oldcoot <oldcoot7074@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 7, 9:41 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Any field can be blocked, Jeff, once one knows how.
>> But admittedly, it's much easier to overcome the
>> spatial field by using lower-grade energies than by
>> actually blocking it. The spatial/gravitational field is
>> overcome by magnetism, the airfoil, rocketry, etc.
>> But a way to block it will not be uncovered until its
>> true nature is recognized and earnestly studied with
>> the scientific method.
>>
>
>On May 7, 9:41 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> Any field can be blocked, Jeff, once one knows how.
>>
>> But a way to block it will not be uncovered until its
>> true nature is recognized and earnestly studied with
>> the scientific method.
>>
>These two sites were posted several times over the past year. The
>first, from the European Space Agency, recounts how they are using a
>superconducting disc to demonstrate gravitic effects. The effects are
>seen only during the *acceleration* phase of the disc's spinup. And
>what have we been saying all along about gravity occuring only in
>association with acceleration?
>http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
Well you've certainly put your spin (pun intended) on that article.
First, you conveniently ignored what the authors call the effect:
"gravitomagnetism". Second, in your haste to pound this into your
preconceived world-view, you latched onto the word "accelerate" like
steel inside an MRI. Here is what the paragraph really says:
"Small acceleration sensors placed at different locations close to the
spinning superconductor, which has to be accelerated for the effect to
be noticeable, recorded an acceleration field outside the
superconductor that appears to be produced by gravitomagnetism. This
experiment is the gravitational analogue of Faraday's electromagnetic
induction experiment in 1831."
Note the phrase "has to be accelerated", which is past-tense. There is
nothing in the article that says or implies the effect is only observed
while the angular velocity is increasing. *You* read that into the
text because you wanted this article to agree with your ideas.
The other relevant phrase, "acceleration field", is just another way of
saying "force":
F = m * a
>The second is the work of Podkletnov, a sort of gadfly scientist who
>has demonstrated a superconducting-discharge apparatus that transmits
>wave impulses that bear the unmistakable signature of *gravitational
>waves*. The wave packets are of *longitudinal* polarization (Zinni
>take note), can be tightly focused (or collimated), and are energetic
>enough to displace pendulums and knock over objects at a distance.
>http://superconductors.org/gravity.pdf
Which no doubt can/will be explained without needing to resort to
magical space goo.
>Such demonstrations are at just about the Franklin's kite stage, and
>are conducted under the void-space premise. Before any real
>modification or control of gravity can occur, it will have to be
>understood what gravity IS. Modulation of the *acceleration component*
>of the spatial medium itself is key to control of gravity.
How do you propose to control this vague *acceleration component* of an
even vaguer "spatial medium", especially considering that, if it
exists, it is outside of normal matter.
--
"Substantiation that you regard yourself as a God to be worhsipped [sic]
should be your concern, Deco."
-- David Tholen
|
