Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.

<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>

--
Jim Whitby

HAIR TONICS, please!!
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:

> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded

>
> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
earths-gravity/>

--
Jim Whitby

HAIR TONICS, please!!
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------

jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>
>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>
>>
>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
> earths-gravity/>
>
>
>
>
>

I wouldn’t invest if I were you.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>
>>>
>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>> earths-gravity/>

Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
need to be tested in space?

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>I wouldn’t invest if I were you.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

It's fun to look at older thedebrief miracles that, so far, haven't
happened.

John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>>> earths-gravity/>
>
> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
> need to be tested in space?

There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
What’s the use of that?
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I wouldn’t invest if I were you.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Phil Hobbs
>
> It's fun to look at older thedebrief miracles that, so far, haven't
> happened.

I prefer to keep my briefs, thanks. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 16:53:35 -0700, John Larkin wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>
>>jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>
>>>
>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-
drive->
>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>
>>> earths-gravity/>
>
> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
> need to be tested in space?
>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I wouldn’t invest if I were you.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Phil Hobbs
>
> It's fun to look at older thedebrief miracles that, so far, haven't
> happened.

I don't have (and wouldn't anyway ) anything to invest.

You've answered my question. For that I say,
THANKS!

I'm sure that one day, sometime, it'll work.

--
Jim Whitby

I don't even call it violence when it's in self defense; I call it
intelligence.
-- Malcolm X
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------

--
Jim Whitby

The past has no power to stop you from being present now. Only your
grievance about the past can do that.
- Eckhart Tolle
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------

--
Jim Whitby

The past has no power to stop you from being present now. Only your
grievance about the past can do that.
- Eckhart Tolle
----------------------
Mageia release 9 (Official) for x86_64
6.6.22-server-1.mga9
----------------------

On 21/04/2024 01:47, jim whitby wrote:

> I'm sure that one day, sometime, it'll work.

Powered by cold fusion, no doubt...

--
Jeff

On 21/04/2024 01:11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
> John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>
>> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
>> need to be tested in space?

To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
>
> There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
> What’s the use of that?

Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.

Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.

Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
quite literally went off the rails in 1974.

https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures

Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.

--
Martin Brown

On 21/04/2024 5:16 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 21/04/2024 01:47, jim whitby wrote:
>
>> I'm sure that one day, sometime, it'll work.
>
> Powered by cold fusion, no doubt...

I'm not sure that that is piling Pelion on Ossa. Anti-gravity is even
more unlikely than cold fusion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 21/04/2024 01:11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
earths-gravity/>
>>>
>>> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
>>> need to be tested in space?

Vacuum to get rid of corona.

Space (orbit really) so tiny forces can be detected and measured.

A steady one G acceleration would be pretty impressive, and would
settle the issue.

>To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
>>
>> There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
>> What’s the use of that?
>
>
>Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
>science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.
>
>Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
>gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.
>
>Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
>Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
>quite literally went off the rails in 1974.
>
><https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures>
>
>Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.

Yeah. Investment not recommended.

As for our asymmetrical capacitor fellow, there has to be some big
errors in the derivation. I watched part of his lecture, where he did
note that this force endured even when the HV was turned off, and that
it should therefore accelerate continuously. Which it doesn't,
despite his theory. He knew that this was a problem, but figured that
it was fixable. Hmm.

That fellow reminds me of the inventor I met, described in the SED
thread "Non-Inertial Navigation Technology" (July 2020). That company
still exists, and he still toils away. I don't know where the money
comes from.

Joe Gwinn

Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 21/04/2024 01:11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
> earths-gravity/>
>>>>
>>>> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
>>>> need to be tested in space?
>
> Vacuum to get rid of corona.
>
> Space (orbit really) so tiny forces can be detected and measured.
>
> A steady one G acceleration would be pretty impressive, and would
> settle the issue.
>
>
>> To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
>>>
>>> There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
>>> What’s the use of that?
>>
>>
>> Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
>> science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.
>>
>> Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
>> gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.
>>
>> Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
>> Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
>> quite literally went off the rails in 1974.
>>
>> <https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures>
>>
>> Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.
>
> Yeah. Investment not recommended.
>
> As for our asymmetrical capacitor fellow, there has to be some big
> errors in the derivation. I watched part of his lecture, where he did
> note that this force endured even when the HV was turned off, and that
> it should therefore accelerate continuously. Which it doesn't,
> despite his theory. He knew that this was a problem, but figured that
> it was fixable. Hmm.
>
> That fellow reminds me of the inventor I met, described in the SED
> thread "Non-Inertial Navigation Technology" (July 2020). That company
> still exists, and he still toils away. I don't know where the money
> comes from.
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

And then there was the Dean drive, which worked by rattling a mass back and
forth inside a vehicle.

