Say hello to our new member, Brother Larry.

Quote from: OUman on May 05, 2008, 11:47:37 PM

Quote from: LarryC on April 30, 2008, 11:54:09 PM
...I reviewed DePalma Homopolar/Unipolar generator research. ... My University and High School Physics text have no mention of the homopolar generator. Apparently because it went against Lenz's law and could not be explained by modern physics...
Regards,
Larry

I think the reason you don't see it in textbooks is more straightforward than that. The reason is simply that it didn't work.

Hi OUman,

That was a very weak attack. My University Physics text is from 1982. Harvard, U of Texas, Texas A & M currently all study homopolar generators and some have patents. It does work and several commercial companies offer the homopolar generator. I also read where new college physics student are challenged to explain the results.

Very interesting, you may not be PB as PB was a very good Googler of technical information. Thane, I think we may owe PB an apology.

BTW, it is very easy to replicate. Secure two opposing magnets with spacing in between in a copper tube and spin the tube with electrical contacts at each end. High amps and low volts will be produced.
Maybe not OU, but it is very interesting that the magnetic fields seem to remain static and generate current in the spinning copper tube while the magnets are rotating.

Regards,
Larry   

Aether,

"... I may not be able to explain away the evidence for C3PO or the glass structures and I may even consider it strong from a certain perspective but it somehow isn't satisfying even if I accept it's proof ...."

I have NO idea what you mean by that.

Isn't "satisfying?" 

What does THAT mean ... that, you don't like the IMPLICATIONS of NASA finding an actual robotic head -- on the Moon?!

Or -- that you don't like the fact that they would lie about what they found ... over all these years ... while pretending to be telling us the truth?

Or, do you mean the evidence itself that I've presented isn't "sufficient" yet for you to make any definitive decision -- regarding the reality or not of "C3PO" ... and "his/its" attendent implications.       

[In case anyone has missed this remarkable Apollo evidence (having NOT read my latest book, "Dark Mission") here is one of the NASA images we have of "C3PO" (there are actually something like 12, taken by Gene Cernan on Apollo 17 at the time ...), below.]

Based on this official NASA evidence (the available scanned images, from the original Apollo photography, are found on an official NASA website -- http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/), I myself find the case for the reality of "C3PO" pretty convincing at this point -- given that I cannot find a plausible geological reason for a "bilaterally symmetric, humanoid head," complete with "camera iris lenses" for "eyes" ... to be found lying on the airless, radiation-drenched Moon ... and a bright red "identifying" stripe still visible around its neck!               

Now, in case others doubt the relevance of this digression to the larger topic at hand (remember, Aether brought this up ...) -- has Thane truly found another electrical/mechanical technology to tap into the limiteless potential of "free energy" -- it is simply this:

Our emotional reaction to ANY scientific hypothesis or discovery -- and to the evidence supporting it -- is totally irrelevant to the reality of that hypothesis. 

"Extraordinary claims" -- as another friend of mine once mistakenly announced -- do NOT require "extraordinary evidence."  They merely require repeatable evidence ....

Aether, with this as background, I find it truly gratifying that you (apparently) have gone from someone who felt that Bruce DePalma "... had some crazy theories about some 'primordial fluid something' and at the time I did not like the idea of anything that smelled like an aether ...." to someone whose public handle now is "Aether 22!"

Progress.               

Hopefully, in time, you'll find our evidence of "something" truly extraordinary lying on the Moon -- and the consequent overwhelming implications for ALL of us -- equally compelling ... if not "satisfying" ....


RCH

Quote from: RCH on May 06, 2008, 01:42:16 AM
Aether,

"... I may not be able to explain away the evidence for C3PO or the glass structures and I may even consider it strong from a certain perspective but it somehow isn't satisfying even if I accept it's proof ...."

I have NO idea what you mean by that.

Isn't "satisfying?" 

What does THAT mean

The brain may be overwhelmed by reason, but that does not always change a mind.
That's what I mean by not satisfied, not truly convinced on all levels.
Belief is not a binary thing, and there are different ways in which someone can believe something.

Quote

... that, you don't like the IMPLICATIONS of NASA finding an actual robotic head -- on the Moon?!

No, I'm Ok with most of the implications in this case.
It's the type of evidence, it feels inconclusive and inexact, it looks like it 'might be' not IS.

Quote
Or -- that you don't like the fact that they would lie about what they found ... over all these years ... while pretending to be telling us the truth?

No, in fact I consider it possible the gravity of the moon is greater than claimed and that LEM is helped out by AG tech.

Quote

Or, do you mean the evidence itself that I've presented isn't "sufficient" yet for you to make any definitive decision -- regarding the reality or not of "C3PO" ... and "his/its" attendant implications.       

in this case yes, that's what I am saying, not that the evidence you have might not be strong enough that it logically SHOULD be considered conclusive (and I'm not saying that is either) but that belief sometimes needs a weight of evidence or evidence of the type that the persons psyche finds effective at changing a belief, in that respect I don't think we are all the same.

