Dear Reader,
I have, more or less, got what I expected. Harti's come forward with his list to 'qualify' for that prize. It's a confused mishmash of testing - not so much for over unity - but for perpetual motion. I'm reasonably satisfied that with that criteria he'll be able to hang onto that prize money - forever. There's nothing about doing an accreditation on the claims in our paper - which simply and quickly get to the gullet of the anomaly. However - there may be something here that can be salvaged. I'll look into this further. Steven E Jones has, surprisingly, expressed some interest in 'replicating' and I'm still to hear what he makes of our papers. And Poynty - bless him - has been left with a mouth full of teeth and nowhere to hide. But he'll beg off. I know. And this because, unlike the others - he's well aware that our claim is entirely valid.
I, meanwhile, am still struggling with the paper on gravity - and getting nowhere fast. I have, however, established who is to do those diagrams. But I first have to draft them - obviously - and even that small task seems as elusive as the peaks of Everest. I'm growing somewhat weary.
What I am glad of though is that I've had an opportunity to remind the forum members that our claim is substantial and replicable. I think the most of them have assumed that Poynty's rather unscientific assessment carries any merit at all. This, hopefully, may disabuse them. We are very much a victim of that psyops program that is out there to kill off the hopes of our forum members.
Anyway. I'll wait and see what more comes out of this. Intriguing to see which way Poynty will wriggle. My best guess is that he'll pretend to take exception to any proposal of testing. I'm relying on it. More of that fabricated 'indignation'. It's laughably predictable. A clumsy combination of bluff - bluster and scorn - and the outright dismissal based on some minor variation to his terms and conditions or an outright dismissal of our experimental results. Or both. lol
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Sunday, January 8, 2012
223 - no answer?
Dear Reader,
It seems that Poynty and Steven E Jones are not prepared to engage in our claim for their over unity prizes. No comment at all. Not even a reply to my email. I have, however, heard from Harti - and he's sent me a list of terms and conditions in a file that I can't open. I'll see if he can resend this.
When I know more I'll get back here.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
It seems that Poynty and Steven E Jones are not prepared to engage in our claim for their over unity prizes. No comment at all. Not even a reply to my email. I have, however, heard from Harti - and he's sent me a list of terms and conditions in a file that I can't open. I'll see if he can resend this.
When I know more I'll get back here.
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Saturday, January 7, 2012
222 - we claim those prizes offered by harti, poynty and steven e jones (professor?)
Dear Reader,
I think the time has come to take the 'bull by the horns'.
I am that sick of the devious and hidden pretensions buried in that declared 'object' of our over unity forums that I am now, on behalf of all free energy enthusiasts EVERYWHERE - as well as my own collaborators - determined to CLAIM THOSE PRIZES OFFERED BY no less than two forums and by Professor Steven E Jones for measured proof of over unity.
They, the prize givers will be sent our two papers that detail the experimental evidence. They will then be invited to test this apparatus on my own premises. They will be refunded their air travel should they disprove our measurements. In order to obviate ANY attempt at fabrication - three electrical engineers will be present at all demonstrations of the device that HARTI - POYNTY and STEVEN E JONES will NOT BE ABLE TO TAMPER WITH THE APPARATUS NOR MISREPRESENT THE MEASURED EVIDENCE. They will be entitled to bring their own broadband 4 channel oscilloscopes to do that measurement - which can be used subject only to the evidence of up to date calibration certificates. We will, in any event, provide our own as a reference - as required.
I guarantee that the test will not need to last more than 2 hours at the outside most - during which time I will be able to replicate the 4 tests detailed in our paper. They can, therefore, fly back the same day that they arrive. But. Should they wish to stay over before flying back - then I will accommodate them all - in relative comfort - during their stay. We South Africans are renowned for our hospitality.
If they decline - then I MUST CONCLUDE that their prizes are simply a kind of 'lure' - to the poor unsuspecting energy enthusiast who is WASTING HIS TIME if he expects endorsement from those 'great pretenders'. Whatever is left of the prize money after they've 'defrayed' their costs - lol - will be paid to a member to be nominated and chosen by all those forum members - for the purchase of measuring equipment required for that nominated members' further testing.
Proof of over unity will be in the MEASURED EVIDENCE based on the protocols detailed in that paper. Can't wait.
HOWSZZZAT!!! I'd say it's 'clean bowled'. lol
Kindest regards
Rosemary
I think the time has come to take the 'bull by the horns'.
I am that sick of the devious and hidden pretensions buried in that declared 'object' of our over unity forums that I am now, on behalf of all free energy enthusiasts EVERYWHERE - as well as my own collaborators - determined to CLAIM THOSE PRIZES OFFERED BY no less than two forums and by Professor Steven E Jones for measured proof of over unity.
They, the prize givers will be sent our two papers that detail the experimental evidence. They will then be invited to test this apparatus on my own premises. They will be refunded their air travel should they disprove our measurements. In order to obviate ANY attempt at fabrication - three electrical engineers will be present at all demonstrations of the device that HARTI - POYNTY and STEVEN E JONES will NOT BE ABLE TO TAMPER WITH THE APPARATUS NOR MISREPRESENT THE MEASURED EVIDENCE. They will be entitled to bring their own broadband 4 channel oscilloscopes to do that measurement - which can be used subject only to the evidence of up to date calibration certificates. We will, in any event, provide our own as a reference - as required.
I guarantee that the test will not need to last more than 2 hours at the outside most - during which time I will be able to replicate the 4 tests detailed in our paper. They can, therefore, fly back the same day that they arrive. But. Should they wish to stay over before flying back - then I will accommodate them all - in relative comfort - during their stay. We South Africans are renowned for our hospitality.
If they decline - then I MUST CONCLUDE that their prizes are simply a kind of 'lure' - to the poor unsuspecting energy enthusiast who is WASTING HIS TIME if he expects endorsement from those 'great pretenders'. Whatever is left of the prize money after they've 'defrayed' their costs - lol - will be paid to a member to be nominated and chosen by all those forum members - for the purchase of measuring equipment required for that nominated members' further testing.
Proof of over unity will be in the MEASURED EVIDENCE based on the protocols detailed in that paper. Can't wait.
HOWSZZZAT!!! I'd say it's 'clean bowled'. lol
Kindest regards
Rosemary
Friday, January 6, 2012
221 - another troll alert
Dear Reader,
I'm fascinated at the role that Ramset - also known as Chet - plays on all our 'so called' energy forums. I'm not sure if any of you are aware of those excellent books by Gosciny and Underzo - 'Asterix and Obelix' - a kind of social and political satire set in ancient Britain when most of the known world was controlled by the Italians. There's one devoted to Cleopatra - Julius Caesar - and has an amusing Arabian character going by the name of Kroukhut ? - not sure if I've spelled that correctly. He's an excessively obsequious little character who flatters all an sundry with a rather wanton and shameless attempt at manipulation that is also underpinned by an exaggerated self-effacement. It makes one feel mildly uncomfortable because it's transparently manipulative. And what it actually flaunts is a rather critical need for self-esteem. Oily - is probably the best description.
In any event. That's our Chet. His mission in life is to pick up the scent of any significant over unity event and then direct the better qualified 'nay sayers' to their target. In my case he managed to alert Tinsel Koala to the attack. And he did this with a bowing of the head and a scraping of the knee and a kind of awe struck deference that would have been more appropriate in the presence of a God.
Well. He's at it again. This time he's run to Poynty Point and his minions to alert them to the existence of a new threat - something to do with 'cavitation' energy? Something obscure. In any event. It's his duplicity that sticks in the craw. Here is a man who clearly has no CLUE about science, who has NEVER managed an experiment - but who is, nonetheless, anxious to earn his money as a 'detractor'. But it's all managed under the guise of a free energy enthusiast. Always ready to remind all that he's not qualified to comment. Therefore will he 'defer' to whatever it is that MileHigh - that utterly partial arbiter of some considerable notoriety - should require. But he writes with the breathless enthusiasm of a believer. Coupled with the reckless inability to measure an experiment. He pretends ... everything, with an appropriate enthusiasm. And he attempts draw attention to the the weakness of a claim by presenting it as its strength. He is considerably more dangerous than any of the trolls. Bar none. That poor experimenter hasn't a hope. He's in the capable hands of another onslaught from hell led by our dogs of war on anything that smells of a successful test.
But it's the existence of those so called 'prizes' that they all flaunt - which is so sadly inappropriate. Not only would it NOT compensate for the evidence of a unity breach - but it is simply the ONLY justification that any of them can pretend - to comment at all. Surely, by now, this is evident? The one weakness of the forum is the simple fact that none of the experimenters has a clue about measurement. And while this is absent - then regardless of the strength of their claims - it WILL be denied. And that's their mission which pivots on three golden rules. DENY AND DENY AND DENY.
The ONLY posters that I respect on that forum are DeepCut and Farrah. I am entirely satisfied also that Grumpy - bless him - is also not a troll. He's just sadly deluded. They're not ALL trolls. Just the forum is so 'thin' for want of members that the dogs barely outnumber the genuine researchers.
Anyway. That's touched on some of the concerns - from my daily reference to those threads.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
click here to read up on this
I'm fascinated at the role that Ramset - also known as Chet - plays on all our 'so called' energy forums. I'm not sure if any of you are aware of those excellent books by Gosciny and Underzo - 'Asterix and Obelix' - a kind of social and political satire set in ancient Britain when most of the known world was controlled by the Italians. There's one devoted to Cleopatra - Julius Caesar - and has an amusing Arabian character going by the name of Kroukhut ? - not sure if I've spelled that correctly. He's an excessively obsequious little character who flatters all an sundry with a rather wanton and shameless attempt at manipulation that is also underpinned by an exaggerated self-effacement. It makes one feel mildly uncomfortable because it's transparently manipulative. And what it actually flaunts is a rather critical need for self-esteem. Oily - is probably the best description.
In any event. That's our Chet. His mission in life is to pick up the scent of any significant over unity event and then direct the better qualified 'nay sayers' to their target. In my case he managed to alert Tinsel Koala to the attack. And he did this with a bowing of the head and a scraping of the knee and a kind of awe struck deference that would have been more appropriate in the presence of a God.
Well. He's at it again. This time he's run to Poynty Point and his minions to alert them to the existence of a new threat - something to do with 'cavitation' energy? Something obscure. In any event. It's his duplicity that sticks in the craw. Here is a man who clearly has no CLUE about science, who has NEVER managed an experiment - but who is, nonetheless, anxious to earn his money as a 'detractor'. But it's all managed under the guise of a free energy enthusiast. Always ready to remind all that he's not qualified to comment. Therefore will he 'defer' to whatever it is that MileHigh - that utterly partial arbiter of some considerable notoriety - should require. But he writes with the breathless enthusiasm of a believer. Coupled with the reckless inability to measure an experiment. He pretends ... everything, with an appropriate enthusiasm. And he attempts draw attention to the the weakness of a claim by presenting it as its strength. He is considerably more dangerous than any of the trolls. Bar none. That poor experimenter hasn't a hope. He's in the capable hands of another onslaught from hell led by our dogs of war on anything that smells of a successful test.
