Tap on, Tap off, the tapper.

[SnowyOwl]

Tesseract, Paul and Dennis... Salutations

I agree with you Dennis when you say;

A stand-up comedian gets heckled - they don't quit.

Someone poking sharp sticks into orthodox science is heckled - they don't quit.

I'm glad Tesla didn't quit.

One an event,
Twice a Pattern,
Thrice a program...

You could at least let him post his second installment before screeching like vultures.

Ain't being civil mean letting the ''Other'' express itself if decency prevails in his statements ?

Snowy

[Flash]

Posted by Tesseract (here)
7RedOrbs, the ploy of trying to discredit anyone who disagrees with you by demanding that they explain the dynamics of an atom is inherently ludicrous and will not get you anywhere. I critically addressed a number of specific points to do with your writings here (none of them directly addressed by you), at no point did I claim or lead anyone to infer that I possess a full working model of atoms, molecules or sub atomic particles. I put it to the readers of this thread; at what point did I make any claim to have this knowledge?

On the other hand, you, 7RedOrbs, have made several high level claims including that you discovered electron spin (if I may paraphrase), that you have a high temperature liquid superconductor (that you have yet to disclose to us the composition of), and that you proved gravito-electro coupling (with a metal ruler and a table no less). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and rational explanation. The onus is on you, 7RedOrbs, to do the explaining because you are the one making the claims here.


This infantile mantra of yours that anyone who can not give you a full working theory of an electron orbiting a nucleus is somehow invalid as a scientist, investigator or critic is blaringly irrational. If you want a hand-waving argument (which seems to be your own preferred style) you will find plenty online, if you want more explicit arguments I suggest you turn to the quantum chemistry and physics literature.

Let me tell about my own preferred course of action following the completion of a successful experiment in my own little field and the development of an accompanying theory. I write up my results, as clearly as possible. I double check my facts and my reasoning as best as I can. Then, I send a manuscript to the appropriate journal for peer review and, hopefully, publication. If fate has it that my work is rejected because my arguments are poor, my writing too unclear, or my experimentation too incomplete, then I try to address those shortcomings and re-submit the manuscript. What I do not do is launch hysterical demands and accusations at the reviewers that have nothing to do with the shortcomings of my own work.

For the record, I do not enjoy the role of critic very much. I only take that role here because I feel that it could be in the interests of people reading this thread. If, after my efforts, people still want to purchase your book and believe your every word – so be it. I can’t guarantee that I will devote much more time to this thread, as I feel that people’s efforts here to promote rationality have all the chance of a cinder in snow.

Adams is not in a university Tesseract,he is on a forum. He probably has no salary, zilt, nothing, for what he is trying to do, contrarily to you, being able to get peers review and be published in science journals while being paid for it. Let the guy go a bit further, give some calculations, compare with Tesla and pursue on it and we will see.

I am pretty sure your rational mind could be of great use afterward.

There is pattern creative people and creative teams do follow not to kill ideas right from the start: 1. Dream (the stage we are at presently in this thread) the ideas, 2. See if it is feasible or doable (organise), 3. Criticise. If you start criticising in the dream phase, you klll all new ideas. You are asking Adam to be at the "criticise" phase right from the start (which peers review is).


Edit: I may not be fair here, even if creative work is enhance with the 3 steps. I have heard often PhD say that they were right, peer review was fine, etc etc when I know very well how the academic world works.

Furthermore, I have seen PhDs in engineering say "I know how to handle human behavior, I am a PhD". So, I may have transfered old frustrations on your back Tesseract, for which I am sorry. I am however keeping the post because the creative process is important.

[7redorbs]

This I provide for the kind people who responded with contributory correspondence to the established scientific facts that have been provided entirely vindicating the faster than light wave I have continuously stipulated throughout this thread. That is - this is for those that chose to challenge their own ignorance and preconceptions before judging or accusing another of it.

"Third. The most essential requirement is however, that irrespective of frequency the wave or wave-train should continue for a certain interval of time, which I have estimated to be not less than one-twelfth or probably 0.08484 of a second and which is taken in passing to and returning from the region diametrically opposite the pole over the earth's surface with a mean velocity of about four hundred and seventy-one thousand two hundred and forty kilometers per second.(292,815 miles per second or 1.57 the speed of light)" Nikola Tesla, US GOV Patent number 787412

Patent number: 787412
Filing date: May 16, 1900
Issue date: Apr 18, 1905




It is as I have said all along regardless of what the hecklers have had to say in their erroneous and largely offensive and disrespectful postings.