The tabletop demo went perfectly. ;)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On 4/20/2024 7:19 PM, jim whitby wrote:
>
> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>
> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
> earths-gravity/>
>
>
>
>
>

Right month. Wrong day.
Ed

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:31:17 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
>> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21/04/2024 01:11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>> earths-gravity/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
>>>>> need to be tested in space?
>>
>> Vacuum to get rid of corona.
>>
>> Space (orbit really) so tiny forces can be detected and measured.
>>
>> A steady one G acceleration would be pretty impressive, and would
>> settle the issue.
>>
>>
>>> To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
>>>>
>>>> There's no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
>>>> What?s the use of that?
>>>
>>>
>>> Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
>>> science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.
>>>
>>> Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
>>> gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.
>>>
>>> Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
>>> Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
>>> quite literally went off the rails in 1974.
>>>
>>> <https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures>
>>>
>>> Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.
>>
>> Yeah. Investment not recommended.
>>
>> As for our asymmetrical capacitor fellow, there has to be some big
>> errors in the derivation. I watched part of his lecture, where he did
>> note that this force endured even when the HV was turned off, and that
>> it should therefore accelerate continuously. Which it doesn't,
>> despite his theory. He knew that this was a problem, but figured that
>> it was fixable. Hmm.
>>
>> That fellow reminds me of the inventor I met, described in the SED
>> thread "Non-Inertial Navigation Technology" (July 2020). That company
>> still exists, and he still toils away. I don't know where the money
>> comes from.
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>
>And then there was the Dean drive, which worked by rattling a mass back and
>forth inside a vehicle.
>
>The tabletop demo went perfectly. ;)

Yeah, I remember that story. I bet that if one simply suspended the
dean drive assembly from a rafter using a long spring, no net motion
would be seen.

I will say that with Non-Inertial Navigation, after talking with the
inventor on a video conference, my instinct was that he was sincere
but misguided.

After watching the asymmetrical capacitor video presentation, my
instinct is that the inventor is a complete huckster, and does know
better, as I watched him deftly include everything likely to impress
the relevant audience, up to and including perpetual motion, free
energy, and alien technology. But no warp drive.

As for Dean, I have no idea, but tend towards pure huckster.

Joe Gwinn

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 11:20:53 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 21/04/2024 01:11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>earths-gravity/>
>>>>
>>>> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
>>>> need to be tested in space?
>
>Vacuum to get rid of corona.

So the failure can be blamed on the Farnsworth multipactor effect.

On 21/04/2024 13:35, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 21/04/2024 01:11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>> John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
>>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
>>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>
>>> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
>>> need to be tested in space?
>
> To avoid embarrassment when it doesn't actually work as claimed!
>>
>> There’s no gravity gravy train if it gets debunked on the first day.
>> What’s the use of that?
>
>
> Surely it is yet another standard pump and dump models for dodgy fringe
> science IPOs much like the LENR scams that have been around for decades.
>
> Some genuine engineers who didn't properly understand the physics of
> gyroscopes have famously announced their anti gravity machines.
>
> Most notably one Eric Laithwaite who once gave the Royal Institution
> Xmas Lectures in 1966 on magnetic levitation and linear motors before he
> quite literally went off the rails in 1974.

I went to one of his RI Christmas Lecture series (and several
other Xmas lectures). He could easily have killed somebody
in the audience when he demonstrated an electromagnetic gun.
The projectile was fired into a target made of several stacked
sheets of timber blockboard. It penetrated much deeper than
expected and partly emerged from the other side - just in front
of a member of the audience.
As usual with such events, not everything was as it might have
seemed to the TV audience. Apparently, the children "randomly"
selected to help with demonstrations were often those of
the producer.

John

>
> https://www.rigb.org/explore-science/explore/blog/gyroscope-engineer-and-christmas-lectures
>
> Great communicator with the public but not very good at physics.
>

jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:

> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>
> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
> earths-gravity/>

Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?

It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.

The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
towards each other.

I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
observed effects.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

On 21/04/2024 00:27, jim whitby wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>
>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>
>>
>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive->
> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat->
> earths-gravity/>
>
Powered by an inexhaustible supply of flying pigs this invention will
revolutionise world transport and sales of heavy duty umbrellas!

--
Martin Brown

On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened
liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in
<1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>:

>jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>
>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>
>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>> earths-gravity/>
>
>Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>
>It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>
>The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>towards each other.
>
>I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>observed effects.