But it's the existence of those so called 'prizes' that they all flaunt - which is so sadly inappropriate. Not only would it NOT compensate for the evidence of a unity breach - but it is simply the ONLY justification that any of them can pretend - to comment at all. Surely, by now, this is evident? The one weakness of the forum is the simple fact that none of the experimenters has a clue about measurement. And while this is absent - then regardless of the strength of their claims - it WILL be denied. And that's their mission which pivots on three golden rules. DENY AND DENY AND DENY.
The ONLY posters that I respect on that forum are DeepCut and Farrah. I am entirely satisfied also that Grumpy - bless him - is also not a troll. He's just sadly deluded. They're not ALL trolls. Just the forum is so 'thin' for want of members that the dogs barely outnumber the genuine researchers.
Anyway. That's touched on some of the concerns - from my daily reference to those threads.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
click here to read up on this
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
220 - behind the lines
Dear Reader,
I am going to risk sharing an experience with you that was out of this world. As a teenager - my best free time was spent 'lurking' in art galleries. Many, many hours. I'd hang around long before and after the usual press of visitors that no-one really noticed me. And I could get in free - because I was that young. And here's why I 'lurked'. I love art.
We were taught that the definition of art is 'line in composition'. That's a brutally simplified definition. But it's right. Well. Here's how I learned this. Around about that time, a Mr 'McEwan' started an art movement, a school for the younger Africans in Zimbabwe - then Rhodesia - where they were invited to carve soap stones. He provided the material and tools. They only needed to show up and do the work. I'm not sure that any of those stones were sold. I hope not. Because that collection deserved to 'stay together'. Regardless. This particular exhibition taught me EXACTLY what was meant by that 'definition'. I got into a 'mode' where I could see the sheer eloquence of all that line in all that composition. Sculpture is the purest form of this. Not sure how to describe my reaction. But I was thrilled on an intellectual, emotional and physical level - that I have difficulty to describing - in any context at all. It was the most curious experience because, from nowhere - I was able to understand that abstract complexity at a level that was both overwhelming and entirely consummate. And I KNEW - from somewhere deep - that this was EXACTLY what McEwan was looking at. WOW. Now I knew what it was that kept him driven. To display what he displayed. That was the catalyst to my enduring 'love' of art which, before this, was merely a passionate interest.
This is my point. That deep level of appreciation was positively devotional. Now. If one has gone through that experience - then one will also NEVER forget it. I know this. As mentioned, it comes from somewhere deep. It's one of those moments in life which are used in the framework of 'comparative reference'. It's up there with the 'first kiss' - the 'first love' - marriage - childbirth. It's BIG. But unlike most other experiences that shape our lives - its motive - its catalytic spark and force - is FIRSTLY - intellectual. The brain engages - in the analysis of the line. The emotions follow after - in response to that line, be it pathos, sympathy, triumph, modesty, cruelty, indifference, - whatever. And then the appreciation is for the eloquence of that line. For the skill in its rendition.
Now. Like most young and aspiring artists - I had my own portfolio and my small suitcase full of Eisteddfod Certificates of distinction. Lots of them. I had even won an 'open' competition in art when I was barely 14 years old. My 'line' has always been more than adequate. And my obsessive interest in any kind of representation was probably because I was as blind as a bat. It therefore represented a kind of challenge - I think. This myopia of mine was only 'discovered' when I was deep into my teens. And the surprise - when I fist wore glasses - was that everyone else could see the WHOLE WORLD with such extraordinary clarity. It never occurred to me that when I could not see the blackboard - that others COULD. That I relied on memory to such an extent was probably how I compensated for my poor eyesight. So. This, and the art of 'inference' which is required when one hasn't got access to a visual reference, is how my poor brain was obliged to develop - if such it did. lol.
But this is what I need to stress. What that response elicited in me, was a sense of devotion. It was also a shared experience - with a Mr McEwan - who I had and have never met. Here was a man who showed me something that, quite simply, took my breath away. Wonderous - doesn't cut it. It was awe inspiring. Just SO amazingly - insightful. And so, so much more. It was indeed - CONSUMMATE. And after this? From that moment onwards I KNEW that I did not have, in me, the required skill to do justice to this new found love. I could NEVER, myself, be the artist - that I had always assumed would be my career path. Anything that was mediocre would be a travesty on this love. And I was very, very concerned that my very best efforts would, at best, be mediocre.
Which brings me back to the 'theme' of this post. I was privileged to have that experience a second time. The first was when I was in my mid teens. This second was when I was 50 year old. And this time the spark came from Gary Zukov's 'Dancing Wu Li Masters. With a masterful excellence he mapped out the 'condition of standard physics' up to the time of publication - I think it was sometime in the '80's. Not only that but he had accessed expert comment on all issues that he covered. It was TRULY representational of the standard model. Again I was captivated and engrossed. But what engrossed me most was NOT so much what he wrote but what he DID NOT write. Why, for instance, did he NOT propose that a magnetic field may be a primary force? By now I'd bought magnets. And I could see that there was a STRONG interaction between them - but without any electric energy at all. Where then was the other side of the equation that Maxwell required? That electric inducing a magnetic and vice versa - thing? Why, with equivalent charge was the proton yet, and ALWAYS, precisely 1836 times BIGGER than an electron? Why did the gravitational force interact with objects at THE SAME RATE regardless of their weight mass? Into WHAT did those particles decay that exploded out of the bubble chamber in a particle accelerator? What earthly relevance was there to unstable particles? And on and on. I could barely manage the questions. And, with characteristic immodesty - I decided that the only way I would be able to get to the answers - was to find them out for myself.
Which is what I did. And that was when I found a new devotion. This time to the vision of the magnetic field. And if and when any of you get it - then I'm reasonably satisfied that you will experience exactly the same sense of surprise and awe that I've experienced. Meanwhile I am compelled to simply attest to it and, within the constraints of my poor abilities - somehow try and share it. That it solicits that absurd attack from those such as Poynty, Harvey, his wife, Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth Palise and many, many others - is irrelevant. Amusing at best. But entirely off the point. It just shows me how far they all are from seeing the real issue - that FIELD that answers so, so much. It's not so lonely looking at the miraculous vision of all those soapstone carved with such eloquent skill and aplomb - when one also knows that - at its least - McEwan also saw this. But it most certainly IS lonely when I look at the comprehensive excellence of the magnetic field and I simply do not seem to have the skills to show this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I am going to risk sharing an experience with you that was out of this world. As a teenager - my best free time was spent 'lurking' in art galleries. Many, many hours. I'd hang around long before and after the usual press of visitors that no-one really noticed me. And I could get in free - because I was that young. And here's why I 'lurked'. I love art.
We were taught that the definition of art is 'line in composition'. That's a brutally simplified definition. But it's right. Well. Here's how I learned this. Around about that time, a Mr 'McEwan' started an art movement, a school for the younger Africans in Zimbabwe - then Rhodesia - where they were invited to carve soap stones. He provided the material and tools. They only needed to show up and do the work. I'm not sure that any of those stones were sold. I hope not. Because that collection deserved to 'stay together'. Regardless. This particular exhibition taught me EXACTLY what was meant by that 'definition'. I got into a 'mode' where I could see the sheer eloquence of all that line in all that composition. Sculpture is the purest form of this. Not sure how to describe my reaction. But I was thrilled on an intellectual, emotional and physical level - that I have difficulty to describing - in any context at all. It was the most curious experience because, from nowhere - I was able to understand that abstract complexity at a level that was both overwhelming and entirely consummate. And I KNEW - from somewhere deep - that this was EXACTLY what McEwan was looking at. WOW. Now I knew what it was that kept him driven. To display what he displayed. That was the catalyst to my enduring 'love' of art which, before this, was merely a passionate interest.
This is my point. That deep level of appreciation was positively devotional. Now. If one has gone through that experience - then one will also NEVER forget it. I know this. As mentioned, it comes from somewhere deep. It's one of those moments in life which are used in the framework of 'comparative reference'. It's up there with the 'first kiss' - the 'first love' - marriage - childbirth. It's BIG. But unlike most other experiences that shape our lives - its motive - its catalytic spark and force - is FIRSTLY - intellectual. The brain engages - in the analysis of the line. The emotions follow after - in response to that line, be it pathos, sympathy, triumph, modesty, cruelty, indifference, - whatever. And then the appreciation is for the eloquence of that line. For the skill in its rendition.
Now. Like most young and aspiring artists - I had my own portfolio and my small suitcase full of Eisteddfod Certificates of distinction. Lots of them. I had even won an 'open' competition in art when I was barely 14 years old. My 'line' has always been more than adequate. And my obsessive interest in any kind of representation was probably because I was as blind as a bat. It therefore represented a kind of challenge - I think. This myopia of mine was only 'discovered' when I was deep into my teens. And the surprise - when I fist wore glasses - was that everyone else could see the WHOLE WORLD with such extraordinary clarity. It never occurred to me that when I could not see the blackboard - that others COULD. That I relied on memory to such an extent was probably how I compensated for my poor eyesight. So. This, and the art of 'inference' which is required when one hasn't got access to a visual reference, is how my poor brain was obliged to develop - if such it did. lol.
But this is what I need to stress. What that response elicited in me, was a sense of devotion. It was also a shared experience - with a Mr McEwan - who I had and have never met. Here was a man who showed me something that, quite simply, took my breath away. Wonderous - doesn't cut it. It was awe inspiring. Just SO amazingly - insightful. And so, so much more. It was indeed - CONSUMMATE. And after this? From that moment onwards I KNEW that I did not have, in me, the required skill to do justice to this new found love. I could NEVER, myself, be the artist - that I had always assumed would be my career path. Anything that was mediocre would be a travesty on this love. And I was very, very concerned that my very best efforts would, at best, be mediocre.
Which brings me back to the 'theme' of this post. I was privileged to have that experience a second time. The first was when I was in my mid teens. This second was when I was 50 year old. And this time the spark came from Gary Zukov's 'Dancing Wu Li Masters. With a masterful excellence he mapped out the 'condition of standard physics' up to the time of publication - I think it was sometime in the '80's. Not only that but he had accessed expert comment on all issues that he covered. It was TRULY representational of the standard model. Again I was captivated and engrossed. But what engrossed me most was NOT so much what he wrote but what he DID NOT write. Why, for instance, did he NOT propose that a magnetic field may be a primary force? By now I'd bought magnets. And I could see that there was a STRONG interaction between them - but without any electric energy at all. Where then was the other side of the equation that Maxwell required? That electric inducing a magnetic and vice versa - thing? Why, with equivalent charge was the proton yet, and ALWAYS, precisely 1836 times BIGGER than an electron? Why did the gravitational force interact with objects at THE SAME RATE regardless of their weight mass? Into WHAT did those particles decay that exploded out of the bubble chamber in a particle accelerator? What earthly relevance was there to unstable particles? And on and on. I could barely manage the questions. And, with characteristic immodesty - I decided that the only way I would be able to get to the answers - was to find them out for myself.