Quote
[In case anyone has missed this remarkable Apollo evidence (having NOT read my latest book, "Dark Mission") here is one of the NASA images we have of "C3PO" (there are actually something like 12, taken by Gene Cernan on Apollo 17 at the time ...), below.]

Based on this official NASA evidence (the available scanned images, from the original Apollo photography, are found on an official NASA website -- http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/), I myself find the case for the reality of "C3PO" pretty convincing at this point -- given that I cannot find a plausible geological reason for a "bilaterally symmetric, humanoid head," complete with "camera iris lenses" for "eyes" ... to be found lying on the airless, radiation-drenched Moon ... and a bright red "identifying" stripe still visible around its neck!               

Now, in case others doubt the relevance of this digression to the larger topic at hand (remember, Aether brought this up ...) -- has Thane truly found another electrical/mechanical technology to tap into the limiteless potential of "free energy" -- it is simply this:

Our emotional reaction to ANY scientific hypothesis or discovery -- and to the evidence supporting it -- is totally irrelevant to the reality of that hypothesis. 

Aether, with this as background, I find it truly fascinating that you (apparently) have gone from someone who felt that Bruce DePalma "... had some crazy theories about some 'primordial fluid something' and at the time I did not like the idea of anything that smelled like an aether ...." to someone who's public handle now is "Aether 22!"

Progress.               

Indeed, I often cite the fact that I hated the whole new agey invisible airy fairy mysterious concept of aether in an attempt to convey just how conclusive the evidence is, but I get the feeling that it falls on deaf ears so it is good to hear that may not be the case.

Quote
Hopefully, in time, you'll find our evidence of "something" truly extraordinary lying on the Moon -- and the consequent overwhelming implications for ALL of us -- equally compelling ... if not "satisfying" ....

RCH

Ok, but I'm not buying the guns in the pictures from Mars any time soon. (from Spirit or Opportunity)
Anyway what is your position on the face on mars lion reflection thingy? (I saw it on an old video and admit it was impressive if again inconclusive)

Anyway I agree, it is on topic really because it does cover the issue of changing ones beliefs and that is something that can be a real limiting factor for many people.

Aether,

You said:

" ... Indeed, I often cite the fact that I [once] hated the whole new-agey, invisible, airy-fairy mysterious concept of aether, in an attempt to convey just how conclusive the evidence is [now to me], but I get the feeling that it [my previous uncertainty] falls on deaf ears ... so it is good to hear that may not be the case ...."  [I hope I've edited this correctly, expanding on your true assessment -- then ... and now.]

With this, I think I see your larger "problem" (which I put quotes around to emphasize that it is NOT unique with you ...).

We (at least those of us here in the United States ...) live in a culture of perceived absolutes: "good/bad" ... "black/white" ... "true/not true" ... "guilty/innocent." 

This skewed perception of reality, unfortunately, seems to have "infected" a lot of other cultures ....

However, the Universe (and certainly Science) is filled with uncertainties and ambiguities.  And, our human ability to decide on the "reality" of any situation is only as good as the evidence we have acquired, AND the tools we have at the time its gathered for assessing the validity of that acquired evidence.

A fundamental example ... a literal "life and death" example in this country now ... is in our US courts.

How many previously perceived "bad guys" -- convicted murders, rapists, child molesters, etc., etc. -- have been officially released from prison in recent years, by the courts ... all because the introduction of NEW evidentiary techniques proved they were, in fact, INNOCENT--

Despite the jury's original "infallible" guilty verdict?

All ... because an iron-clad "eyewitness" here ... or a "solid ballistics report" there ... was ultimately proven WRONG--

As judged by the NEW "foolproof forensic technique" recently introduced in court proceedings ... DNA?

So, what went "horribly wrong with the US system of justice?"

Nothing.

What went "right" was that the technique for assessing the accuracy of the original evidence produced in court improved -- eyewitness testimony ... blood evidence ... ballistics--

Eventually reducing the inherent uncertainty in the original analysis of that same evidence!

It was our expectation that a court proceeding -- led by fallible humans, and an even more fallible forensics system -- could ever be "infallible" ... which was in error.

Your "problem" -- as I see it here -- is that you seem to expect/need something approaching absolute certainty in making decisions about "reality" ... before you feel "comfortable" with holding onto a specific view (feeling "comfortable") vis a vis a new "discovery" in Science. 

In fact, "certainty" in Science (as in Life ...) is an illusion ....  It's all in "the eye and mind" of the beholder ....

So, knowing that, my own approach is to accept the possibility of "an ancient, robotic sample of ET technology," found upon the Moon by NASA -- with ALL its implications ... while I simultaneously attempt to gather further, more definitive evidence ....

Or, as the White Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" once bragged--

"Sometimes I've been able to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast!"

All the while, holding on to the possibility that the evidence may, ultimately, turn out NOT to be real ... when the scientific technology further improves ....

That's how one makes real progress in Science.

And incidentally, that's why I'm here ....

Waiting for Thane and Company to realize that their "impossible generator technology" can ONLY, ultimately, be explained -- let alone successfully exploited -- through a serious investigation of ... the aether.                 

Stay tuned.   


RCH