I still go with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#
It is predictive as to time deletion,
clocks / pendulums/ atoms/ get less compressed where particles are intercepted like close to a planet
it predicts internal heating of heavenly bodies
It challenges Albert's babble...
and a few more things..
If you could make a machine that would let those particles through in only one direction
then you _have_ a propulsion system.
It does away with all the infinities in 'singularities' as there is a point where all particles would be stopped
by an object.
Also if EM radiation is a form (state) of those LS particles then light travels at the speed of gravity (seems to have been observed)
Once you question where those LS particles originate and that could be in stars or [black] holes,
or in other bangs of which there must be trillions, then the universe would expand ever faster as observed.
I am open to a better theory but this checks all boxes and gets rid of silly parroting Albert Stone Counter.
Interesting is questions like do those particles have chirality and the effect it has on those particles passing through matter.
Superconducting chiral propeller?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Podkletnov

There is much more.
Last few hundred years humming beans discovered 'radio and electronics'
learned to drive in cars, steam engines, fly airplanes,
Thousands of years ago leaned to make and use 'fire'
Looks almost exponential.
OTOH just a bit of mutual nuking and we are back to wood fires, or go dino's way.
Must be happening all over the universes (yes more than one).
Maybe that cosmic microwave background is the sum of all them alien's radio and TV transmissions...
We are just a few neurons in a very very very large 'space?'
Lots to discover I'm sure. And limits we have, or are we connected to it all and know it all..

On 21/04/2024 16:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 21/04/2024 01:11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>> John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
> earths-gravity/>
>>>>
>>>> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
>>>> need to be tested in space?
>
> Vacuum to get rid of corona.

There are space vehicle qualifying hard vacuum facilities on the ground.
If this thing can generate 1g it could levitate inside there.
>
> Space (orbit really) so tiny forces can be detected and measured.

The guy claims 1g acceleration. 1g of continuous acceleration is enough
to reach the centre of our galaxy in about 20 years if memory serves.

> A steady one G acceleration would be pretty impressive, and would
> settle the issue.

I might believe 1 G (as in the gravitational constant ie thermal noise)
but not 1g acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface.
> That fellow reminds me of the inventor I met, described in the SED
> thread "Non-Inertial Navigation Technology" (July 2020). That company
> still exists, and he still toils away. I don't know where the money
> comes from.

As always from gullible suckers with more money than sense. The most
successful recent high profile scam took in a lot of experienced
investors who should have known better or employed people who did.
Elizabeth Holmes at Theranos managed to almost pull it off too.

https://news.sky.com/story/elizabeth-holmes-former-chief-executive-of-blood-testing-startup-theranos-found-guilty-of-fraud-12508609

But if you want a real example of how to do it big time then the
vanishing OneCoin crypto queen has to be it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64407723
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/cryptoqueen-ruja-ignatova-fugitive-greenwood-b2414415.html

A successful $4bn scam is very impressive! FOMO drives these bubbles.

--
Martin Brown

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:06:19 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 11:20:53 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:35:27 +0100, Martin Brown
>><'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 21/04/2024 01:11, Phil Hobbs wrote:
>>>> John Larkin <jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:31:19 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
>>>>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 20 Apr 2024 23:19:30 -0000 (UTC), jim whitby wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>>>> I do know how to spell... most of the time. educatded
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> .<https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>earths-gravity/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it should float in mid-air, or accelerate upward. So why does it
>>>>> need to be tested in space?
>>
>>Vacuum to get rid of corona.
>
>
>So the failure can be blamed on the Farnsworth multipactor effect.

I suppose so, but he was talking of corona in much higher air
pressures than multipactors require. Think corona as seen around HV
lines.

Joe Gwinn

Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:

> On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened
> liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in
> <1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>:
>
> >jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
> >>
> >> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
> >> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
> >> earths-gravity/>
> >
> >Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
> >heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
> >
> >It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
> >we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
> >pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
> >we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
> >
> >The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
> >When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
> >from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
> >towards each other.
> >
> >I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
> >how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
> >from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
> >observed effects.
>
> I still go with this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#

It was an interesting explanation in the light of the way things were
thought of at the time: physical particles and elastic collisions.
Voight's explanation makes sense if you simply conside "a force" without
trying to evoke an explanation for that force. We can be fairly certain
it isn't caused by physical particles or electromagnetic waves, but who
is to say there isn't another 'thing' in space that we haven't
identified yet.

I agree with you: rather than saying this theory is impossible because
we don't know anything that could cause it, why don't we say this theory
could point to something we don't know about yet.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>
>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>
>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>> earths-gravity/>
>
> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>
> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>
> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
> towards each other.
>
> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
> observed effects.
>
>

Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
fit easily into such a picture.

Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
neutrons.

Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
accuracy in the lab.

And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
resulting fluctuations would be very visible.

Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
right after an A380. No such effects are observed.

Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
zero.

And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.

To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.

This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.

And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
limits on most of these classical effects.