Which is what I did. And that was when I found a new devotion. This time to the vision of the magnetic field. And if and when any of you get it - then I'm reasonably satisfied that you will experience exactly the same sense of surprise and awe that I've experienced. Meanwhile I am compelled to simply attest to it and, within the constraints of my poor abilities - somehow try and share it. That it solicits that absurd attack from those such as Poynty, Harvey, his wife, Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth Palise and many, many others - is irrelevant. Amusing at best. But entirely off the point. It just shows me how far they all are from seeing the real issue - that FIELD that answers so, so much. It's not so lonely looking at the miraculous vision of all those soapstone carved with such eloquent skill and aplomb - when one also knows that - at its least - McEwan also saw this. But it most certainly IS lonely when I look at the comprehensive excellence of the magnetic field and I simply do not seem to have the skills to show this.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
219 - the holy grail
Dear Reader,
I've mentioned my interest in ancient aliens which is the result of an excellent documentary series on our dstv History Channel. I've taped them all. It's a fascinating body of work. And the one question that is referenced over and over is the possible periodic annihilation of the most of our species. It's that Armageddon theme of the Bible and variations of this are incorporated into most of our mythologies. Of special interest are the Eastern mythologies that predate our own by some 20 000 years. They have even salvaged artifacts from drowned villages that are 35 000 years old. And, it is further claimed - that these civilizations extend back into history for some 100 000 years. That's way in excess of our anthropological assumptions which are based on the fact that no formal or significant social history predates the Egyptian or, possibly, the Mesopotamian? (not sure) civilizations - assessed at about 5000 years BC - or thereby.
Then there's the extraordinary astrological knowledge of the Mayan's, which - with the best will in the world - can only be attributed to knowledge of the space from a kind of hands on, experiential basis. In other words they must needs first have been out of the confines of our Earth to establish the niceties of our orbit as it relates to our position in our galaxy. And all this is so PERFECTLY rendered in the Mayan calendar - with a miracle of construction that exceeds our own in its accuracy ... being, as it is, based on the exact position of the earth in its orbit around the milky way. So many questions. What struck me the most was the construction of rectangular blocks of granite that weight 1200 tons each - positioned high on the mountains and placed in precise alignment. And then the modest expert comment which stated that - in order to cut that stone today - we would need diamonds. Other blocks would need lasers and complex software programming to guide those lasers. What on earth gives? And HOW could such huge monoliths be transported up small mountain paths to those heady heights - in the first instance? All is very mysterious.
My own question is this. What is it that has propelled us humans to manage such a prolific population? I'm not sure - but what seems a possibility is that our numbers - now measured in the billions - is far in excess of anything managed before now. Either our enjoyment of relatively mild seasons, is responsible. Or finally - our quest for knowledge is on the right path that we're finding the right medical, social and technological solutions to sustain our existence more comfortably and more securely. Certainly, in any event, in such vast numbers.
It's an historical 'first'. But according to that calendar - we are now moving towards 21 - 12 - 2012. That will bring us into the apex - is that the word? of our alignment which somehow exposes us to the black hole at the center of our galaxy. And what is then also at question is this. Does that simply press the 're-set' button in our history. Is there another global wipe out? Do we face a kind of catastrophic natural upheaval that forces us to then 'start again'? Will our children and our children's children look back at the ruined artifacts of the 21st century and then ask ... WHAT? In the same way that we question the significance of the Baghdad Battery? What, in God's name, did we use electric generators for? Or what early requirement were those monolithic steel birds? Did they, their forebears, presume that they could fly? Like birds?
In any event. The questions are as tantalizing as are their answers. But the whole study is frustratingly speculative. We simply do not know. We can only surmise. My own idea is that the most significant discovery that has come out of the 21st Century is the existence of the 'dark force'. In it's final analysis the entire study of physics relates to the periodic table - forged during turn of the last century - and the relationship of those elements to the known forces. And, thus far the forces were grouped into four - being the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and the electromagnetic force. That's it. At its foundational basis, we are working with a limited amount of raw material and the visible effects of these materials as they interact with those four forces. Then. From left field - we're told of a NEW force. The dark force. It's everywhere. But unlike the known forces - it can only be INFERRED. There is no known particle that 'carries' this force. It is tantalizingly 'hidden'. BUT - it is acknowledged - FIND some way to liberate this force and, as day follows night, we will enjoy an abundance of energy - a freedom from natural constraint - that will be unequaled - in history.
Which is where our thesis kicks into the equation. What was proposed is that a magnetic dipole forms the basis of the magnetic field. That's it. Use that particle, and with a series of simple logical deductions, one can explain, not only the four known forces, but the very elements themselves. And it has the very real merit of conforming - PRECISELY - to what is observed. But the problems in such a simple solution are manifold. To begin with it IS a SIMPLE solution. It explains the 'field' that is is the overriding characteristic of a magnetic force. Such simplicity makes the earlier obfuscations of science somewhat absurd. THEN. It's easily understood. Such evident logic is likely to be understood by just about anyone - anywhere. No more exclusivity to be enjoyed by a handful of experts. Then - it's experimentally evident and exploitable. Such wide potential access to such a powerful source of energy - is likely to marginalise our energy monopolists. No more unfair exploitation of the masses. And finally. It's promulgated by a handful of accredited personalities led by one person who is ENTIRELY without credentials. Therefore there is no more need to expect hefty academic qualifications to understand everything about physics.
All of which is likely to be confrontational. And, indeed, it is. But we are moving ever onwards towards that '21 12 2012' thing. It's profoundly significant. I am reasonably satisfied that a significant proportion of our population, possibly as high as 20 percent - are aware of the significance of our galaxial alignment on that day in the very near future. Barely 360 days away now. The count down has begun. And, with as much modesty as I can pretend - I think that it is now imperative that we make the most profound paradigm shift that has ever been accomplished in our history. We needs must wrap our minds around the possibility that this thesis is correct. That way there is a chance that we can move out of the gridlocked relationship with mainstream science, that we can liberate science from it's exclusive expert comment - and that we move to a real understanding of the single force that underpins our physics.
Frankly I do not expect that holocaust - that catastrophic event. I think that historical moment is simply the mark of the birth of something significant. I also think that our challenge is not so much spiritual - but intellectual. It is my opinion that as we evolve intellectually - then our spiritual progress is the supplementary and inevitable consequence. And I am also of the opinion that it is in this, our intellectual reach - our understanding of that magnetic field - that will, finally, salvage us from the inequitable distributions of wealth that seems to dog our rather confrontational history - be it with Nature in our prodigal over use of her materials - or in our national and tribal confrontations to acquire access to ever more energy and the fruits of that energy. In short - it's the holy grail of science. I am very aware of how immodest is such a proposal. But if the logic stacks then there's the real possibility that the thesis may be correct. And there is ample experimental proof that the thesis is, indeed right. Regardless as to who claims the merit. Certainly it's NOT my discovery. That belongs to our Greats - and to the school that measured all that dark energy. We have simply proposed that much required particle. And we've now got ample experimental evidence of its existence.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I've mentioned my interest in ancient aliens which is the result of an excellent documentary series on our dstv History Channel. I've taped them all. It's a fascinating body of work. And the one question that is referenced over and over is the possible periodic annihilation of the most of our species. It's that Armageddon theme of the Bible and variations of this are incorporated into most of our mythologies. Of special interest are the Eastern mythologies that predate our own by some 20 000 years. They have even salvaged artifacts from drowned villages that are 35 000 years old. And, it is further claimed - that these civilizations extend back into history for some 100 000 years. That's way in excess of our anthropological assumptions which are based on the fact that no formal or significant social history predates the Egyptian or, possibly, the Mesopotamian? (not sure) civilizations - assessed at about 5000 years BC - or thereby.
Then there's the extraordinary astrological knowledge of the Mayan's, which - with the best will in the world - can only be attributed to knowledge of the space from a kind of hands on, experiential basis. In other words they must needs first have been out of the confines of our Earth to establish the niceties of our orbit as it relates to our position in our galaxy. And all this is so PERFECTLY rendered in the Mayan calendar - with a miracle of construction that exceeds our own in its accuracy ... being, as it is, based on the exact position of the earth in its orbit around the milky way. So many questions. What struck me the most was the construction of rectangular blocks of granite that weight 1200 tons each - positioned high on the mountains and placed in precise alignment. And then the modest expert comment which stated that - in order to cut that stone today - we would need diamonds. Other blocks would need lasers and complex software programming to guide those lasers. What on earth gives? And HOW could such huge monoliths be transported up small mountain paths to those heady heights - in the first instance? All is very mysterious.
My own question is this. What is it that has propelled us humans to manage such a prolific population? I'm not sure - but what seems a possibility is that our numbers - now measured in the billions - is far in excess of anything managed before now. Either our enjoyment of relatively mild seasons, is responsible. Or finally - our quest for knowledge is on the right path that we're finding the right medical, social and technological solutions to sustain our existence more comfortably and more securely. Certainly, in any event, in such vast numbers.
It's an historical 'first'. But according to that calendar - we are now moving towards 21 - 12 - 2012. That will bring us into the apex - is that the word? of our alignment which somehow exposes us to the black hole at the center of our galaxy. And what is then also at question is this. Does that simply press the 're-set' button in our history. Is there another global wipe out? Do we face a kind of catastrophic natural upheaval that forces us to then 'start again'? Will our children and our children's children look back at the ruined artifacts of the 21st century and then ask ... WHAT? In the same way that we question the significance of the Baghdad Battery? What, in God's name, did we use electric generators for? Or what early requirement were those monolithic steel birds? Did they, their forebears, presume that they could fly? Like birds?
In any event. The questions are as tantalizing as are their answers. But the whole study is frustratingly speculative. We simply do not know. We can only surmise. My own idea is that the most significant discovery that has come out of the 21st Century is the existence of the 'dark force'. In it's final analysis the entire study of physics relates to the periodic table - forged during turn of the last century - and the relationship of those elements to the known forces. And, thus far the forces were grouped into four - being the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and the electromagnetic force. That's it. At its foundational basis, we are working with a limited amount of raw material and the visible effects of these materials as they interact with those four forces. Then. From left field - we're told of a NEW force. The dark force. It's everywhere. But unlike the known forces - it can only be INFERRED. There is no known particle that 'carries' this force. It is tantalizingly 'hidden'. BUT - it is acknowledged - FIND some way to liberate this force and, as day follows night, we will enjoy an abundance of energy - a freedom from natural constraint - that will be unequaled - in history.
