


Dear Reader, 
This is simply being copied over to ensure that there is record - lest this too be removed from Scribd.  It's a faithful account of some of my experience with a member of a forum.  It is my opinion that this gentleman, and I use the term in its broadest and loosest sense, is actually trained in psyops or has some considerable knowledge related to this.



Written for the sincere student in the art of trolling. 
I’ve been accused of being a troll.  Not that anyone could take it seriously.  But it’s an interesting proposition.  It got me thinking.  The troll is an ugly little subhuman who hides under bridges.  When the unsuspecting cross the bridge the troll jumps out and eats them.  So.  It’s used as a term for those who lurk through the internet forums looking for an unsuspecting innocent to make a careless remark. Or not.  The reason for the attack is never the issue.  But it’s usually where the Troll shows off his hunting skills.  He’s looking for his ‘daily bread’.  A bit of  breakfast.  Ego food.  Anyway.  He finds his target, jumps out from under cover and then  systematically ‘chews’ the poor bastard to death. The winner is always the troll.  Of course it is.  He’s the predator and he zaps his prey. Fortunately most forums know the troll and he’s got a limited ‘staying power’.  Needs to keep changing his ‘hunting ground’.  The usual consequence is that he’s banned – sooner or later. 

But what about the ‘SUPER TROLL’?  He’s the butterfly fresh and wet from his cocoon.  The miracle metamorphosed from an ugly little grub.   Here we come into a category where the troll has sloughed off his bad looks – his uniform.   He has learned to seem charming, friendly, courteous, all knowing,  Even - a man of God!  No longer a horned version of Mephistopheles – or even Jabba the Hut.  He looks and sounds normal.  Would NOT stand out in a crowd.  Would NOT loiter under bridges.  Now – IF I were such a person – then – WHY, WHERE, AND WHAT and – for that matter HOW would I troll?

To begin – lets look at the ‘why’ and the ‘where’.  Perhaps I’m paid by some cartel – maybe an oil producer – or even some Government agency.  I therefore spend my waking hours ‘lurking’ in forums to look for competitive and exploitable technologies - and I actually get PAID for this.  Really easy money.

But – by the same token – perhaps I’m simply a religious zealot.  All I want to do is make sure that  no ‘solution’ results to stop the march of chaos that’s been biblically prophesied.  That way my redemption is secured and paradise advanced.  And ‘blow’ the consequences.  If humans die by the billion – in that desirable cataclysmic end of time event?  Well.  They’ve asked for it.  They had it coming.  They were warned.

Or maybe I do this just ‘because’.  Just for the Hell of it.  I do not like to litter my path with ‘sweetness and light’.  I want darkness.  Lots of it.  I want alarm and despondency.  I want to take people to the gates of Hell and tell them – like Dante –  to ‘ABANDON HOPE’.  Perhaps I’m just naturally of that turn of mind that gets real pleasure from real pain.  Real joy from real sorrow.  Maybe I’m just a kind of contrary Dude - and proud of it.  It’s how I get my kicks. 

And maybe I’m all of the above.  But hey.  It’s a forum.  It’s tailored to the free expression of ideas and interests.  The members are usually ‘energy enthusiasts’ for goodness sake.  Which is a waste of time.  A waste of energy.  But.  There’s rich pickings in lateral thinking.  They’re absurdly dedicated to open source ALL knowledge which make all those pickings free gratis and for nothing.  Available for the taking.  And that same na├»ve nature that advances this knowledge?  Well.  It’s all just so, so easy.  One way or another.  There’s just not enough guile there.  No defence against this onward march of my will against theirs.  No ‘street smart’.   And I can do just about anything.  I can dine in – or out, or maybe even el fresco.  Or maybe a light finger supper – right here.  At my keyboard.  It’s always rich pickings. Breakfast, lunch and supper and as often as I like.  AND as much as I want.  After all – I’d be the SUPER TROLL. 

But it’s the HOW that clinches it.  Here’s where I can get really creative.  Unequalled among my peers.  Acknowledged mastermind of all HUNTING, SLEUTHING AND SUPER TROLLING.  I become the ‘blue print’.  The acme.  Others will try to follow in my path.  And they will fail.  The  troll of  trolls. So high.  So ‘up there’. Makes me giddy to think of it.