Contrary to popular relief, I am making no profit out of this, I gave up a promising career in defense to do it. I feel no obligation to continue to punish myself and clearly the minds of the ignorant many as some mere curiosity. I generally wanted to change the world.

For those interested the man whose name I forget, who transcribed all of the trial court proceedings of Tesla's faster than light waves records that exactly the same thing that has occurred on this thread, occurred once before there in court. Upon repeated and repeated citing of experiments that shown non hertzian non transverse electromagnetic waves traveling faster than the speed of light, they were ignored.

This is of course some many years before the Copenhagen conference and the realisation of Quantum Physics, faster than light particle entanglement and a foundation of Physics that requires instaneous action at a distance, or infinite velocity particles to exist. Tesla indeed was ahead of his time. And unfortunately still appears to be.

I am sorry but I am reluctant to offer more. Truth stares you in the face, and I have, contrary to the claim provided quite a considerable amount of historic and scientific evidence that fully vindicates the basic assertions that have been presented,

"the most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him" - Leo Tolstoy

This is proof I'm not lying, or making this up. What more is there to say?

Best,
A

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Flash (here)
those that did back engineering of aliens ships had to completely changed what they knew of physics.

Yes - completely changing what we know of conventional physics is required.

I am convinced that the disconnect seen here was not due to a reluctance to change physics.

[Flash]

Ok Adams, now the meat please. Finish with history, give us what you discovered, the meat please. With your calculations. Your designs. So that some can work on it here. The little video you posted must have had some calculations in it no???

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Flash (here)
There is pattern creative people and creative teams do follow not to kill ideas right from the start

I have been a party to creative work (involving multiprocessor software, not physics) from the late 1970's to the early 2000's.

Once one begins to discuss with others, and cooperatively flesh out one's insights and instincts, then some ways of participating work better than others.

I found this true regardless of whether I was working on "big budget" projects, or donating time to open source projects.

This forum has shown itself to be open to understanding and discussing physics and other topics, in fundamentally different ways than current conventional teachings.

[ThePythonicCow]

SnowyOwl, Flash, Dennis, ...

7redorbs seems stuck in a loop, thinking that our inability to accept his thinking is due to our close mindedness. He is confusing our asking with our rejection of his thought, before he has offered it. Some of us here actually do have a fair background in both conventional and alternative math, science and physics and are open to serious discussions in such.

This thread continues to be a waste of our time, as currently constituted.

[SnowyOwl]

As a First Nation, Ojibwa... Eagle as Snowy Owls Eyes have noticed a long yime ago that bird come and get the berries, the elderberries prior to the rainy season... then as soon as the cold wind last enough to freeze the ground we witness deers coming eating the bark of the elderberries tree.

More than a millenium later a microscope identify a lot of Polyphenols in the elderberries.

As we made elderberries slowly heat in water against cold and virus the white doc says, now it is ok to tale this mixture since polyphenols does indeed stop viruses replication.

No sketch is needed in that example, as in a lot of other ''Realms''.
Snowy Owl

[Simonm]

Please don't stop posting Adam. I find this fascinating, unfortunately out of my depth. I have learnt so much from this thread and it would be a real shame were it to end prematurely. If your theories are provable, then please do so to stop those that would attack deter you from posting. Answer your critics with the facts you claim to have. Prove them wrong.

I'd truly hate this to be all hot air or disinfo.

Regards

Simon.

[Simonm]

Posted by Paul (here)
SnowyOwl, Flash, Dennis, ...

7redorbs seems stuck in a loop, thinking that our inability to accept his thinking is due to our close mindedness. He is confusing our asking with our rejection of his thought, before he has offered it. Some of us here actually do have a fair background in both conventional and alternative math, science and physics and are open to serious discussions in such.

This thread continues to be a waste of our time, as currently constituted.

Yet yourself and others are unable to prove what Adam claims to be fact and namecall / deride his inability to prove his theories. Neither side is able to prove to the great unwashed their respective "facts"

As I have asked Adam to prove to us his ideas, I also ask you and others of knowledge to do the same. Prove him wrong. Lets not allow ths thread to degenerate to a point it becomes locked. such a fascinating subject should not be allowed to degenerate to a ridiculous point of no return!!

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Simonm (here)
Yet yourself and others are unable to prove what Adam claims to be fact and namecall / deride his inability to prove his theories. Neither side is able to prove to the great unwashed their respective "facts"

As I have asked Adam to prove to us his ideas, I also ask you and others of knowledge to do the same. Prove him wrong. Lets not allow ths thread to degenerate to a point it becomes locked. such a fascinating subject should not be allowed to degenerate to a ridiculous point of no return!!

The subject may be fascinating, but this thread has made no useful contribution to our understanding of the subject. Moreover I claim this is so not because we're too ignorant or close minded (or too well educated in and locked into conventional physics), but rather because 7redorbs has not learned a manner of presentation and discussion which supports shared gains in understanding.

Apparently you are confusing what 7redorbs has been doing with presenting theory, facts or experimental results in a manner amenable to discussion, agreement or refutation, and then berating others, myself in particular, for not engaging with him in such. He hasn't been doing so.

As with the infamous case of Russell's Teapot, 7redorbs has not provided enough coherent substance to be falsifiable, outside of the relatively non-controversial slams of conventional physics. Rather he's mixed (a) annoyance at our alleged closed mindedness, (b) various plausible observations of flaws in conventional physics (which flaws I don't dispute) and (c) claims to theory or experiment supporting a better physics, which he has not developed sufficiently to enable any useful discussion or understanding by others.

Unfortunately, despite expending considerable energy in an apparent effort to advance our shared understanding, 7redorbs has not been able to do so in his present manner of participating. This is unfortunate, as his energy, interest, and persistence in this important topic is obviously very substantial.

We do develop our ideas on this forum, in the context of other more productive threads.

[Swan]

Hi Adam,

I understood your post #129. Please continue simplifying in the same manner.

[Simonm]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Simonm (here)
Yet yourself and others are unable to prove what Adam claims to be fact and namecall / deride his inability to prove his theories. Neither side is able to prove to the great unwashed their respective "facts"

As I have asked Adam to prove to us his ideas, I also ask you and others of knowledge to do the same. Prove him wrong. Lets not allow ths thread to degenerate to a point it becomes locked. such a fascinating subject should not be allowed to degenerate to a ridiculous point of no return!!

The subject may be fascinating, but this thread has made no useful contribution to our understanding of the subject. Moreover I claim this is so not because we're too ignorant or close minded (or too well educated in and locked into conventional physics), but rather because 7redorbs has not learned a manner of presentation and discussion which supports shared gains in understanding.

Apparently you are confusing what 7redorbs has been doing with presenting theory, facts or experimental results in a manner amenable to discussion, agreement or refutation, and then berating others, myself in particular, for not engaging with him in such. He hasn't been doing so.

As with the infamous case of Russell's Teapot, 7redorbs has not provided enough coherent substance to be falsifiable, outside of the relatively non-controversial slams of conventional physics. Rather he's mixed (a) annoyance at our alleged closed mindedness, (b) various plausible observations of flaws in conventional physics (which flaws I don't dispute) and (c) claims to theory or experiment supporting a better physics, which he has not developed sufficiently to enable any useful discussion or understanding by others.

Unfortunately, despite expending considerable energy in an apparent effort to advance our shared understanding, 7redorbs has not been able to do so in his present manner of participating. This is unfortunate, as his energy, interest, and persistence in this important topic is obviously very substantial.

We do develop our ideas on this forum, in the context of other more productive threads.

which is why I have asked for both sides to prove their own theories, which NEITHER have done so far. Far from berating "sides" I am asking for both parties to post "proof" of their theories other than just "theories". Disprove one another. All I see from this thread is 7Redorbs providing data and then others haranguing him for being closed minded. Of the figures and data he has produced I see no counter argument, corroborated by further data dis-proving what 7Redorb provides initially.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Simonm (here)
which is why I have asked for both sides to prove their own theories, which NEITHER have done so far. Far from berating "sides" I am asking for both parties to post "proof" of their theories other than just "theories". Disprove one another.