Which is where our thesis kicks into the equation. What was proposed is that a magnetic dipole forms the basis of the magnetic field. That's it. Use that particle, and with a series of simple logical deductions, one can explain, not only the four known forces, but the very elements themselves. And it has the very real merit of conforming - PRECISELY - to what is observed. But the problems in such a simple solution are manifold. To begin with it IS a SIMPLE solution. It explains the 'field' that is is the overriding characteristic of a magnetic force. Such simplicity makes the earlier obfuscations of science somewhat absurd. THEN. It's easily understood. Such evident logic is likely to be understood by just about anyone - anywhere. No more exclusivity to be enjoyed by a handful of experts. Then - it's experimentally evident and exploitable. Such wide potential access to such a powerful source of energy - is likely to marginalise our energy monopolists. No more unfair exploitation of the masses. And finally. It's promulgated by a handful of accredited personalities led by one person who is ENTIRELY without credentials. Therefore there is no more need to expect hefty academic qualifications to understand everything about physics.
All of which is likely to be confrontational. And, indeed, it is. But we are moving ever onwards towards that '21 12 2012' thing. It's profoundly significant. I am reasonably satisfied that a significant proportion of our population, possibly as high as 20 percent - are aware of the significance of our galaxial alignment on that day in the very near future. Barely 360 days away now. The count down has begun. And, with as much modesty as I can pretend - I think that it is now imperative that we make the most profound paradigm shift that has ever been accomplished in our history. We needs must wrap our minds around the possibility that this thesis is correct. That way there is a chance that we can move out of the gridlocked relationship with mainstream science, that we can liberate science from it's exclusive expert comment - and that we move to a real understanding of the single force that underpins our physics.
Frankly I do not expect that holocaust - that catastrophic event. I think that historical moment is simply the mark of the birth of something significant. I also think that our challenge is not so much spiritual - but intellectual. It is my opinion that as we evolve intellectually - then our spiritual progress is the supplementary and inevitable consequence. And I am also of the opinion that it is in this, our intellectual reach - our understanding of that magnetic field - that will, finally, salvage us from the inequitable distributions of wealth that seems to dog our rather confrontational history - be it with Nature in our prodigal over use of her materials - or in our national and tribal confrontations to acquire access to ever more energy and the fruits of that energy. In short - it's the holy grail of science. I am very aware of how immodest is such a proposal. But if the logic stacks then there's the real possibility that the thesis may be correct. And there is ample experimental proof that the thesis is, indeed right. Regardless as to who claims the merit. Certainly it's NOT my discovery. That belongs to our Greats - and to the school that measured all that dark energy. We have simply proposed that much required particle. And we've now got ample experimental evidence of its existence.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Monday, January 2, 2012
218 - on wind blown branches and electric current and the presumptions of the standard model
Dear Reader,
At the heart of all confusions related to electric versus magnetic field is that - in truth - neither field has been defined within the standard model. I wonder if I can explain this by analogy. Imagine that a wind blows against a tree. The boughs of that tree bend in relation to the direction of the wind. Then the wind stops. The boughs then relax and - to release the full force that was first established by the wind - and depending on the elasticity - or 'tensile strength' - of the boughs - they may relax into an opposite direction and then back to the earlier wind direction - and so on ... in a series of gradually diminishing oscillations. Which oscillations also then gradually release the force that was first applied to those boughs by that wind. Then the boughs finally reach their rest state.
All that is perfectly logical. But it is also dependent on the force of the wind. We know that the wind itself is the sum of atmosphere transferring through space to establish some level of thermal equilibrium within space - measured in the pressure of that atmosphere. And that atmosphere comprises gas atoms, gaseous molecules and somewhat larger and sundry dust particles and larger forms of matter that may be trapped within that moving atmosphere. In effect that oscillation of those branches - at the termination of that onslaught from the wind - is the sum of the applied force of the atmosphere - the velocity at which it moves - and the level of innate elasticity of the boughs themselves, in their response to that wind. Every action having and equal and opposite reaction - all is therefore fully accounted for.
Now we get to the confusions related to an electric field. According to the standard model here is what is proposed. A moving electric field creates a magnetic field. And a moving magnetic field creates am electric field. And so on. Each field moves at ninety degrees to the other. Also, according to the standard model, an electric field comprises the flow of electrons. A magnetic field is generated as a result of the flow of those electrons. But it says nothing about what that magnetic force is? Is it some kind of exotic atmospheric pressure? But writ really small? At the scale of the particle? Therefore, move an electron in one direction and there's a corresponding but opposite force potential established somewhere? Somehow? Which, sure as day follows night will then, and again, move that electron in the opposite direction?
This is the point at which science fractures into speculations that are as absurd in their reach as they are illogical in their foundations. It is not really possible to define something in terms of what it is NOT. To say that the moving electric field comprises electrons - but a moving magnetic field does not comprise electrons - tells us nothing, whatsoever, of the properties of a magnetic field. Except that, rather loosely and rather broadly one can liken the boughs of that wind blown tree - to those electrons. Which then approximates the wind to the magnetic field that moves it. And so on. Then. There are other confusions. One of which is that for the electrons to move in a shared path - they must first overcome their innate force of repulsion. Somehow? All very complex and very confusing. No wonder the explanations for current flow are so fraught with contradictions and the endless need for more and more qualifications - all of which simply fall on their knees for want of logic. Arguments that are as weak as the oscillations that they predict.
Now. This is the point. In the unlikely event that one can generate an oscillation that - by analogy - moves those branches of that windblown tree - that it oscillates strongly, and into eternity, AFTER the cessation of the wind - then one can seriously propose that either the wind continuously changes direction into eternity - which would be evident if this were the case. OR - that there's another force that's come into the equation. Something that is generated within the branches of that tree that moves it first in one direction and then in the opposite direction - and so on. THAT is the point of our experimental evidence. Nothing else. In other words - I do not care if we are exceeding unity or not. The question is simply that there is a measurable and corresponding evidence of an oscillation that sustains an alternating electric current flow - apparently into perpetuity.
And what we're proposing is that the hidden force that blows the wind in the first instance, is also within the branches of that tree. When it blows it liberates that same hidden force that it can 'blow back' so to speak. Which also means that the moving air is the effect and not the cause of that wind. The causal source is the foundational force that moves that air in the first place. A force that has a natural and immutable imperative to move matter to a condition of maximum equilibrium. It is behind the wind. It blows the air. And it is the thing that seeks out its required balance. Which is the magnetic field and the particles that make up that field. And these are entirely hidden - invisible - DARK.
I do hope that clarifies things.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
At the heart of all confusions related to electric versus magnetic field is that - in truth - neither field has been defined within the standard model. I wonder if I can explain this by analogy. Imagine that a wind blows against a tree. The boughs of that tree bend in relation to the direction of the wind. Then the wind stops. The boughs then relax and - to release the full force that was first established by the wind - and depending on the elasticity - or 'tensile strength' - of the boughs - they may relax into an opposite direction and then back to the earlier wind direction - and so on ... in a series of gradually diminishing oscillations. Which oscillations also then gradually release the force that was first applied to those boughs by that wind. Then the boughs finally reach their rest state.
All that is perfectly logical. But it is also dependent on the force of the wind. We know that the wind itself is the sum of atmosphere transferring through space to establish some level of thermal equilibrium within space - measured in the pressure of that atmosphere. And that atmosphere comprises gas atoms, gaseous molecules and somewhat larger and sundry dust particles and larger forms of matter that may be trapped within that moving atmosphere. In effect that oscillation of those branches - at the termination of that onslaught from the wind - is the sum of the applied force of the atmosphere - the velocity at which it moves - and the level of innate elasticity of the boughs themselves, in their response to that wind. Every action having and equal and opposite reaction - all is therefore fully accounted for.
Now we get to the confusions related to an electric field. According to the standard model here is what is proposed. A moving electric field creates a magnetic field. And a moving magnetic field creates am electric field. And so on. Each field moves at ninety degrees to the other. Also, according to the standard model, an electric field comprises the flow of electrons. A magnetic field is generated as a result of the flow of those electrons. But it says nothing about what that magnetic force is? Is it some kind of exotic atmospheric pressure? But writ really small? At the scale of the particle? Therefore, move an electron in one direction and there's a corresponding but opposite force potential established somewhere? Somehow? Which, sure as day follows night will then, and again, move that electron in the opposite direction?
This is the point at which science fractures into speculations that are as absurd in their reach as they are illogical in their foundations. It is not really possible to define something in terms of what it is NOT. To say that the moving electric field comprises electrons - but a moving magnetic field does not comprise electrons - tells us nothing, whatsoever, of the properties of a magnetic field. Except that, rather loosely and rather broadly one can liken the boughs of that wind blown tree - to those electrons. Which then approximates the wind to the magnetic field that moves it. And so on. Then. There are other confusions. One of which is that for the electrons to move in a shared path - they must first overcome their innate force of repulsion. Somehow? All very complex and very confusing. No wonder the explanations for current flow are so fraught with contradictions and the endless need for more and more qualifications - all of which simply fall on their knees for want of logic. Arguments that are as weak as the oscillations that they predict.
Now. This is the point. In the unlikely event that one can generate an oscillation that - by analogy - moves those branches of that windblown tree - that it oscillates strongly, and into eternity, AFTER the cessation of the wind - then one can seriously propose that either the wind continuously changes direction into eternity - which would be evident if this were the case. OR - that there's another force that's come into the equation. Something that is generated within the branches of that tree that moves it first in one direction and then in the opposite direction - and so on. THAT is the point of our experimental evidence. Nothing else. In other words - I do not care if we are exceeding unity or not. The question is simply that there is a measurable and corresponding evidence of an oscillation that sustains an alternating electric current flow - apparently into perpetuity.
And what we're proposing is that the hidden force that blows the wind in the first instance, is also within the branches of that tree. When it blows it liberates that same hidden force that it can 'blow back' so to speak. Which also means that the moving air is the effect and not the cause of that wind. The causal source is the foundational force that moves that air in the first place. A force that has a natural and immutable imperative to move matter to a condition of maximum equilibrium. It is behind the wind. It blows the air. And it is the thing that seeks out its required balance. Which is the magnetic field and the particles that make up that field. And these are entirely hidden - invisible - DARK.
I do hope that clarifies things.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Saturday, December 31, 2011
217 - a medieval science poyntedly based on belief
Dear Reader,
There's a delicious kind of 'push me pull you' dialogue in science that moves it to ever greater clarity. What I mean is this. Galileo finds proof that we orbit the sun. Then other astronomers find the boundary of our galaxy. Then others find the existence of more galaxies. And more. Then they find nebulae, the seed bed of galaxies. And so on. But these are all EVIDENT. When it comes to the scale of the 'small' then everything's INFERRED - because the smallest of the small is still the quark and the quark is still not entirely proved.
And what is also so profoundly excellent about science is this. UNLESS IT IS MEASURABLE - then, by and large, scientists reject the postulate - or they entertain it in a 'partial' context - at best. This has been the rule. UNTIL NOW. For some reason that can only be understood by our scientists - there is an ENTIRE reluctance to acknowledge the possibility of ABUNDANT ENERGY. It's strange. There is a global school of string theorists and dark energy enthusiasts who REQUIRE an outright abundance of something that is not actually visible. A particle that - most assuredly - is NOT part of the standard model. And - at a rough guess, about ninety percent of all scientists simply DENY that any such particle is even required. For the first time EVER in the history of science - there is a profound schism in theoretical physics. No matter the measurable proof - the evidence of this new force and it's required particle - there is a blanket DENIAL. Now the new rule is this. If it relates to DARK ENERGY - then the evidence is to be ignored.