To start with I’d need to imply that I’m accredited.  Richly.  It doesn’t need to be the truth.  But what the hell.  If I string enough abstractions together in a single sentence it’ll confuse the hell out of them.  They’ll pretend to understand me.  Hell indeed.  I’d even pretend to understand myself.  I’ll teach.  They’ll listen.  And between the two of us?  Well.  It’s me laughing and it’s them … wriggling.   They’ll never own up that they have NO idea what I’m saying.  God forbid they ask me to explain this.  I’ll get huffy and point out that I’m not a teacher.  Or I am a teacher.  But they’re not that clever.  Obviously.   Duh?  Or maybe they can’t follow my particular brand of genius.  But I won’t say all this.  That would be clumsy.  I’ll only imply it.  Or I’ll waffle on about my early precocity.   Or my nobbing with the greats. Anything to advance my scurrilous pretension.  LOL.  It would be hysterically funny.  All that written nonsense and no-on daring to challenge it. 

Now.  What to do if, God forbid, someone is actually able to prove some kind of efficiency that is also measurable? AND it was predicted?  AND It’s based on a thesis?  AND there’s plenty of accreditation for those numbers.  AND  it’s grabbing attention.  Everywhere.  AND it’s getting replicated.  AND the apparatus is defined.  AND, and…and.  This situation would call for my absolute – absolute – troll genius.  But it would be a war that I’d win in small steps. 

To begin with I’d pretend to be friends with that heretic claimant.  Then I’d point out that I’m actually only friends with those that hold to my philosophy.  That way I may get an acolyte – a devotee.  For example, if I parade as a Bible Scholar – then I’d take time out to study the bible with him.  How’s that for a deception?  If I got bored with this I’d simply have to stop.  Half way.  But I’d certainly give it my best shot.  It would be REALLY neat way of asserting my superiority.  Religious converts are very malleable.  I may elbow in enough authority to tell the heretic to ‘abandon’ his quest for free energy.   CONVERT.  Be like me. 

Then.  If  this particular claimant – heretic – were also popular I’d need to kill off that popularity.   Now I’d need to use a wide variety of propaganda skills coupled with the weakness of those closest to that heretic.  That’s easy.  I’d use that little understood but well known tool.  CALUMNY.   Such a small word.  So widely under-used.  And yet so, SO powerful.  Here’s how it works.  It’s advanced through the art of ‘whispers’.  You’ll all know it once I’ve explained it.  I start by whispering something.  Quietly.  Something damaging.  Damning.  First off it’s not believed.  But then I say it again – louder.  If it’s denied –  outright?  Then I laugh.   That way no-one knows if I’m telling them something or they just think I’m joking.  But.  Here’s the thing.  That first whispered ‘something’?  It’s gold.  Very effective.  It plants a seed of doubt.

For instance.  I could tell them that the heretic is taping all calls for some nefarious purpose.  DON’T take calls from him.    On no account speak to him.  Put everything in writing.  Or perhaps I tell them that the heretic is INCAPABLE of making a discovery.  He’s too, too thick.  Too unschooled.  Too unreliable.  Or maybe I just warn them. ‘The heretic has got hidden patent rights.   He’s trying to get open source to advance applications and then he’s going to screw EVERYBODY for royalties.’  But then I also need to whisper that he’s a liar.  Not to be trusted.  Then as time goes by that seed of doubt will grow. Inevitably.  Now I can start getting positioned to move in for the kill.  The first stage is completed. 

Let’s now suppose that a replication is managed.  A full on How’s your Father – replication.  That’s a tough one.  But all is not lost.  The replicator will be proud.  Pride is usable.  So.   He’s proud of the replication.  And I feed that pride.  That’s easy.  I’d tell him that in my opinion he has not got a replication at all.  It’s a DISCOVERY.  I’ll refer to my early warning signals.  Those whispers.  I’d remind him and say ‘That heretic?  He definitely did NOT know what he was doing or saying in those early claims.  He can prove NOTHING.  Not even the accreditors are backing him.’  

You see what’s happened?  I’ve managed to convince someone that my ‘whispers’ are true.  Well founded.  Suddenly the early lie becomes a ‘preferred’ belief.  Widely held.   I’ve ‘flamed’ pride into full blown conceit and managed  – in a few easy steps - to change the course of history.  THAT, dear readers is the ‘ART OF CALUMNY’.  Never mind that early claims were in black and white and widely reported.  Never mind the obvious truth that IF there was any deliberate deception involved then those well known accreditors would have disassociated themselves from that claim.  Never mind that there is no patent – or that the motive of publishing privately or on the internet was purely ultruistic.  Never mind if the thesis is profound and advanced for purposes of furthering clean green.  None of that matters now.  This knowledge is now in the grips of a maverick – a loose cannon.  A proud replicator.  A replicator that wants MORE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.  And like all mavericks – its very likely to get the entire test results just  ‘blown’ out of the water.  This maverick wants full on GLORY.  Never to be associated with the actual inventor.  Must be fully acknowledged – every where.  No more reference to those early tests.

