**UN-CENSORED" Rosemary Ainslie COP>17 Circuit ??

[truthbeknown]

You really are not the brightest of people Truthbeknown.  If you even understood my thesis you'd see that there's only a passing similarity in the concepts.  Leedskalnin depended on a two way flow of monopoles.  I argue that such cannot be sustained in a field condition.  I have proposed a bipolar particle - to enable a flow in one or other direction.  But this had NOTHING to do with Leedskalnin's insights.  The man is a genius but his explanations here have defeated everyone in the world - including me.  Wish that I knew one tenth of what he must have known.

My thesis was developed on the concept of current flow comprising the flow of magnetic fields.  In fact I propose that all energy is sourced from magnetic fields.  I don't think that has any similarity whatsoever to Leedskalnin's thinking.

Rosemary

Edited.  Corrected 'flow of magnetic monopoles' to 'flow of monopoles'.

Well I won't get into who is "bright" or "brighter" or "brightest" I'll just let the readers here sit down with a cuppy and do a bit of reading for themselves.


J.

[WilbyInebriated]

Wilby, master of correctness and triviality, why don't you deal with this issue?

tk, master of logical fallacies and hacks, i'm glad you're back. you avoided answering to your contradictions (AGAIN )  the last time we spoke. why is it that you continue to choose to not reconcile YOUR OWN CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS before moving on? i have been trying for quite some time to get you to reconcile them... last time i pressed the issue, you ran off swearing and crying about how you were going to take your ball home and not play with us anymore. what happened to that? i expect you will avoid answering to those contradictions just as you usually do.

[Rosemary Ainslie]

Well I won't get into who is "bright" or "brighter" or "brightest" I'll just let the readers here sit down with a cuppy and do a bit of reading for themselves.


J.

Indeed.  LOL.   

BTW  I've deleted your last post on my own thread Truthbeknown.  I trust you kept a copy.  Otherwise I'm afraid it's forever lost.      Fact is that I posted on the wrong thread.  But due to the HACK was not sure if I'd even posted anything at all.  The ONLY people that I know who have already declared their ability to hack into computers is Glen - and Poynty.  BOTH by their own admission.  Frankly I don't think Poynty is that nasty let alone immoral.  And I can definitely attest to the fact that both Glen and Harvey have GOOD REASON to hack.  Else all this technology may very well get widely known, used AND UNDERSTOOD.  God forbid.   

[truthbeknown]

Indeed.  LOL.   

BTW  I've deleted your last post on my own thread Truthbeknown.  I trust you kept a copy.  Otherwise I'm afraid it's forever lost.      Fact is that I posted on the wrong thread.  But due to the HACK was not sure if I'd even posted anything at all.  The ONLY people that I know who have already declared their ability to hack into computers is Glen - and Poynty.  BOTH by their own admission.  Frankly I don't think Poynty is that nasty let alone immoral.  And I can definitely attest to the fact that both Glen and Harvey have GOOD REASON to hack.  Else all this technology may very well get widely known, used AND UNDERSTOOD.  God forbid.   

The big DELETE finger has struck once again!

Now, does it not make us wonder WHY it was so important that she delete her OWN post that I happened to see in the 1 hour or so it was there AND then delete my comment to what she said?
What are YOU trying to hide? LOL many times over.


J.

BTW...I will give you the opportunity to re-post YOUR post where you claim to have some sort of PROOF that 3 people have compromised your computer? I won't embarrass you with my copy.

[Harvey]

Regarding #4 Has anyone found a difference between Her Thesis and Ed's Thesis?

(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7929.MSG262502#MSG262502)


Truthbeknown
J.

I have read both theses more than once and find Ed's work to be very well thought out and presented in a concise and easy to follow manner. 

The other one, which by all rights appears to be a messy copy of Ed's work has many loose ends, poor diagrams and cannot be explained verbally by the author. I did spend hours speaking with her on Skype trying to understand what she is trying to convey, and she simply cannot explain it verbally. She kept telling me that I must read it - so I did - it took me 5 straight hours and a stiff neck and I still have my copy complete with marginal notes. She wanted my honest opinion and I gave it to her: "This is a mess and needs to be completely rewritten", I told her. I felt so bad having to tell her that, but I thought she needed to know that it really does need to be reworked and if a co-author cannot tell it like it is then who can? In one place she states that her thesis demands 11 dimensions to properly function and then she only identifies 10 in the breakdown. She has no way to quantify the energy of her "little magnets" as Ed calls them and confuses 2C with C². Also she seems to have confused spherical area with spherical volume in her math supporting the size ratio of a Proton to an Electron and then later states that electrons don't exist - a statement shared by Ed Leedskalnin (which is where I imagine she got it from) and a view even supported by forum members like Wilby.

So if electrons don't exist, then how could her crowning moment of defining the ratio be of any value? Clearly electrons must exist in her thesis but electric current does not. Therefore, her current is magnetic just as Ed's current is magnetic. This must also mean that she is switching "magnetic current" not "electric current" right? Now, that is another subject that she and I spent several hours discussing, trying to get the specifics properly organized so we could explain it to others. "Is the current inside or outside the material?" We never could get that matter concluded, but one thing was certain - the magnetic chain had to be a complete circuit in her model, there is no place for it to break apart unless you want an nebula on your workbench. Well not that bad, but in her model the principle is the same, break the chain and all those superluminal "little magnets" come crashing into our dimension and become quarks and stuff like that. And don't even try to form a correlation between the universal magnetic model that involves nebula, a toroid universe and a series of spiral chains all in motion to the structure of a molecule where every particle has it's own 'field' of 'little magnets' (of some unknown quantity) structured around them to blue print the interactions with other particles. As soon as you try, you find yourself swimming in relativistic motion problems where superluminal particles somehow pass through each other some of the time and bounce off each other at other times. These are just some of the loose ends.

Personally, I find no difference between her thesis and Ed's at the fundamental level. It should be noted that Ed's "Little Magnets" were smaller than photons and Ed knew that magnets are dipoles. But I encourage all the readers who have the time to spend, to carefully read Rosemary's work and query her on what it means. Perhaps I have a problem that prohibits me from comprehending it. You on the other hand may be able to help her get it rewritten in a way that guys like me can follow. I did tell her once, that if she could explain it to grade school children then the whole world would be able to understand it. Read it and share your thoughts, perhaps through refinement the thesis can become an open source project that eventually explains everything.

Personally I have my own TOE that does not depend on superluminal particles and perhaps that is the problem I have that prohibits me from accepting these magnetic models of our universe.

Harvey