Which is strange. There is no reluctance - to either fund or research the existence of the graviton. But the graviton has also NEVER been SEEN. There is no hesitation to award a Nobel prize to Murray Gell-Mann, the proposer of the quark. But the quark has NEVER been SEEN. So? Why then discard the possibility of a magnetic dipole? Because it's never been seen? Or because to acknowledge it would also require an acknowledgement of all that ABUNDANT energy?
I strongly propose that Ellis et al are due for a Nobel Prize - for the miracle of finding a way to measure and prove the existence of dark energy. And this is denied them simply because they are flirting with the proof of much energy - which, at the moment - is not considered to be politically expedient. Which makes a mockery of the Nobel Prize.
But they have also shot themselves in the foot. They too have spent some valuable resources on trying to find a particle which, by definition, can only be INFERRED. But there is nothing wrong with INFERENCE. Inference was required in those early searches for our galaxial boundaries. If the logic can stack - then why deny the particle? That 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'? It makes no sense. If it were purely 'speculated' then indeed. Ignore the postulate. But once it's PROVEN? Then one ignores the evidence at the cost of respectable science - being as it is, based on experimental evidence. And what we show is that particle is a magnetic dipole. Use it and all falls into place.
Now. One of Poynty Point's preferred complaints against our own work is that it was all based on errors of measurement. IF this was the case - then this is what's needed. We must throw away our broad band oscilloscopes. Tektronix and Le Croy must both acknowledge that their very best instruments give ENTIRELY erroneous results - REPEATEDLY - and that the waveforms that are shown by both instruments are FALLACIOUS at best. Then those - not such broad band - standard oscilloscope manufacturers must follow suit. Because they show the same waveforms albeit without the ability to give the precise measure of the waveforms. Then all scientists everywhere must simply acknowledge that measurements are MEANINGLESS. And from hereon in, we must depend entirely on BELIEF. That would, indeed, cut it.
Then indeed, we can all comfortably deny that there is any abundant energy - speculated - or proved - and we can all set about destroying our planet with our prodigal overuse of fossil and nuclear fuels. Then, indeed, everything will make very good sense.
So. Poynty Point. I get it that you find it offensive that a mere uneducated old lady can endorse our string theorists with measured proof of postulate. I get it that you either do not understand the simplicity of a magnetic dipole or that you do not understand the requirement to rely on meaurement. And I certainly get it that the obscure and contradictory thinking incorporated into the standard model is to be sanctioned and used - in the face of the all evidence. But I put it to you that it is NOT scientific. At best - it's BIGOTRY. LOTS OF IT. WRIT REALLY LARGE.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
There's a delicious kind of 'push me pull you' dialogue in science that moves it to ever greater clarity. What I mean is this. Galileo finds proof that we orbit the sun. Then other astronomers find the boundary of our galaxy. Then others find the existence of more galaxies. And more. Then they find nebulae, the seed bed of galaxies. And so on. But these are all EVIDENT. When it comes to the scale of the 'small' then everything's INFERRED - because the smallest of the small is still the quark and the quark is still not entirely proved.
And what is also so profoundly excellent about science is this. UNLESS IT IS MEASURABLE - then, by and large, scientists reject the postulate - or they entertain it in a 'partial' context - at best. This has been the rule. UNTIL NOW. For some reason that can only be understood by our scientists - there is an ENTIRE reluctance to acknowledge the possibility of ABUNDANT ENERGY. It's strange. There is a global school of string theorists and dark energy enthusiasts who REQUIRE an outright abundance of something that is not actually visible. A particle that - most assuredly - is NOT part of the standard model. And - at a rough guess, about ninety percent of all scientists simply DENY that any such particle is even required. For the first time EVER in the history of science - there is a profound schism in theoretical physics. No matter the measurable proof - the evidence of this new force and it's required particle - there is a blanket DENIAL. Now the new rule is this. If it relates to DARK ENERGY - then the evidence is to be ignored.
Which is strange. There is no reluctance - to either fund or research the existence of the graviton. But the graviton has also NEVER been SEEN. There is no hesitation to award a Nobel prize to Murray Gell-Mann, the proposer of the quark. But the quark has NEVER been SEEN. So? Why then discard the possibility of a magnetic dipole? Because it's never been seen? Or because to acknowledge it would also require an acknowledgement of all that ABUNDANT energy?
I strongly propose that Ellis et al are due for a Nobel Prize - for the miracle of finding a way to measure and prove the existence of dark energy. And this is denied them simply because they are flirting with the proof of much energy - which, at the moment - is not considered to be politically expedient. Which makes a mockery of the Nobel Prize.
But they have also shot themselves in the foot. They too have spent some valuable resources on trying to find a particle which, by definition, can only be INFERRED. But there is nothing wrong with INFERENCE. Inference was required in those early searches for our galaxial boundaries. If the logic can stack - then why deny the particle? That 'darkon' equivalent of the 'graviton'? It makes no sense. If it were purely 'speculated' then indeed. Ignore the postulate. But once it's PROVEN? Then one ignores the evidence at the cost of respectable science - being as it is, based on experimental evidence. And what we show is that particle is a magnetic dipole. Use it and all falls into place.
Now. One of Poynty Point's preferred complaints against our own work is that it was all based on errors of measurement. IF this was the case - then this is what's needed. We must throw away our broad band oscilloscopes. Tektronix and Le Croy must both acknowledge that their very best instruments give ENTIRELY erroneous results - REPEATEDLY - and that the waveforms that are shown by both instruments are FALLACIOUS at best. Then those - not such broad band - standard oscilloscope manufacturers must follow suit. Because they show the same waveforms albeit without the ability to give the precise measure of the waveforms. Then all scientists everywhere must simply acknowledge that measurements are MEANINGLESS. And from hereon in, we must depend entirely on BELIEF. That would, indeed, cut it.
Then indeed, we can all comfortably deny that there is any abundant energy - speculated - or proved - and we can all set about destroying our planet with our prodigal overuse of fossil and nuclear fuels. Then, indeed, everything will make very good sense.
So. Poynty Point. I get it that you find it offensive that a mere uneducated old lady can endorse our string theorists with measured proof of postulate. I get it that you either do not understand the simplicity of a magnetic dipole or that you do not understand the requirement to rely on meaurement. And I certainly get it that the obscure and contradictory thinking incorporated into the standard model is to be sanctioned and used - in the face of the all evidence. But I put it to you that it is NOT scientific. At best - it's BIGOTRY. LOTS OF IT. WRIT REALLY LARGE.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Friday, December 30, 2011
216 - the background resulting in that prior collaboration fiasco
Dear Reader,
The following is a summary of the fiasco that relates to this early effort of mine to get this technology replicated and then published. It's written here for the record.
Harvey Gramm, to his credit, advised me, long back, that he was NOT my friend. I should have taken him seriously. What he did was insinuate himself into our collaboration for purposes of controlling the paper that we were working on - and thereby ensuring that it would never be published. His first efforts were to include a rambling discourse that referred EVERYWHERE to 'this author's opinion' - or 'this author considers' - all of which is diametrically against the collaborative contract where the author's personalities are required to be indistinct one from another. He then went to some pains to assure the collaborators that he was the 'author' of the paper and that my own contributions were nominal. He then advised all and sundry that my sole purpose was to 'plug my thesis' on the back of Glen Lettenmaier's unique results that had NOTHING to do with a replication. May I remind you all how thin was that denial. Glen managed a COP>7. Harvey miscalculated this to show a COP>4. BOTH claimed that since they did not get a COP>17 they had NOT therefore replicated. And - to confuse the hell of out this nicety - this then became their logic. In as much as their result did not reach COP>17 it was NOT therefore, a REPLICATION in any real sense of the word. ????? What the hell? Why not just acknowledge a COP>1? That alone is AMAZING. Anyway.
Needless to say - when those personal pronouns were edited out of the paper - then Harvey Gramm set up a HOWL OF PROTEST. Such manufactured outrage. The general plot being that 'how dare Rosemary Ainslie amend THIS MY WORK'. Again. This was the kind of self-serving nonsense that he could get away with because Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth Palise, Steve Windisch and Andrew Gardiner - were that ignorant of the protocols of a collaboration - that they simply did not realise that it was required. To this day I am satisfied that Steve Windisch is under the delusion that I had NOT written the bulk of that paper - that Harvey was the author and that I had NO RIGHTS TO AMEND HIS WORK. If it weren't sad it would be funny.
Then. With all that fabricated anger - he then engaged in lengthy discourse with all and sundry - to advise them that I was simply using Glen Lettenmaier's unique experimental evidence to 'piggy back' the ride and right to refer to my thesis. Fortunately for us all - the paper was REJECTED - but with the request that we submit to TIE - within the IEEE. And THAT required a complete re-write. TIE protocols require that submissions are made without any reference to the names of the collaborators - so that the work can be evaluated independently. Since half the paper required wide reference to work that was associated with the authors - then the work had to be included in the main body of the paper. This included the work on the thesis. Therefore were the salient points of the thesis referenced. And here again. Harvey pointed out to EVERYONE - yet again - that I was simply trying to justify the thinking in order to DETRACT? - was it? - from Glen Lettenmaier's independent DISCOVERY of over unity. Because, that rewrite necessitated an explanation of the thesis that predicted the over unity result.
Harvey had a field day and made fools of us all. He broke the spirit of collaboration that had thrived before this through a series of skype calls to all an sundry save myself and Donovan. He had the ready co-operation of Glen Lettenmaier who was most anxious to separate any of our prior work from the acclaim of what was to become THIS HIS OWN DISCOVERY. Ashtweth Palise was just flattered out of mind that he was included in this little 'foray'. Not only did he refer to himself as one of the 'big boys' but presumed, rather laughably - to claim to have had any part in writing that paper. In truth he can hardly write a sentence. Ashtweth was simply invited to be one of the collaborators because I knew he had the required skills to submit the paper. He was nominated, therefore as the submissions author. And Harvey, in his genius, managed usurp even this responsibility.
Fortunately TIE alerted me to the fact and asked me to validate the submission. They also required a substantial editing as Harvey - again deliberately - posted all the diagrams in haphazard format out of context of the paper itself. We edited. We submitted. And within the hour - the paper was REJECTED PRIOR TO REVIEW. This time the request was that we submit to a Physics Journal - as electrical engineers were not qualified to comment on the theory that predicted these results.
The good news was that I now fully understood what Harvey Gramm intended. And it was NEVER to progress this to a publication. In fact I think this would have diametrically opposed his actual mandate. The truth, dear Reader? It is that I was THAT stupid that I could trust to the good will of some internet personalities to progress this work - when they were variously trying to 'kill' credibility (Harvey), take ALL credit for the experimental results (Glen), just rattle around and feel important (Ashtweth), or simply arbitrate from a position of profound ignorance (Steve).
