Dear Reader,
I see my work is now being coupled with Aaron's work at Energetic forum. God help me. Let me remind you Poynty. We have entirely resolved the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. We have conclusively proved that electric current has two optional charges depending on their justification around an electric circuit. We have shown a breach of Kirchoff's unity constraints in the evidence of a negative wattage which has no relevance to any standard paradigms. I find it rather presumptuous and intensely irritating that there is any assumption that I endorse the 'bouncing ball' as proof of unity excess. And I believe our own research to be rather more thorough than any proposed by anyone at all, let alone at EF.com.
When you are qualified to comment on my thesis then I'll be inclined to pay some small attention to your own thinking. As it is - Poynty Point - I would strongly recommend that you hold back until you actually get to understand the thinking. Clearly you're incapable.
What you can do - with some considerable skill - is dog my best efforts in your facile attempts to diminish this our work. Just 'lay off' - until such time as you've done a bit of homework. And start with physics. That'd be a good kick off. You need to understand the implications of putting a particle in a magnetic field. Do that - and you'll possibly get the same answers.
Sorry guys. This post has just ended up being a rant. I'll try and do something more constructive later today.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Let me add this - lest any of you don't see the relevance. If a magnetic field comprises particles then - as day follows night - we MUST be able to breach unity in the context that unity is understood - in terms of the standard model. And we propose that the particle is visible in 'flame' which is also when it is out of the field condition.
And THAT Poynty Point - is our contribution to the cause. Now - in the fullness of time - you can perhaps advise us what exactly your own contribution has been - other than these rather obvious and increasingly clumsy attempts at keeping this fact away from our forums. From where I sit it seems that you are rather frantic to refer to my work OUTSIDE OF THE CONTEXT OF OUR CLAIM. That's like criticising Einstein for his hairdo. Just not appropriate. I get it you don't understand. But just admit that much and you could, possibly, move on. MUCH NEEDED - I might add. You're the quintessential wet blanket. Damp and dreary. And - self-evidently - you have no intention of promoting any understanding of anything at all in your forum. God help us all. Have you ever stopped to consider why you're enjoying diminishing readership - and increasing lack of respect. Just address Rossi's breakthroughs for starters. That may convince your public that you're promoting and NOT frustrating OU. You see this I trust. We your public are on to you and your agenda.
R
