X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f9e16,50ac4d927580fd95 X-Google-Attributes: gidf9e16,public X-Google-Thread: fc9f9,50ac4d927580fd95 X-Google-Attributes: gidfc9f9,public X-Google-Thread: f996b,50ac4d927580fd95 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-Thread: 107d75,50ac4d927580fd95 X-Google-Attributes: gid107d75,public X-Google-Thread: fcfb9,8461e7153691c525 X-Google-Attributes: gidfcfb9,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-24 11:36:02 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!not-for-mail From: yttrx@mutilation.net (.) Newsgroups: alt.ascii-art,comp.os.linux.advocacy,alt.flame.jesus.christ,alt.seduction.fast,comp.text.tex Subject: Re: Incredible! Anti-Gravity device works and is patented 01-31-2002 Date: 24 Mar 2002 19:35:27 GMT Lines: 226 Sender: abbie Message-ID: References: <3C9CF5D7.7090806@mmcable.com> <3C9D03E4.9090806@mmcable.com> <3d2q9uk0fkp2vgj5nb15nacr508n22o1sv@4ax.com> <3C9D15D7.8070103@mmcable.com> <3C9E2499.2040906@mmcable.com> X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVYMtf0UQq/8I5bFt7c+9WvgosusysPhEAmiXbqQVA9IMarjlwG+/lqH X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Mar 2002 19:35:27 GMT User-Agent: tin/1.5.11-20020124 ("Darkcell") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/4.3-STABLE (i386)) Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:16187 comp.os.linux.advocacy:218603 alt.flame.jesus.christ:74261 alt.seduction.fast:80209 comp.text.tex:43279 In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert wrote: > . wrote: >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert wrote: >> >>>. wrote: >>> >>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Dr Scab wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>On Sat, 23 Mar 2002 22:37:17 GMT, in alt.ascii-art, >>>>>(Charlie Ebert ) wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Dr Scab wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>Going by that definition, a helicopter counts as an anti-gravity device. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>You really are off your head. >>>>>> >>>>>>My goodness! By your line of thinking so is the moon! >>>>> >>>>>The moon does not defy gravity. This new device does not defy gravity any >>>>>more than helicopters do. >>>> >>>> >> >>>Having read the others comments about just because it's patented doesn't >>>mean it works, blah, blah, blah, despite the pictures.... >>>I will say, shure! I've seen transister radios and the like exibiting >>>this kind of phenomena for years! SHURE! Just go to any park and >>>you'll see kids flying their high voltage UFO's all over the place. >>>They quit kites years ago! SHURE!!! YEAH!!! >> >> >>>This guy has had people all over the world repeat the experiment and >>>build their own. Just check out the website. >> >> >>>So it works. >> >> >>>Now that covers their comments and now I will address my freind >>>yttrx's comments. >> >> >>>I have some respect for yttrx as I've been debating with him for >>>years. >> >> >>>Yttrx! >> >> >>>>Even anti-gravity devices (when and if they come to fruition) will >>> >>>not defy >>> >>>>gravity, they will simply exemplify its properties. >>>> >>> >> >>>Let me think here. To be anti would have the same meaning as exemplify >>>in this case wouldn't it. To neutralize! But more than neutralize, >>>to actually repulse as it lifts off the table. It doesn't just hover, >>>it can go up and down like it was climing a ladder. >> >> >>>But the comment about when and if they come is not necessary as the >>>issue is now in the past tense. The technology has been invented >>>and it's working. >> >> >>>They are reversing the effects of gravity without the aid of thrust. >> >> >>>There is no thrust here. >> >> >> Perhaps not, but there is energy which is being converted to "work", >> obviously. It is lifted off the table. >> > The art of repulsing gravity could be construed as THRUST! > So I stand corrected. It has thrust but the debate is what > kind of thrust. >> >>>So, I'm trying to imagine what frame of mind your in here. >> >> >>>Are we in the same frame of mind or is there another angle >>>you're trying to represent. Expound on your notion here. >> >> >> What im saying is this: >> >> The thing that is being discussed here is probably not an anti-gravity >> device, since it is exploiting no known property of the force of gravity >> to achieve lift. >> > It's can't be because it's not known? It can't be an anti-gravity > device because it's not exploiting something we understand? Stop arguing with me...we agree on all of this. I purposely said "probably not an anti-gravity device" because I honestly do not know whether repulsion of non-ferrous materials achieved by