The person I feel sorry for is Glen. The poor guy at least managed the experimental replication. For this his work should have resounded - with or without my involvement. But then Harvey managed to manipulate him too. He was required to post results that DID NOT exceed that magic >1. THAT was when he killed off his own credibility. Let me explain. The results - on all aspects of this test - require careful tuning. Too much 'on' or too much 'off' and that magic moment is gone. Glen knew this. and he exploited it to co-operate with Harvey's need to cast doubt on the technology. Easily managed, but it should have then been followed by NEW and BETTER results. The rabbit out of the hat. The surprise victory in the face of certain defeat. BUT. He never got there. Tektronix recalled their apparatus - and Harvey had now done all that was necessary to 'cast' those 'aspersions'. Now all that Glen could do was throw a tantrum - and rather than acknowledge how utterly duped he had been by Harvey - he chose to rant freely through all the threads accusing me of ... God knows what? He's not renowned for his ability to articulate anything at all.
But the truth is this. Harvey Gramm's mandate was and is to actively prevent the advance of over unity. Be warned - dear Reader. Those sad little concerns - those 'mouthings' that he managed on what was ostensibly Glen's thread at EF.Com. The concern that over unity was never managed - that there may be radiation problems that have not been detected? All that? That was the applied anesthetic to put this technology to sleep. And he would never have had to try that hard. There is ONE TRUTH that is absolutely not arguable. To FIND this result requires the use of sophisticated measuring equipment. And this, most assuredly, is out of the range of the most of our forum experimentalists. Which means that this technology will get a good long sleep - certainly on the forums.
Anyway. That's the history of that little fiasco - an episode in the life of the internet. It shows me that one needs to meet ones collaborators 'eye to eye' to get a gauge of the character one is dealing with. My comfort is that there are whole threads and whole blogs DEDICATED to maligning me. I refer to it often to remind myself of the caliber of the troll. This alone is the proof required to show the lengths to which our pack dogs will go to prevent credibility of our work. And the good news is that their's is a losing battle.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I should add this. I am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology. They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance. They are WELL PAID. And they are VERY EFFECTIVE. The also have liberal access to laboratories. And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there. I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name. They are DANGEROUS. And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses. I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case. We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense. The man's a genius. And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.
Think about it guys. Why is it important to maintain whole blogs to attack my character - when all I'm doing is trying to promote the concept of a particle in a magnetic field? Seems a bit excessive wouldn't you say?
Again,
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
The following is a summary of the fiasco that relates to this early effort of mine to get this technology replicated and then published. It's written here for the record.
Harvey Gramm, to his credit, advised me, long back, that he was NOT my friend. I should have taken him seriously. What he did was insinuate himself into our collaboration for purposes of controlling the paper that we were working on - and thereby ensuring that it would never be published. His first efforts were to include a rambling discourse that referred EVERYWHERE to 'this author's opinion' - or 'this author considers' - all of which is diametrically against the collaborative contract where the author's personalities are required to be indistinct one from another. He then went to some pains to assure the collaborators that he was the 'author' of the paper and that my own contributions were nominal. He then advised all and sundry that my sole purpose was to 'plug my thesis' on the back of Glen Lettenmaier's unique results that had NOTHING to do with a replication. May I remind you all how thin was that denial. Glen managed a COP>7. Harvey miscalculated this to show a COP>4. BOTH claimed that since they did not get a COP>17 they had NOT therefore replicated. And - to confuse the hell of out this nicety - this then became their logic. In as much as their result did not reach COP>17 it was NOT therefore, a REPLICATION in any real sense of the word. ????? What the hell? Why not just acknowledge a COP>1? That alone is AMAZING. Anyway.
Needless to say - when those personal pronouns were edited out of the paper - then Harvey Gramm set up a HOWL OF PROTEST. Such manufactured outrage. The general plot being that 'how dare Rosemary Ainslie amend THIS MY WORK'. Again. This was the kind of self-serving nonsense that he could get away with because Glen Lettenmaier, Ashtweth Palise, Steve Windisch and Andrew Gardiner - were that ignorant of the protocols of a collaboration - that they simply did not realise that it was required. To this day I am satisfied that Steve Windisch is under the delusion that I had NOT written the bulk of that paper - that Harvey was the author and that I had NO RIGHTS TO AMEND HIS WORK. If it weren't sad it would be funny.
Then. With all that fabricated anger - he then engaged in lengthy discourse with all and sundry - to advise them that I was simply using Glen Lettenmaier's unique experimental evidence to 'piggy back' the ride and right to refer to my thesis. Fortunately for us all - the paper was REJECTED - but with the request that we submit to TIE - within the IEEE. And THAT required a complete re-write. TIE protocols require that submissions are made without any reference to the names of the collaborators - so that the work can be evaluated independently. Since half the paper required wide reference to work that was associated with the authors - then the work had to be included in the main body of the paper. This included the work on the thesis. Therefore were the salient points of the thesis referenced. And here again. Harvey pointed out to EVERYONE - yet again - that I was simply trying to justify the thinking in order to DETRACT? - was it? - from Glen Lettenmaier's independent DISCOVERY of over unity. Because, that rewrite necessitated an explanation of the thesis that predicted the over unity result.
Harvey had a field day and made fools of us all. He broke the spirit of collaboration that had thrived before this through a series of skype calls to all an sundry save myself and Donovan. He had the ready co-operation of Glen Lettenmaier who was most anxious to separate any of our prior work from the acclaim of what was to become THIS HIS OWN DISCOVERY. Ashtweth Palise was just flattered out of mind that he was included in this little 'foray'. Not only did he refer to himself as one of the 'big boys' but presumed, rather laughably - to claim to have had any part in writing that paper. In truth he can hardly write a sentence. Ashtweth was simply invited to be one of the collaborators because I knew he had the required skills to submit the paper. He was nominated, therefore as the submissions author. And Harvey, in his genius, managed usurp even this responsibility.
Fortunately TIE alerted me to the fact and asked me to validate the submission. They also required a substantial editing as Harvey - again deliberately - posted all the diagrams in haphazard format out of context of the paper itself. We edited. We submitted. And within the hour - the paper was REJECTED PRIOR TO REVIEW. This time the request was that we submit to a Physics Journal - as electrical engineers were not qualified to comment on the theory that predicted these results.
The good news was that I now fully understood what Harvey Gramm intended. And it was NEVER to progress this to a publication. In fact I think this would have diametrically opposed his actual mandate. The truth, dear Reader? It is that I was THAT stupid that I could trust to the good will of some internet personalities to progress this work - when they were variously trying to 'kill' credibility (Harvey), take ALL credit for the experimental results (Glen), just rattle around and feel important (Ashtweth), or simply arbitrate from a position of profound ignorance (Steve).
The person I feel sorry for is Glen. The poor guy at least managed the experimental replication. For this his work should have resounded - with or without my involvement. But then Harvey managed to manipulate him too. He was required to post results that DID NOT exceed that magic >1. THAT was when he killed off his own credibility. Let me explain. The results - on all aspects of this test - require careful tuning. Too much 'on' or too much 'off' and that magic moment is gone. Glen knew this. and he exploited it to co-operate with Harvey's need to cast doubt on the technology. Easily managed, but it should have then been followed by NEW and BETTER results. The rabbit out of the hat. The surprise victory in the face of certain defeat. BUT. He never got there. Tektronix recalled their apparatus - and Harvey had now done all that was necessary to 'cast' those 'aspersions'. Now all that Glen could do was throw a tantrum - and rather than acknowledge how utterly duped he had been by Harvey - he chose to rant freely through all the threads accusing me of ... God knows what? He's not renowned for his ability to articulate anything at all.
But the truth is this. Harvey Gramm's mandate was and is to actively prevent the advance of over unity. Be warned - dear Reader. Those sad little concerns - those 'mouthings' that he managed on what was ostensibly Glen's thread at EF.Com. The concern that over unity was never managed - that there may be radiation problems that have not been detected? All that? That was the applied anesthetic to put this technology to sleep. And he would never have had to try that hard. There is ONE TRUTH that is absolutely not arguable. To FIND this result requires the use of sophisticated measuring equipment. And this, most assuredly, is out of the range of the most of our forum experimentalists. Which means that this technology will get a good long sleep - certainly on the forums.
Anyway. That's the history of that little fiasco - an episode in the life of the internet. It shows me that one needs to meet ones collaborators 'eye to eye' to get a gauge of the character one is dealing with. My comfort is that there are whole threads and whole blogs DEDICATED to maligning me. I refer to it often to remind myself of the caliber of the troll. This alone is the proof required to show the lengths to which our pack dogs will go to prevent credibility of our work. And the good news is that their's is a losing battle.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I should add this. I am entirely satisfied that Harvey Gramm and Tinsel Koala? among others are all paid to deflect from this 'free energy' technology. They are trained in psychology - NOT SCIENCE - and their mandate is to use any means possible to detract from either the work, the character - or BOTH - to continually frustrate this reach for energy abundance. They are WELL PAID. And they are VERY EFFECTIVE. The also have liberal access to laboratories. And TK was able to deflect from the work of ?? - can't remember the name as it happened before my advent to the forums - (it could be Mylow - somesuch?) where he was able to INSERT a wire that simply was not there. I'll get back here when I've found out the man's name. They are DANGEROUS. And this is the real psyops program that is happening under our noses. I am NOT paranoid. And frankly I'd prefer it if this were not the case. We can all get comfort from the fact that Rossi is well able to deal with their nonsense. The man's a genius. And he's had his own bellyful of exposure to their agendas.
Think about it guys. Why is it important to maintain whole blogs to attack my character - when all I'm doing is trying to promote the concept of a particle in a magnetic field? Seems a bit excessive wouldn't you say?
Again,
Kindest as ever,
Rosemary
Thursday, December 29, 2011
215 - what the hell
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
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
Monday, December 26, 2011
214 - belated greetings
Dear Reader,
I'm up in the sticks - bushveld country. I was going to work from here - but the internet link has been tenuous - and today's the first time I've managed anything. Quite apart from which - I've been busy with my grandchildren. What a pleasure.
Belatedly - merry Christmas everyone. I hope, like me, you all had way too much of everything delicious - and that you recuperate in time for the New Year. I should be back by then. I noticed, with alarm, that our thread has dropped off front page at ou.com. I hope it's not from want of interest. We've been viewing game, lions, every species of buck. Some wonderful species.
This is my first exposure to the bushveld and I'm blown away at the sheer number of thorn trees. In the small area around his house there are at least a half dozen varieties. Everything surprisingly green - as we're in the rainy season. And WHAT storms. The sky alive with lightning flashes and rolling thunder. It makes our Cape storms rather tame by comparison.
I'll get back on topic soon. Just enjoying this much needed break.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
I'm up in the sticks - bushveld country. I was going to work from here - but the internet link has been tenuous - and today's the first time I've managed anything. Quite apart from which - I've been busy with my grandchildren. What a pleasure.
