Testing the TK Tar Baby

[fuzzytomcat]

Hi Members and guests,

Have you all noticed that the "QUOTE" links that Rosemary crosses over from one FORUM to another purposely don't work or take you where the original posting is quoted. 

This is very un-professional to not reference "QUOTES" links properly and keep postings error free .... but what else is new everything she posts has massive ERRORS.   

Here's just a few examples ..... 

FTC

[picowatt]

LOL picowatt

Are you referring to this?  That 'thing' that you thought you missed?  That you then found and printed?  And then deleted again? Under the spurious excuse of it increasing the 'fear factor'? 

Rosie Pose

Not at all.  Sorry you missed it!

In the end, I decided your assertions were so ridiculous that they were not even worthy of a response.

If you actually believe that I some how tapped into your phone conversation, you are indeed severely deluded.

I know this to be 100% true, as I did no such thing.

Get a grip on yourself!

[TinselKoala]

Ainslie, you are a joke. Nobody is "avoiding" your absurd "thesis" for the reasons you claim.

Nobody who has any understanding of the Standard Model of nuclear physics and Quantum Electrodynamics is going to give your "thesis" a second glance, and you have been told why, over and over and over by everyone who has read it. Your little cartoons don't even correspond any more to the schematic(s) you have been claiming to have tested, since the schematics have been changed but the cartoons haven't.

What is the mass/energy value, and how is it derived, of the Higgs Boson under your "thesis"? How big an accelerator is needed to detect it? What will its signature look like UNDER YOUR "THESIS"?
You have no clue, because your "thesis" makes NO MATHEMATICAL PREDICTIONS... in fact NO TESTABLE PREDICTIONS at all. In other words, it's just a silly fairy tale without any grounding in reality, and it shows that you, once again, are willfully ignorant of the subjects you choose to attempt to discuss, you refuse to understand and use the common language of REAL discussions of those subjects, and your thought processes are so clouded that you are unable to reason correctly about what you are trying to discuss.

In other words, your "thesis" is a joke, not worthy of serious consideration as anything other than evidence of deluded mental processes. If you want your "thesis" to get the attention it deserves.... show it to a psychoanalyst.

[picowatt]

The most insulting part of her post is her speculation that I might actually know her thesis "BACKWARDS".

.yaw taht daer fi esnes erom ekam dluow ti ylbissoP

In my read (don't ever say review!!) of her papers, I never got past the 'scope captures.  I asked why Q1 was not turnng on in FIG3 and FIG7 when the indicated gate drive should definitely be turning Q1 on.  This blatant and obvious error regarding Q1 throws out the bulk of the data discussed regarding the circuit.

Her responses to date are so lacking, further reading is of little merit.

In FIG 3, during the positive voltage portion of the FG cycle, +12 volts is indicated as being applied to the gate of Q1.  This is more than sufficient gate drive to turn Q1 fully on.  Yet, the CSR trace, during  this same period, does not indicate the current flow one would expect if Q1 were turned fully on.

As well, FIG7 also indicates sufficient gate drive to turn on Q1, and again no current flow is observed.

In FIG5 (made the month prior), during the positive portion of the FG cycle, approx. +5 volts is indicated as gate drive to Q1, and as is expected, current flow is observed via the CSR trace.

Why is Q1 not turning on in FIG3 and FIG7?  During those captures, Q1 must must have been malfunctioning, disconnected, or not connected as per the schematic. 

 

[TinselKoala]

A random quote from the Ainslie file concerning some key concepts of her "thesis":

The reason that Zero Point Energy eludes everyone is simple. You all persist in believing that electromagnetic forces are unified. In fact the magnetic force is primary and the electric force secondary. The magnetic fields are highly structured - closed orbital strings of magnetic dipoles with a velocity of 2C and half the mass of a photon. They 'chase their tails' so to speak and thereby defy the exclusion principle. These fields are everywhere - the fabric behind the tapestry of the universe. They underpin all the known forces. Superluminal - they are the medium through which all psi phenomenon is enabled. Interaction with these fields enables movement through space. Composites of these dipoles form the electron (3 magnetic dipoles), the proton (9 magnetic dipoles) and the photon (2 magnetic dipoles). Using this the model can reconcile the mass/size ratio of the proton to the electron. I call the magnetic dipoles luminons and their "breakaway" composites - truants. Any other composites would be unstable and would decay back into the field. Possibly the nuances? The neutron is different. It's an upside down proton. It is also unstable as without the proton to interact and "anchor" it, so to speak, it would also decay.

(sic)

...

I have proved these concepts by default - I had to exceed unity.

Well, I certainly know that is backwards.... worse than backwards, actually. It's so lost it doesn't even know up from down much less forwards from backwards. It arrives before it starts off, doncha know.