very strong EM fields is exploiting a property of the force of gravity or not. >From the research ive done in the field, its not clear to me that *anyone* knows. >> However, this does not mean that anti-gravity devices (that which can be >> defined as "nullifying" or "neutralizing" or "reversing" the *force of >> gravity itself*) are impossible. If an anti-gravity device was somehow >> created, it would not "defy" gravity, logically it would simply expound on >> properties of the force of gravity that are either barely-or not understood >> at all at this point. >> > If the properties are barely or not understood at this point, how can > one conclusively say it isn't happening? One cant. Thats my point. I try to chose my words carefully, with terms like "probably" implying a certian mild conviction on my part that is admittedly not provable one way or the other. Maybe the electromagnetic force (one of the basic four; EM, strong nuclear, weak nuclear and gravity) properties employed in this experiment really *are* directly or indirectly employing a property or properties of gravity that we do not understand yet. But again, I dont think that thats the important thing here. The important thing here is that it seems to work, and its cheap to build. >> >>>Gravity is a mass attraction and it's been discovered how >>>to neutralize the mass attraction and this has implications >>>for the mass production of a great many things. >> >> >> It sure does, which is why it is essential that it is not discounted entirely >> as "science fiction". Maybe we'll never come up with an actual anti-gravity >> device....But if we believe that it is not possible at all, we ABSOLUTELY >> never will. >> >> Thatd be missing out on quite alot. >> > They don't even know how electricity works yet we use it every day. > Nobody has EVER seen electricity nor understand the principles of what > makes it work? Which direction does electricity flow in? Negative to > positive poles or the other way around? > They've never explained any of this and we've been using electricity for > over a hundred years now. > The whole point is this yttrx. I find it amazing the vacuum of people > who will just throw their bodies into this posture of "IT CAN'T BE" when > they themselves will admit, or in the case of Mike {FLAGULATE}, the > posture of the unknowning. > Like the born again christian {REPUBLICAN} fat asses who lay their > body's down on the sidewalks and protest abortions and condumns all > day long, we have these hoards of people who have thrown themselves > into this mid-evil stench of catholicism and have proclaimed they > don't know what makes these things fly but they are god damn sure > it can't be anti-gravity because they know better! > Considering the parallel development model that Linux was indeed > developed under, wouldn't it be a mid-evil thought of yours that > turning a notion loose to thousands of untrained inventors would > be an extremely bad idea. Don't you realize that Thomas Edison was > indeed one of these dumb-asses in his day! Yes, and we all have nikolai tesla to thank for the induction (so to speak) of AC power into all of our homes. We also have him to thank for the radio, no matter what fans of marconi tell you. :) Ive been following the development of EM work-systems for some time now, ever since I first heard of the guy in berkeley (sorry, I cannot remember his name) who years ago aimed two tesla coils at a styrofoam cup and made it fly up and hit the ceiling. According to his measurements, even though one of the "supposed" prerequisites for EM repulsion was that both materials be magnetized, the cup itself was not to any measurable capacity. He repeated the experiment with cups of yogurt, planks of wood, coffeegrounds, etc, all with identical results. He was an amateur---though he admittedly did know quite alot about electrical engineering and physics. Amateur inventors are just as important now as they were 100 years ago; they may not always know WHAT theyre inventing or why it works the way it does, but theyre very often unbridled by the same revolting "scientific religion" which closes the minds of their well-known collegues. > I'm sure you spend most of your life protesting some of the issues > I've covered, while breaking the same rule you protest in yet other > fields of endevor! I'm not sure what this means. > The bottom line here is NEVER SAY NEVER... > The second lesson is NEVER POOP in another man's cup unless you > can to educate. And by the term 'CAN' and the terms 'POOP' I'll > let you put the rest together in your own time. But you have to > have the experience to know how to put the two elements together > properly. We agree, I think. -----. -- end of line.