Belatedly - merry Christmas everyone. I hope, like me, you all had way too much of everything delicious - and that you recuperate in time for the New Year. I should be back by then. I noticed, with alarm, that our thread has dropped off front page at ou.com. I hope it's not from want of interest. We've been viewing game, lions, every species of buck. Some wonderful species.
This is my first exposure to the bushveld and I'm blown away at the sheer number of thorn trees. In the small area around his house there are at least a half dozen varieties. Everything surprisingly green - as we're in the rainy season. And WHAT storms. The sky alive with lightning flashes and rolling thunder. It makes our Cape storms rather tame by comparison.
I'll get back on topic soon. Just enjoying this much needed break.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Thursday, December 15, 2011
213 - good - we can relax now - Grumpy et al are going to sort out our problems
Dear Reader
A couple of points. The first is that I've finally got another blog. I'll post there soon. I'll possibly keep this one open as a commentary for our trolls. lol.
Much amused this morning to discover that Grumpy now determines that energy does, indeed, come from the environment. lol. As he puts it - like Tesla before him - this is his GREATEST DISCOVERY. Well. Then they've referenced another dissertation - this time on energetic forum - where a pretender has wrapped himself into a Gordian knot and found himself without the wherewithal to extricate himself. He is their new 'authority'.
Dear God. I seem to remember that Grumpy attributes energy to the movement of electrons that respond to 'pressure'. It's akin to MileHigh's contention that particles respond to gravity. The joke is that they both accuse ME of being deluded.
Anyway - it seems that all our puzzles related to 'free energy' or 'force fields' and their abundance - can now be safely ascribed to our new authorities on these matters. We all await their learned discourse with bated breath. Hopefully they'll find the required particle. And presumably they're aware of this need.
But on the whole, dear Reader, I suspect that this new meandering may only serve to keep our physics off its required course. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of my own book and show us all some experimental evidence FIRST. That would help.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
A couple of points. The first is that I've finally got another blog. I'll post there soon. I'll possibly keep this one open as a commentary for our trolls. lol.
Much amused this morning to discover that Grumpy now determines that energy does, indeed, come from the environment. lol. As he puts it - like Tesla before him - this is his GREATEST DISCOVERY. Well. Then they've referenced another dissertation - this time on energetic forum - where a pretender has wrapped himself into a Gordian knot and found himself without the wherewithal to extricate himself. He is their new 'authority'.
Dear God. I seem to remember that Grumpy attributes energy to the movement of electrons that respond to 'pressure'. It's akin to MileHigh's contention that particles respond to gravity. The joke is that they both accuse ME of being deluded.
Anyway - it seems that all our puzzles related to 'free energy' or 'force fields' and their abundance - can now be safely ascribed to our new authorities on these matters. We all await their learned discourse with bated breath. Hopefully they'll find the required particle. And presumably they're aware of this need.
But on the whole, dear Reader, I suspect that this new meandering may only serve to keep our physics off its required course. Perhaps they should take a leaf out of my own book and show us all some experimental evidence FIRST. That would help.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
212 - there's none so blind
Dear Reader,
I'm miffed. Actually, that's not true. I am angered. Which still, somehow does not do justice to this outrage that I feel.
Please do yourselves a favour. Just imagine that a magnetic field comprises a particle. Impose that on what you know of a magnetic field. Then your own logic will carry our argument to its inevitable conclusion that herein lies the source of all that elusive energy that needs must be accessed.
In over a decade I know only this. A handful of collaborators and another handful of academics have acknowledged, privately, or publicly, the merit in this proposal. Now. I do not give a twopenny damn if that particle is called a zipon or a catastrophon or anything at all. I don't care if anyone comes out of left field who has the required credentials then give that proposal better credibility. I just CARE THAT IT'S PROGRESSED. It is a magnetic dipole that has a field velocity of 2C and out of the field it is identifiable as 'flame'.
It is a VERY unpopular realisation. Because it cannot be made without also owning up to our collective inability over the many, many thousands of years where we have worked with fire - that we have misidentified or misconstrued the properties of this. Something so OBVIOUS. Why then was it missed? I'll tell you why. It's precisely because it IS that obvious. Our theoreticians work with SUBTLE concepts. And the intellectual OUTRAGE of our academics is PRECISELY because the concept can then EASILY BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL. They will need to forfeit that stranglehold monopoly they've assumed in their authority on matters scientific. IF indeed, this concept will be EASILY AND READILY UNDERSTOOD - then what further need for all that 'mystique' which cloaks precisely that authority that they parade.
Now. Let me tell you about another ATTENDANT danger. When these simple principles are applied to our general knowledge on things scientific - then it will, most assuredly, be progressed OUTSIDE OF OUR ACADEMIES. There is a simple solution here to generating PERPETUAL SPIN - that ultimate 'no no' of perpetual motion. A further simple application would enable anti gravity. If I can already see how this is applied - how much more readily will this be seen by those sharper intellects drawn from our world's population - now measured in the billions. Unlike me, there will be those who have the funds to experiment. All that power and knowledge - so freely dispersed. It's going to cause an unwelcome BALANCE. It is an imbalance or inequity in the general distribution of wealth that our monopolists require to promote their monopolies.
And the solution is based on one little non standard particle that operates in a field condition and transfers its energy when that field condition is disturbed. OF COURSE there is a crying need to close down my threads - to mock my work - to deny our results. But its done at the CERTAIN DELAY to the progress of this knowledge. AND. IF we do not progress this knowledge - and USE THIS FORCE - THEN WE WILL, MOST CERTAINLY - DRIFT INTO A CONFRONTATION WITH NATURE THAT WILL DECIMATE our population and most of the progress that has been managed by our civilizations.
So. It's a kind of ARMAGEDDON - but the war will be with nature itself. And it's neither here not there to say it's my idea - or anyone's at all. The truth is that - like all knowledge - it belongs to us all. I am therefore COMPELLED to progress this, as best I can - within the very real constraints of my poor abilities - until such time as someone manages to do this better. BUT KNOW THIS. It may be called by a different name - but it will always be what it is. A MAGNETIC DIPOLE as the basic structure of a 10 DIMENSIONAL BINARY SYSTEM which, in turn, structures our universe.
Dear God, I pray that there are those who read this and pay attention. This is now getting critical.
Regards,
Rosemary
here again is the link to that second paper of ours. Please read the appendix. It's all there.
click here
I'm miffed. Actually, that's not true. I am angered. Which still, somehow does not do justice to this outrage that I feel.
Please do yourselves a favour. Just imagine that a magnetic field comprises a particle. Impose that on what you know of a magnetic field. Then your own logic will carry our argument to its inevitable conclusion that herein lies the source of all that elusive energy that needs must be accessed.
In over a decade I know only this. A handful of collaborators and another handful of academics have acknowledged, privately, or publicly, the merit in this proposal. Now. I do not give a twopenny damn if that particle is called a zipon or a catastrophon or anything at all. I don't care if anyone comes out of left field who has the required credentials then give that proposal better credibility. I just CARE THAT IT'S PROGRESSED. It is a magnetic dipole that has a field velocity of 2C and out of the field it is identifiable as 'flame'.
It is a VERY unpopular realisation. Because it cannot be made without also owning up to our collective inability over the many, many thousands of years where we have worked with fire - that we have misidentified or misconstrued the properties of this. Something so OBVIOUS. Why then was it missed? I'll tell you why. It's precisely because it IS that obvious. Our theoreticians work with SUBTLE concepts. And the intellectual OUTRAGE of our academics is PRECISELY because the concept can then EASILY BE UNDERSTOOD BY ALL. They will need to forfeit that stranglehold monopoly they've assumed in their authority on matters scientific. IF indeed, this concept will be EASILY AND READILY UNDERSTOOD - then what further need for all that 'mystique' which cloaks precisely that authority that they parade.
Now. Let me tell you about another ATTENDANT danger. When these simple principles are applied to our general knowledge on things scientific - then it will, most assuredly, be progressed OUTSIDE OF OUR ACADEMIES. There is a simple solution here to generating PERPETUAL SPIN - that ultimate 'no no' of perpetual motion. A further simple application would enable anti gravity. If I can already see how this is applied - how much more readily will this be seen by those sharper intellects drawn from our world's population - now measured in the billions. Unlike me, there will be those who have the funds to experiment. All that power and knowledge - so freely dispersed. It's going to cause an unwelcome BALANCE. It is an imbalance or inequity in the general distribution of wealth that our monopolists require to promote their monopolies.
And the solution is based on one little non standard particle that operates in a field condition and transfers its energy when that field condition is disturbed. OF COURSE there is a crying need to close down my threads - to mock my work - to deny our results. But its done at the CERTAIN DELAY to the progress of this knowledge. AND. IF we do not progress this knowledge - and USE THIS FORCE - THEN WE WILL, MOST CERTAINLY - DRIFT INTO A CONFRONTATION WITH NATURE THAT WILL DECIMATE our population and most of the progress that has been managed by our civilizations.
So. It's a kind of ARMAGEDDON - but the war will be with nature itself. And it's neither here not there to say it's my idea - or anyone's at all. The truth is that - like all knowledge - it belongs to us all. I am therefore COMPELLED to progress this, as best I can - within the very real constraints of my poor abilities - until such time as someone manages to do this better. BUT KNOW THIS. It may be called by a different name - but it will always be what it is. A MAGNETIC DIPOLE as the basic structure of a 10 DIMENSIONAL BINARY SYSTEM which, in turn, structures our universe.
Dear God, I pray that there are those who read this and pay attention. This is now getting critical.
Regards,
Rosemary
here again is the link to that second paper of ours. Please read the appendix. It's all there.
click here
211 - a sample of pathological science
Dear Reader,
Here's a sample of the pathological science that proliferates our internet this one courtesy Poynty Point's forum - where his members are reaching into dimensions of pretension that that are staggering in their scale of absurdity and ludicrous for their want of good sense.
"The second longitudinal wave equation applies to vector potentials that vary in an accelerative manner through time:
When the vector potential is strongly and nonlinearly pulsed, it creates a corresponding gravitational pulse because the ether is double compressed. This is what Tesla observed in his experiments with radiant energy, where upon sending a strong current pulse down a wire he would feel a sharp slap to his body even if standing behind a metal shield. The scalar superpotential around a wire carrying a steady electric current looks something like this:
When the current is pulsed, it creates a gravitational shockwave in and around the wire. Electrons drag ether along with them, and when electron density changes rapidly, so does the ether density. This is why wires given strong current pulses mysteriously break apart into segments as though pulled apart by internal longitudinal forces, and why rail guns buckle in ways that cannot be explained by mere magnetic forces."