So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
or other relativistic effects.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC /
Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics

On 23/04/2024 12:50 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
> Jan Panteltje <alien@comet.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On a sunny day (Mon, 22 Apr 2024 08:27:32 +0100) it happened
>> liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Liz Tuddenham) wrote in
>> <1qsepmy.1igbph81ebujn0N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>>
>>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>>> earths-gravity/>
>>>
>>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>>
>>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>>
>>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>> >from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>>> towards each other.
>>>
>>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>> >from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>>> observed effects.
>>
>> I still go with this:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation#
>
> It was an interesting explanation in the light of the way things were
> thought of at the time: physical particles and elastic collisions.
> Voight's explanation makes sense if you simply conside "a force" without
> trying to evoke an explanation for that force. We can be fairly certain
> it isn't caused by physical particles or electromagnetic waves, but who
> is to say there isn't another 'thing' in space that we haven't
> identified yet.
>
> I agree with you: rather than saying this theory is impossible because
> we don't know anything that could cause it, why don't we say this theory
> could point to something we don't know about yet.

But it isn't backed up by any experimental observations that point to
anything we haven't known about for centuries now, as is pointed out by
Jan Panteltje's wikipedia link, which he doesn't seem to understand.

The basic idea came from "Nicolas Fatio de Duillier in 1690" He was a
friend of Newton, but rather less clever.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 15:00:21 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs
<pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

>Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
>>>
>>> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
>>> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
>>> earths-gravity/>
>>
>> Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
>> heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
>>
>> It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
>> we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
>> pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
>> we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
>>
>> The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
>> When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
>> from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
>> towards each other.
>>
>> I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
>> how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
>> from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
>> observed effects.
>>
>>
>
>Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
>mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
>fit easily into such a picture.
>
>Also, the rate at which the hypothetical particles collide with matter has
>to be extremely large in order to work with very dense matter, such as free
>neutrons.
>
>Neutrons have been observed to follow Newtonian gravity to very high
>accuracy in the lab.
>
>And then there’s the complete absence of Brownian motion in free particles.
>With some huge flux of particles carrying the sort of momentum that would
>be required to account for the gravitational motion of free neutrons, the
>resulting fluctuations would be very visible.
>
>Besides, if the particles bounce off the gravitating objects, their
>velocity distribution will change as a consequence. (Some of them will
>rattle around between them, going faster and faster as the objects get
>closer.) Thus there will be a wake effect, like a small plane taking off
>right after an A380. No such effects are observed.
>
>Not to pile on, or at least not as much as the notion deserves, but if
>relativity is completely wrong, then there is only one velocity in a given
>reference frame for which the drag force of such a particle ensemble is
>zero.
>
>And, of course, there’s the question of the origin, distribution, and
>regulation of the momentum-carrying particles.
>
>To have any chance of avoiding even these purely classical effects, the
>particles would have to have infinite speed, zero mass, perfectly uniform
>and isotropic distribution in both position and direction, perfectly timed
>arrival at each object to make the fluctuations cancel out, and on an on.
>
>This is the luminiferous ether, on stilts.
>
>And then there are matter-wave interferometers, which work not only on
>electrons, but on neutrons and even buckyballs. They set far tighter
>limits on most of these classical effects.
>
>So no, these sorts of theories are not good candidates to explain gravity
>or other relativistic effects.
>
>Cheers
>
>Phil Hobbs

Is there any deeper explanation for conservation of energy, and for
Newton's laws, other than that's just the way things are?

(That gets philosophical, namely why does mathematics define the
world?)

Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

> Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
> > jim whitby <news@spockmail.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Looking for opinion of persons better educatrd than myself.
> >>
> >> <https://thedebrief.org/nasa-veterans-propellantless-propulsion-drive-
> >> that-physics-says-shouldnt-work-just-produced-enough-thrust-to-defeat-
> >> earths-gravity/>
> >
> > Has anyone come across the alternative theory of gravity which I first
> > heard of from P.G.A.H. Voigt?
> >
> > It suggests that the current theory of gravity is rather like the idea
> > we used to have that there was force 'due to vacuum', rather than air
> > pressure. It proposes that the real cause of the gravitational effects
> > we observe is not an attraction but a pressure.
> >
> > The concept is that a force acts on all bodies equally in all dirctions.
> > When two bodies with mass approach each other, each shields the other
> > from some of this force and the remaining forces propel the bodies
> > towards each other.
> >
> > I don't know how it would be possible to test whether this was in fact
> > how 'gravity' worked and whether it was possible to differentiate it
> > from the current theory, as the two would appear to have identical
> > observed effects.
> >
> >
>
> Of course little things like the equality of inertial and gravitational
> mass (so that objects of different density fall at the same speed) don’t
> fit easily into such a picture.

If you postulate that the forces interact with mass rather than area or
volume, that is easily explained.

Why do we assume that gravity is a pull based on mass, when it could
equally well be a push based on mass?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk