PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2024-06-20, 01:10:49
News: Forum TIP:
The SHOUT BOX deletes messages after 3 hours. It is NOT meant to have lengthy conversations in. Use the Chat feature instead.

Pages: [1]
Author Topic: My posts to T-1000 which MerLynn has deleted.  (Read 2250 times)

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3400
You are the expert here.
T-1000 is not an expert on your theories, e.g. ephemeral vibrations.  You should be but you don't even define what is vibrating, how quickly and in what direction.

Not me.
If you are not an expert on your own theories then porque no te callas.

How many decades have you spent researching this energy you want to get as Over Unity?
Irrelevant, empirical success is not synonymous with theoretical insight.

Surly by now you know what it is. Dont be shy. Every one here also wants to know. Even me.
Unlike you, T-1000 doesn't theorize much and does not proselytize at all.  He does experiments instead. Some are successful, e.g. this and then he proposes some plausible explanation, but he never presents it as an undeniable fact.

I see some here are Tesla deniers, are you?
Wtf is that? Someone who denies Tesla's existence?

No T-1000 you answer the question "Define the energy what causes those vibrations"
He asked you first, so you must answer first.
I will not tolerate such dishonest rhetorical tactics.

We need to know what you know. Not what I know.
No, you brought it up and made a bunch of disjoint statements so you must explain them now.

I know nothing according to some and they have at least read My New Atomic Structure of Light Crystals.
Wtf are Light Crystals ?  Crystals composed of light or affecting incident light ?

I don't see how your input is of any benefit to this forum's goals.  Anyone ?
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3400
You think youre the expert on these subjects and can answer for them.
Don't presume to know what I think.

If I wanted an answer from you, and I have asked you as a 'crazy' to state your opinion of Aether and Electricity, you fail every time.
I am not going to discuss imaginary concepts with you, which I cannot measure.

Your Posts hold back progress and thats why they are removed.
What progress? you have not brought any progress to this forum. Just esoterica and paranormal.
You bash science without understanding it and present yourself as an original thinker by rejecting most of it,  e.g. existence of electrons.
You have not helped anyone to perform any experiments - I have helped hundreds.

I usually make very technical posts here (look at my ~3300 posts) but your posts do not provoke any technical discussions - instead they provoke conceptual objections about your conclusions and methodology.  No wonder you perceive it as counterproductive.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 375
Add mine to the list. It just did happen 5 minutes ago.
"
Quote from: MerLynn on 2023-12-18, 23:19:52

    @verpies...
    you answer questions posed to T-1000 and others on this thread and on other threads. You think youre the expert on these subjects and can answer for them. We already know any answer you can offer. Youve stated it enough times. enough is enough.
    If I wanted an answer from you, and I have asked you as a 'crazy' to state your opinion of Aether and Electricity, you fail every time.
    Your posts are counter productive to getting to the Bottom of ENERGY. I see you have nothing to offer the over unity community thats REAL in your terms even. Your Posts hold back progress and thats why they are removed.

Here we go again. I will waste another 5 minutes here of my time, not more.
This forum is focused on scientific approach to subjects of research which means if you have theory you need experiments for others to back it up.
I will be blunt this time since it already crossed line of my own Central European hospitality. You was asked to back your claims and fill the gaps by senior members of this forum. So do it or just another thread will bite the dust because no one here will waste time in trying to do it for you. Your choice. And deleting senior members posts, attacking forum members verbally will only more alienate you from people here.
"

I would also ask to demote MerLynn on the thread from moderator to just user for prevention from "delete" button.
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3400
The pictures below illustrate the experiment which proves the existence of electrons.  Not the strawman argument about the electrolysis of non-conductive liquids.








I would also ask to demote MerLynn on the thread from moderator to just a user for preventing his access to the  "delete" button.
Good idea
   
Group: Guest
The pictures below illustrate the experiment that proves the existence of electrons.  Not the strawman argument about the electrolysis of non-conductive liquids.

Crookes tube doesn't prove electrons exist, it only proves casting LIGHT on an object forms a shadow !!!

that is all it proves.  O0

Cheers,
wlw
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3400
Crookes tube doesn't prove electrons exist, it only proves casting LIGHT on an object forms a shadow !!!
This perfectly illustrates your confirmation bias.  ...but at least it is an acceptable attempt at a logical argument.

In your endeavor to present yourself as an original thinker and to bash the established science, you have completely ignored the bending of the electron beam by the magnet depicted in the 3rd photo.

Light beams in vacuum or gas are NOT bent by magnets.  Electron beams - are.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 453
Crookes tube doesn't prove electrons exist, it only proves casting LIGHT on an object forms a shadow !!!

that is all it proves. 

WLW,

You miss the point.  If it were merely a shadow from "casting light" on an object, the shadow would be unaffected by a magnetic field. 

Also consider the way a CRT operates, and how its beam of what we call electrons can be focused and scanned magnetically or electrostatically.  A beam of light cannot be deflected this way.

Any Aether theory that states there are no electrons must at least explain what it is that makes an area of space appear to act as if there are electrons there.  It must explain what it is we are actually observing when we create what we call electron beams and why they are deflected magnetically and electrostatically.

Similarly, an Aether theory that denies electrons must also explain chemistry, which is a field of science dealing with electron/electron orbital interactions which science has defined to a high degree of precision and predictability.

That same Aether theory that denies the existence of electrons must also explain the why and how of all the math related to what we call electrons and why that math defines and predicts these electron related processes to such a high degree of precision predictability.   

In other words, a good Aether theory would not deny science, it would explain science...

PW
   
Group: Guest
Hi

‘Electron beam’

would theoretically be a stream of ‘negatively charged particles’

Matter cannot be in any way ‘negatively charged’

because negative means to negate or void, and charge means to add to.

so ‘negative charge’ means ‘adding by subtracting’ which is pure nonsense.

Matter can only be positively charged, relative to space.

Scientists draw conclusions from sense based observations which are often erroneous.

Such an example is the railroad tracks meeting at the horizon to our eyes, but we know very well they run parallel if we walk the entire distance. We are subject to OPTICAL ILLUSIONS.
Our eyes tell us the exact opposite of the truth !!!

please consider reading Atomic Suicide? by Walter & Lao Russell for a complete discourse on this subject. https://www.philosophy.org/store/p10/Atomic_Suicide%3F.html#/
Dr. Russell will explain away all of your concerns or questions regarding CRT or Crookes tube misconceptions in part II of the book.

You will learn amazing explanations of science I am POSITIVE!!!  O0

Cheers,
wlw
   
Full Member
***

Posts: 134
By definition an electron is a particle of matter which carries a negative electric charge. Look it up.
Or you might see a definition stating that an electron is a negativity charged elementary particle. And further, a particle is a particle of matter.
So same thing.
Again, look it up. I saw no disagreement about the definition or concept.
bi
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3400
By definition an electron is a particle of matter which carries a negative electric charge. Look it up.
Notice what is happening here: Whitelightningwizard has failed to explain the bending of the beam in the Crookes tube so he resorts to semantic analysis to deny the existence of electrons.  That's a pretty weak argument considering that the word "charge" has acquired several meanings over the last two centuries and in the concept of electric charge it is not synonymous with adding.

Anyway, his claim that "Matter can only be positively charged" is easily disproved empirically by the myriad of triboelectric experiments and an electroscope that clearly demonstrate both negatively charged matter and positively charged matter.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342945896/figure/fig2/AS:11431281173003250@1688732529806/The-triboelectric-series-is-divided-from-the-most-negative-tribopolarity-to-the-most.png
My posts to T-1000 which MerLynn has deleted.


Also, positive ion and negative electron beams are deflected in opposite directions by a magnet, which is a proof that both electric polarities of matter occur.
   
Group: Guest
hi

negatively charged makes as much sense as 'silent sound'. pure fantasy.

we cannot charge ANY matter negatively.

u don't see it this way now, but that is why u must read Walter Russell.  O0

it takes much time and study to change one's thinking patterns to NEW thinking. one must also desire to change.
no desire, no change.

the bending is illusionary. when I fill a bath tub with water, and pull the drain the water flows down the drain in a vortex.
if we throw a cork into the bathtub it will float & follow this vortex and swirl around the drain.
it is NOT ATTRACTED or BENT towards the drain, but that is what it looks like to our eyes.
we simply diverted a flow, and the cork (particle) follows this diversion !!!

the same is true of putting a bar magnet near a Crookes tube. we are simply diverting a flow of water, but we have NO JUSTIFICATION or PROOF of the composition of that flow from such an experiment. it doesn't tell us anything about the charge of the matter therein.

Try Walter Russell science... u may just learn something NEW!!!  O0 https://www.philosophy.org/scientific.html#/

Cheers,
wlw
   

Group: Experimentalist
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 779
Believing in something false doesn't make it true.
So now we have two fruitcakes on this forum.  They deny real evidence right in front of them and ramble nonsense instead of actually answering questions.  Somebody has been drinking too much whitelightning.  For those of you not familiar with that term it means bootleg whisky which sometimes contains lead because the moonshiners used old radiators as the condensing unit.  And we all know what lead does to the brain.



---------------------------
Just because it is on YouTube does not make it real.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 463
Aether is just all the effects of interactions with Earth magnetic field. All science is correct, there is no need to create theory with aether and without electrons. Just simple magnetic reconnetion in Earth magnetic field , just simple electrostatic effects in ambient field around us is enough to explain Aether theory without going esotheric.
   
Group: Guest
So now we have two fruitcakes on this forum.

been called worse.  :D

I yield the floor.

 O0

WLW
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3400
negatively charged makes as much sense as 'silent sound'. pure fantasy.
We cannot charge ANY matter negatively.
Yes we can.
I have already proved this with the triboelectric experiments and oppositely charged beam deflection by a magnet.  Empirical arguments beat all others.

Your semantic analysis is grasping at straws. You are attempting to build an oxymoron with an antiquated meaning of the word which is not applicable to the physical context.  Desperate and pathetic !

The first rule when you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging.









   
Group: Restricted
Full Member
*

Posts: 102
...

 

« Last Edit: 2024-02-27, 17:08:26 by stivep »
   
Group: Guest
   And, following conventional science has not brought us one iota of free energy, either.
So, trust it all you want...see where it gets you.
    Show your zenneck waves running a kapanadze generator, from across the lake. But,
You can't...just another waste of time
Talk is cheap, Can you do more than make personal judgements and recommendations that don't work?

   I honor T-1000s "nice" non personal remarks, and a true effort to unravel this OU mystery.
Instead of current scientists and government secret efforts, to conceal the truth from us.
At least we are discussing more of what Tesla said and has done, which does have to do with why we are here.
Instead if praising conventional lies and cover ups.
    Nor does a real scientist spend his whole day posting on these forums.

   "Keep them in the dark and fed bull shit".
   No thanks... I'm not a mushroom...
 
    NickZ
   

Group: Moderator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3400
At least we are discussing more of what Tesla said and has done, which does have to do with why we are here.
Picowatt has studied his every word and did not even find one claim of FE from the horse's mouth.
His disciples made all kind of unverified claims, but not one FE device can be replicated from them.

We are not here for hero worship and parroting. We are here to do own observing, researching, hypothesizing, testing (with dependable equipment and methods), logically analyzing and reporting conclusions.

Instead if praising conventional lies and cover ups.
Not every scientific conclusion is a lie even when it is wrong ....and not every scientific conclusion is wrong.

Even when the conclusion is wrong, the methodology used to arrive at it does not have to be wrong.
You have a propensity for a conspiracy theory as an answer to every failure and a tendency to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And, following conventional science has not brought us one iota of free energy, either.
So, trust it all you want...see where it gets you.
Instead of current scientists and government secret efforts, to conceal the truth from us.
People have been worshiping Tesla much longer than this forum has existed and that has not brought us one iota of free energy, either.  So using your own metric of success, the Tesla Method has proven itself to be less successful than the methods used by the members of this forum.

I honor T-1000s "nice" non personal remarks, and a true effort to unravel this OU mystery.
He's one of the few that has held an ou device in his hands, but he did not arrive at it by throwing out the laws of electronics and physics out of the window nor by only worshiping Tesla.
   
Sr. Member
****

Posts: 375
Tesla Method has proven itself to be less successful than the methods used by the members of this forum.
He's one of the few that has held an ou device in his hands, but he did not arrive at it by throwing out the laws of electronics and physics out of the window nor by only worshiping Tesla.
Tallking of which it started with trying to understand D. Smith device and how it possibly worked - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHr3eDELyHk

Then it transformed into experiment https://youtu.be/nJBpNKSsdqw?si=FdaH3mJPS2Jw3Wmm while utilizing N. Tesla method of disruptive capacitor discharge for powering up resonant load. And using coil as [inductor-capacitor] unit for high voltage input circuit. And using Avrameko plug to charge capacitor for Caduceus primary coil(for standing/scalar waves). And in middle of that experiment we noticed amplification effects of ferrite for induction on output in high voltage environment.

Then it gone to purely ferrite version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbeseiPPCeM

Both experiments did show amplified energy on output. People would call that overunity but it is simply due not understanding simple fact that we caused secondary processes becoming as power sources with little input on resonant circuits. With wire lengths 1/4th and 3/4th for the secondary coils.
As you see there was plenty of things utilized which require extensive knowledge on works of N. Tesla, Avramenko, Nuclear Magnetic resonance, physics laws of induction, radio engineering skills, etc.

P.S.> The flyback transformer we used in first experiment had double secondary coil. With windings not electricaly connected to each other but rather used as inductive capacitor layers.  With wire lengths ratios 1/4th and 3/4th for the secondary coils.

Cheers!
« Last Edit: 2023-12-21, 18:16:01 by T-1000 »
   
Group: Restricted
Full Member
*

Posts: 102
...
« Last Edit: 2024-02-27, 17:07:01 by stivep »
   
Pages: [1]
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2024-06-20, 01:10:49