And then, like all BAD SCIENCE - there's a reach for 'authority' by misquoting their shining guru and light - Tesla. What Tesla pointed to was that energy - the thing itself - does not 'come from' our physical dimensions but that it comes from the ether. He was SPOT ON. Now - lest this be overlooked - I SAID IT FIRST. The ether is simply the all encompassing magnetic field. It comprises magnetic dipoles - little spherical magnets. IT IS EVERYWHERE. Put that into your pipes when you smoke out all those obtuse little statements supported by that appalling reach into pretentious but ever inadequate equations - and you may, indeed, find what you're all trying to find. What a joke.
It's all very simple. And if you object to anyone finding the solution bar yourselves and Nikola the Great - then unfortunately you're all in for a disappointment. It was first seen by FARADAY. It was required by our STRING THEORISTS. It was then measured by our ASTROPHYSICISTS. And some of it's full force was then exposed by ROSSI. That's the ACTUAL HISTORY. Interspersed with this are the confusions of both classical and quantum theorists who haven't yet managed a full description of the 'weak interaction' let alone the strong. And their particular Achylles heel is centered on their denial of anything ever exceeding light speed. How - in God's name - do they know this? If something exceeded light speed then LIGHT would not be able to find it. There could be a whole world of things that move faster. And it would ALWAYS be out of tangible measurable reach.
So. Spare us that very public display of such ponderous nonsense - For God's sake. We are way past the time when you can drivel on with obtuse and ill defined verbose rubbish, intended to throw a smokescreen around your ignorance. Surprisingly, it is the ONLY thing that shines through all that fog in your forum - the beacon of light to steer theoretical physics BACK TO THE ROCKS.
Just spare us all that pretension. We really need to find answers. Not perpetuate the nonsense that proliferates around theoretical physics.
Regards,
Rosemary
Here's a sample of the pathological science that proliferates our internet this one courtesy Poynty Point's forum - where his members are reaching into dimensions of pretension that that are staggering in their scale of absurdity and ludicrous for their want of good sense.
"The second longitudinal wave equation applies to vector potentials that vary in an accelerative manner through time:
When the vector potential is strongly and nonlinearly pulsed, it creates a corresponding gravitational pulse because the ether is double compressed. This is what Tesla observed in his experiments with radiant energy, where upon sending a strong current pulse down a wire he would feel a sharp slap to his body even if standing behind a metal shield. The scalar superpotential around a wire carrying a steady electric current looks something like this:
When the current is pulsed, it creates a gravitational shockwave in and around the wire. Electrons drag ether along with them, and when electron density changes rapidly, so does the ether density. This is why wires given strong current pulses mysteriously break apart into segments as though pulled apart by internal longitudinal forces, and why rail guns buckle in ways that cannot be explained by mere magnetic forces."
And then, like all BAD SCIENCE - there's a reach for 'authority' by misquoting their shining guru and light - Tesla. What Tesla pointed to was that energy - the thing itself - does not 'come from' our physical dimensions but that it comes from the ether. He was SPOT ON. Now - lest this be overlooked - I SAID IT FIRST. The ether is simply the all encompassing magnetic field. It comprises magnetic dipoles - little spherical magnets. IT IS EVERYWHERE. Put that into your pipes when you smoke out all those obtuse little statements supported by that appalling reach into pretentious but ever inadequate equations - and you may, indeed, find what you're all trying to find. What a joke.
It's all very simple. And if you object to anyone finding the solution bar yourselves and Nikola the Great - then unfortunately you're all in for a disappointment. It was first seen by FARADAY. It was required by our STRING THEORISTS. It was then measured by our ASTROPHYSICISTS. And some of it's full force was then exposed by ROSSI. That's the ACTUAL HISTORY. Interspersed with this are the confusions of both classical and quantum theorists who haven't yet managed a full description of the 'weak interaction' let alone the strong. And their particular Achylles heel is centered on their denial of anything ever exceeding light speed. How - in God's name - do they know this? If something exceeded light speed then LIGHT would not be able to find it. There could be a whole world of things that move faster. And it would ALWAYS be out of tangible measurable reach.
So. Spare us that very public display of such ponderous nonsense - For God's sake. We are way past the time when you can drivel on with obtuse and ill defined verbose rubbish, intended to throw a smokescreen around your ignorance. Surprisingly, it is the ONLY thing that shines through all that fog in your forum - the beacon of light to steer theoretical physics BACK TO THE ROCKS.
Just spare us all that pretension. We really need to find answers. Not perpetuate the nonsense that proliferates around theoretical physics.
Regards,
Rosemary
Monday, December 12, 2011
210 - that 10th post thing
Dear Reader,
With the caveat that our thesis is correct - then here's the thing.
We all know that the atomic space between the nucleus and it's electrons is VAST. For example, in a hydrogen atom - if the nucleus was the size of your average granny smith apple - then the electron would be the size of a split pea - orbiting at a radial distance of about 8 miles from that apple's core. The assumption is this. All that space between the 'apple' and the 'split pea' is empty. At best there is a proposed electromagnetic field that results from the movement of the electron. But that assumption errs.
What we have done is structured the theoretical imposition of magnetic field in a series of concentric circles comprising varying lengths of Faraday's closed lines of force. As this relates to hydrogen atoms the proposal is this. Each closed line of force is structured from magnetic dipoles that have conjoined - head to toe - or north to south. In effect there's a 'saucer shaped' field made up of 6 then 6 + 6, then 12 + 6, the 18 + 6 - and so on, the one circle enclosing the next, until there is a total of 1836 dipoles including the 'vanishing charges of the particles in the proton and the electron of each hydrogen atom. These concentric circles are structured from dipoles that form the energy levels. Interestingly, if one structures this field then, logically, there is a natural progression where the charge of the entire field demarcates into naturally occurring energy levels that carry their own precise graduations of size and charge
The proposal is that these particles in the field cannot be detected because they orbit at a velocity that exceeds light speed. We were able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron based on the proposal that the field itself orbits at a velocity of 2C. There is, therefore, an implicit relationship between mass and velocity which is also defined in the thesis. Because of this velocity they are 'out of reach' of a photon, which has a velocity of C or less. Therefore they are invisible. And because of the complexity of the composite charge of those closed strings, their charge value is neutral. Therefore the charge of the field is also not discernible. Therefore too, have these energy levels been rendered 'invisible' and their existence inferred only by the orbit of the electron. And the electron, in turn, is 'trapped' between two or more energy levels - in its orbit around that nucleus - as the fields themselves orbit the nucleus.
The nucleus itself is proposed to comprise a proton which, in turn comprises a composite of 9 of those magnetic dipoles. The electron comprises 3. Every time that the hydrogen atom transmutes to more complex atoms then it extrapolates it's new protons, neutrons and electrons from the dipoles in those energy levels. This results in the reduction in size of the atom as it increases in complexity. Again. While the 'energy' required for this transmutation process is from outside the atom, the material in the transmutation process is from the dipoles in those energy levels. Therefore as this progresses to increasingly complex atomic elements then there is a corresponding reduction in the volume of the atom - which is inversely proportional to the weight/mass of that element. It is proposed that all the elements evolved in this way - from a base structure of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. Therefore there are essentially not less than three branches of the elements.
In effect the first 'closed system' comprises this precise number of dipoles that orbit their own structure of the nucleus and that hold the electron trapped in their energy levels. All these observations conform to the standard model but require a precise count of the mass variations of all the elements. That is outside the scope of this thesis.
The point is this. These fields all follow an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. An imbalance in charge is measured in the ratio of electrons to protons. Where they exceed or are less than the proton count then that imbalance is reflected in the energy levels. This then compels or 'predisposes' the element to a bonded condition with compensatory imbalances in juxtaposed elements. This balance is a function of the weak interaction.
I have no idea if that makes anything clearer. But that's essentially what we're pointing to. Its possibly better explained in the 'model'. When I find that link I'll post it here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
With the caveat that our thesis is correct - then here's the thing.
We all know that the atomic space between the nucleus and it's electrons is VAST. For example, in a hydrogen atom - if the nucleus was the size of your average granny smith apple - then the electron would be the size of a split pea - orbiting at a radial distance of about 8 miles from that apple's core. The assumption is this. All that space between the 'apple' and the 'split pea' is empty. At best there is a proposed electromagnetic field that results from the movement of the electron. But that assumption errs.
What we have done is structured the theoretical imposition of magnetic field in a series of concentric circles comprising varying lengths of Faraday's closed lines of force. As this relates to hydrogen atoms the proposal is this. Each closed line of force is structured from magnetic dipoles that have conjoined - head to toe - or north to south. In effect there's a 'saucer shaped' field made up of 6 then 6 + 6, then 12 + 6, the 18 + 6 - and so on, the one circle enclosing the next, until there is a total of 1836 dipoles including the 'vanishing charges of the particles in the proton and the electron of each hydrogen atom. These concentric circles are structured from dipoles that form the energy levels. Interestingly, if one structures this field then, logically, there is a natural progression where the charge of the entire field demarcates into naturally occurring energy levels that carry their own precise graduations of size and charge
The proposal is that these particles in the field cannot be detected because they orbit at a velocity that exceeds light speed. We were able to reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron based on the proposal that the field itself orbits at a velocity of 2C. There is, therefore, an implicit relationship between mass and velocity which is also defined in the thesis. Because of this velocity they are 'out of reach' of a photon, which has a velocity of C or less. Therefore they are invisible. And because of the complexity of the composite charge of those closed strings, their charge value is neutral. Therefore the charge of the field is also not discernible. Therefore too, have these energy levels been rendered 'invisible' and their existence inferred only by the orbit of the electron. And the electron, in turn, is 'trapped' between two or more energy levels - in its orbit around that nucleus - as the fields themselves orbit the nucleus.
The nucleus itself is proposed to comprise a proton which, in turn comprises a composite of 9 of those magnetic dipoles. The electron comprises 3. Every time that the hydrogen atom transmutes to more complex atoms then it extrapolates it's new protons, neutrons and electrons from the dipoles in those energy levels. This results in the reduction in size of the atom as it increases in complexity. Again. While the 'energy' required for this transmutation process is from outside the atom, the material in the transmutation process is from the dipoles in those energy levels. Therefore as this progresses to increasingly complex atomic elements then there is a corresponding reduction in the volume of the atom - which is inversely proportional to the weight/mass of that element. It is proposed that all the elements evolved in this way - from a base structure of hydrogen, deuterium and tritium. Therefore there are essentially not less than three branches of the elements.
In effect the first 'closed system' comprises this precise number of dipoles that orbit their own structure of the nucleus and that hold the electron trapped in their energy levels. All these observations conform to the standard model but require a precise count of the mass variations of all the elements. That is outside the scope of this thesis.
The point is this. These fields all follow an immutable imperative to move to a condition of charge balance. An imbalance in charge is measured in the ratio of electrons to protons. Where they exceed or are less than the proton count then that imbalance is reflected in the energy levels. This then compels or 'predisposes' the element to a bonded condition with compensatory imbalances in juxtaposed elements. This balance is a function of the weak interaction.
I have no idea if that makes anything clearer. But that's essentially what we're pointing to. Its possibly better explained in the 'model'. When I find that link I'll post it here.
Kindest regards,
Rosemary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)