I don't have a coherent theory of physics amenable to proof or disproof. I can't tell whether 7redorbs has such or not.

Posted by Simonm (here)
All I see from this thread is 7Redorbs providing data and then others haranguing him for being closed minded. Of the figures and data he has produced I see no counter argument, corroborated by further data dis-proving what 7Redorb provides initially.

The haranguing for being closed minded is by 7redorbs, of those of us who asked him to explain his results.

Of the facts and data he has produced, some of it is historical (such as repression of Tesla) or noticing flaws in conventional physics, neither of which I am trying to dispute. I don't know if he's right in these particular facts and data, but they sound plausible enough and I'm willing to take them as given, for the sake of discussion.

The rest of the facts and data he has produced are so incomplete as to be unfalsifiable, in the manner of Russell's Teapot (see link, previous post.)

[Simonm]

So Paul, to what extent do you want 7Redorbs to "explain himself?" I have no physics degree and, until reading about tesla's work had no idea of such things. However, I found Adam's description intriguing, hence me asking him for further proof of his work. If he expanded, would you have enough understanding to be able to dissect his work in methodical manner?

From your last post it appears evident you would be as blind as I in that respect?

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Simonm (here)
So Paul, to what extent do you want 7Redorbs to "explain himself?" I have no physics degree and, until reading about tesla's work had no idea of such things. However, I found Adam's description intriguing, hence me asking him for further proof of his work. If he expanded, would you have enough understanding to be able to dissect his work in methodical manner?

From your last post it appears evident you would be as blind as I in that respect?

My undergraduate studies were in math (my major) and physics, and I have read in various physics subjects since then, both "conventional" and "alternative." Physics has been one of my several interests while on this forum the last couple of years. While I certainly don't understand all the physics presented here (hi, Carmody ), I like to think I have a pretty good idea whether someone is presenting material in a manner conducive to fruitful discussion amongst those who are ready to understand that particular material.

[eaglespirit]

People, with all due respect...OPEN Your Spiritual Hearts and Processes with Higher Intent when communicating, dissecting, questioning.
It can be done, even by the most staunch 'left-brain' activists here...for this is a Spiritual Matter that has to be brought to Life by Us and integrated Consciously into this 'sick and stuck' scientific process...it will put us over the edge with all of this in unimaginable ways.
......

7) Quantum Physics shows "instantaneous action at a distance" also known as "spooky action at a distance".

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post611451

[Hervé]

The basic stumbling block here is a lack of definitions for the terms used by Adam since it seems he uses terms from the "conventional" physics to describe the "new" physics which confuses everybody...

Things haven't improved much since this thread: Modern Electrical Systems - Crimes against Man, THE Sabbath of the New Science

[Simonm]

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by Simonm (here)
So Paul, to what extent do you want 7Redorbs to "explain himself?" I have no physics degree and, until reading about tesla's work had no idea of such things. However, I found Adam's description intriguing, hence me asking him for further proof of his work. If he expanded, would you have enough understanding to be able to dissect his work in methodical manner?

From your last post it appears evident you would be as blind as I in that respect?

My undergraduate studies were in math (my major) and physics, and I have read in various physics subjects since then, both "conventional" and "alternative." Physics has been one of my several interests while on this forum the last couple of years. While I certainly don't understand all the physics presented here (hi, Carmody ), I like to think I have a pretty good idea whether someone is presenting material in a manner conducive to fruitful discussion amongst those who do are ready to understand that particular material.

thats me told then.

[eaglespirit]

I am going to send some pm's out to people I am close to here...it really is time to get together some how and put these things to work...even if it is a lone cabin in the woods right now. I really feel if we put this to work in a simple household set up we will not be hindered by those people and things that have stopped many in their tracks. We are on the verge of a big breakthrough.
Simply showing how a small home can be run with this while other 'advanced' things are being freed up all around us in every facet of our lives as these changes occur more rapidly now will be a powerful catalyst.
That is what we are here for.

And I am grateful for all of you here trying so hard to do something here at Avalon in each and all of those 'facets' of life that we need to change, pronto!

https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post611712

......
edited to add current reply:
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post611724