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: fcfb9,8461e7153691c525 X-Google-Attributes: gidfcfb9,public X-Google-Thread: 107d75,50ac4d927580fd95 X-Google-Attributes: gid107d75,public X-Google-Thread: f996b,50ac4d927580fd95 X-Google-Attributes: gidf996b,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-24 11:39:10 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.socal.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.kc.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C9E2B64.30700@mmcable.com> From: Charlie Ebert User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020311 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 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 References: <3C9CF5D7.7090806@mmcable.com> <3C9D03E4.9090806@mmcable.com> <3d2q9uk0fkp2vgj5nb15nacr508n22o1sv@4ax.com> <3C9D15D7.8070103@mmcable.com> <3C9E2499.2040906@mmcable.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 248 Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:39:16 -0600 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.94.230.113 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.kc.rr.com 1016998725 24.94.230.113 (Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:38:45 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:38:45 CST Xref: archiver1.google.com alt.ascii-art:16189 comp.os.linux.advocacy:218607 alt.flame.jesus.christ:74263 alt.seduction.fast:80211 comp.text.tex:43281 . wrote: > 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. > Okay! Charlie