That’s always a good start to this kind of campaign.  And while I know that early accreditation took place as reported by that heretic  - I’ll just  pretend that I do not believe it.  So.  I continue.  I say ‘look.  Just look, if you please.  There goes that heretic imposing his thesis on your work.  The cheek of it.  The THEFT of it.  Don’t stand for this.  You the experimentalist are being duped  - and used – and little regarded.  Stand up and fight for your rights.  Do what it takes.  REMOVE your test data.  That will screw the heretic.  Run rampant through every forum where the experiment is being discussed – and flame his threads.  Get the heretic burned.  Get the threads locked.  Get her banned.’  (Did I say her?  I meant him)

And so I would INSPIRE that nascent conceit.  Get him to remove his OWN work.  Lost.  Forever.  On the internet and off the internet.  LOL.  Will definitely result in a COMPLETE burial of his own work.  His replication.  But hey.  It’ll definitely  put paid to that technology.  And.  As I see it.  They ALL have to make sacrifices.  The last thing I want is a credible test result announcing itself in page after page of data.  And about the killing off  the knowledge?  Well?  It isn’t me that removed it.  I just get the experimentalist to commit intellectual suicide.  LOL 

I’d go further.  I’d start a thread in opposition to that heretic.  I’d first pretend that it was for the advancement of scientific experiment.  Therefore is the heretic banned from this thread.  Then I’d only report on ‘failed’ experiments.   Or I’d give so little information that it would be hungry for more.  Or I’d lapse into some amazingly unscientific measurements that PROVED that there was no gain.  I’d hint that it was a DANGEROUS technology.  BEWARE.  Stay away.  Then I’d discuss any appropriate or inappropriate subject to take the emphasis away from the thread topic.  And then.  What the hell.  I’d hide that thread inside another thread.  That way I’d kill two birds with one stone.  I’d successfully hide my lack of interest in progressing the knowledge.  AND I’d have removed any reference of the experiment from the heretic’s name.  WOW.  That would be a marvel of subterfuge – IF I could manage it.

And a double scoop if I could keep reference to thread on every single page of the forum.  ALWAYS THERE.  Always a reminder of the heretics ‘failed’ efforts at promoting a successful technology.  It would be like looking at a tombstone buried deep inside an inaccessible graveyard.  And the inscription there? 

‘Herein lies the first measured proof of over unity – died in the year 2010.  Killed by my own skilful use of the art of calumny. RIP’ 

And the real joke?  The thing that has me rolling?  I’ll do all this in the name of TRUTH.  Such an abusable term.  Me.  A man of God – hereby alert you all – the dupable public – that all this is the TRUTH according to MY VIEWPOINT. 

And then again.  To make sure that the popularity of the heretic dies together with her, sorry I mean his technology – I’d sow the SEEDS OF DISSENTION.  I’d pit one and all against that heretic.  I’d emphasis his vanity in trying to get his model understood.  I might also take the trouble to alert all the players that the heretic is talking behind their backs.  Is trying to get rid of them, or maybe just some of them.  Again.  What can he do but deny this?  And now?  After all this?  All these whispers?   Who would believe him?

If he, the heretic,  DARED to advance knowledge – notwithstanding and if thereby he chose to publish that replicated experiment – then I need to employ other whispers.  He’s publishing this as his OWN work.  It’s exclusively my writing and he’s claiming HE did this?  PLAGIARISM GUYS.  LOOK OUT.  I’d insist that it’s my work and MAY NOT BE TOUCHED.  But I’ll fudge the results and ensure that it may ALSO not be published.  In fact I may even imply that it’s even my thesis.  Or better still – I’d go back to that claim that this experiment was never based on a thesis.  LOL  I’d need to remind them all that the thesis was IMPOSED on that experiment.  EVERYONE thinks they’ve got that elusive ‘unified principle’.  Bound to be competition. And God forbid that anyone actually pay attention to the thesis itself.  It would put paid to the need for clean green and, for that matter, my salary.  It would certainly dodge that early global cataclysmic bullet that I’m hoping will come.  That end of world catastrophe.  The LAST thing I need is for anyone to actually read that thesis.  It explains way, way too much.  And way too simply.  If they actually read it then maybe they’d know how easy it is to go without carbon based fuels.  God forbid.

