"Art Deco" <erfc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message...
news:070520082019245777%erfc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>>
>> 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.
Perhaps, and i will quickly acknowledge that my own
perspective is a bit skewed, too, but then, so is yours.
Bill's interpretation is not necessarily wrong, but i think
your grasp of it is based upon the author's poor choice
of words, i.e., "accelerated". It might have been less
vague if he had written something like, ". . . close to the
spinning superconductor, which must be undergoing an
acceleration for the effect to be noticeable, . . ."
But even my interpretation could be wrong here, as no
numbers or figures are utilized to clarify what the author
really means. This is one of those occasions where the
lack of numbers/figures can easily produce two or more
interpretations, only one of which may be correct.
> 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.
Oh, no doubt! Science would rather use pixies
and fairies and other forms of magical idiocies.
The usage of flowing space, the subPlanck "goo"
that you refer to, is only necessary if one wants
to actually UNDERSTAND what's happening.
>> 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.
I dunno, Bill... Art is deeply embedded in "the world",
and i suspect neither he nor the world is as yet ready
for it. It's entirely up to you, but i wouldn't tell him.
happy days and...
starry starry nights!
--
Indelibly yours,
Paine
P.S. Thank YOU for reading!
P.P.S. (shh) Some secret sites...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
|