If notwithstanding these attacks the technology WILL NOT GO AWAY?  Then I will simply advise all members through their PM’s or through their email addresses – that this heretic is not to be trusted.  I can string a whole lot of allegations together and chummy up to those members that none of them will actually investigate the matter.  They will be easily convinced.  Flattered that I share this information.  Happy to take on the mission of converting or burning that heretic.  They will do as I require.  Why?  Because I’m just so much more intelligent than them.  They will NEVER see through to my true motives.  I’m just way too charming. 

Dear reader.  By now you probably will have got the gist of it.  This talent of mine.  This genius.  THAT – dear reader - is an example of the skilful use of the art of calumny.  Enough mud and it WILL stick.  Just watch me.  And then look at the results.  So.  Again.  If I were that super troll designing the blue print for the SUPER KILL of clean green – then that’s how I’d deal with an extant proof of over unity.  It would be buried – in the internet.  Gold but well hidden.   Away from public view.  Forever lost for want of attention.  Diminished through the art of calumny.  What a pleasure.  And I never have to prove a single claim.  I just point at my sense of outrage and my parade of anger and indignation.  So simple.  A few well chosen remarks.  Some excessive use of flattery to feed an experimentalist’s vanity.  Some carefully chosen insinuations to breed dissention?  A bit of posturing.  And VOILA.  Victory.  Another ‘free energy’ device BITES THE DUST courtesy the careful application of the art of calumny.

FROM ME THE SUPER TROLL.  I think I’m done here.

But wait.  There’s still a problem.  What about those NEW IDEAS.  What, for instance could I do against the discovery, the careful and systematic unfolding of the properties of gravity.  That’s a really tough one.  Gravity is also gravely dangerous to my objects.  Once discovered then – horror of horrors  – no longer will claims be about over unity.  They’ll include perpetual motion.  The thing itself.  The final frontier.  The ultimate risk to me and my best interests.  That would DOMINATE my attention.  But again.  I’m equal to this.  Here’s what I would do.

CHAPTER 2 to follow.  LOL.

Dr Darkly Menacing Phd.  TSH

Copyright reserved.

misinformation especially as it relates to the patent


Dear reader,

I apologise for this but must again make due record.  I was involved in the joint collaborative paper written by open source members as a record of the replication of a test that was achieved by Glen Lettenmaier.  I wrote the 5 major sections of that paper under the advisement and guidance of Donovan Martin - and allowed Harvey Gramm to do the sections related to the actual power analysis and the protocols applied.  In order to 'widen the representation' so to speak, I also appointed three other collaborators whose contributions were never to the paper but either to it's promotion or to advance the global representation of that work.  I won't bore you with the details as the consequent arguments have blazed through every thread that I have ever been associated with on those very public forums.  Suffice it to say that Harvey Gramm and Glen Lettenmaier claim that they are disassociating from this exercise because, in the first instance I altered that paper - and in the second instance I have a hidden and vested interest in the intellectual property associated with that invention.  Harvey also claims - very publicly - that I deliberately altered that work prior to submission.  All such statements are evidentially completely false.  But since the matter relating to the patent may yet be contended, apparently, then let this following statement be here for the record and for as long as I may live.

I have never registered any patent that I have applied for as the application was intended to put the intellectual knowledge in the public domain thereby rendering that technology unpatentable.  This technology is advanced to promote a careful use of electric and indeed all energy - that we can lighten the burden of pollution that has so besmirched our global footprints and brought imminent catastrophe in its wake.  I therefore absolve myself or any member of my family from ever enriching ourselves from royalties that may accrue to this knowledge as it is considered by us all to be a gross violation of the trust that is put on us to promote this knowledge in the first instance.  Any attempts to insinuate or claim or allege or deny this by Harvey Gramm or Glen Lettenmaier - is done to diminish both my objects and the value of this technology as they are trying to aver that the technology may yet be subject to a royalty claim. 

I am also obliged to systematically transfer my published work on Scribd to this blog.  This because I have heard from scribd as follows and it appears that my protection as a publisher is absolutely not extant.  I will, therefore, transfer that work over here and simply ask that - if you are already familiar with it that you simply skip the next few posts.  I will highlight those transferred documents that you can see them as copies.  Thereafter I will delete my subscription to Scribd as they have breached the agreement to publish as they had contracted.

Kind regards,