Roll on the 20th June

[ramset]

Archer will be sending some funds when they clear paypal [couple days] also looks as if I have a buyer [finaly] for the house boat if so  will be good for you  Chet

[chrisC]

....
You say that all of my posts have been negative and none of them have been constructive. Can you please give me a single example of anything that you and your hero Archer have said in this thread that has been "constructive"?
...-
Newtonian God

Hey NG.

This thread is NOT about you, if you haven't yet discovered. It's about AQ's attempt to prove his unorthodox discovery. OK? Got it?

So, if you still have so many problems understanding this, I suggest you just GET LOST and SHUT UP! Just wait for a few more days and let the gentleman finish up his project. I think your hamster is a lot smarter than you; at least he's cuter!

cheers
chrisC

[shakman]

@Fletcher
Great constructive and well thought out argument. It's good to see it, even if it does go against what I hope for.

You clearly have a better general knowledge of physics than me but I have done a lot of reading and researching over the years out of general interest and as far as I can tell magnetics is a tricky beast. Earnshaw's Theorem has a number of exceptions, particulary at the quantum level. I believe that these are not all completely understood.

And have you read about Seaon Theory by Dr. Gerhard Loebert?
"Because of Einstein's abstract way of deriving Special Relativity; many physicists think that physical theory does not allow the existence of a carrier medium and a preferred frame of reference. This is, of course, not true. The microwave background radiation shows that a preferred reference frame does exist, and, as every electro-dynamicity knows, in an electromagnetic world there is no fundamental difference between an ideal dielectric medium with its distinct frame of reference and the vacuum". - Source: http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1683

Although I'm not sure the theorem is universally accepted yet, Dr. Loebert has recieved the "Needle of Honor", a German Aeronautics (astrophysics) award, so he knows his stuff.

So maybe magnetics, when used properly, can either utilise energy from the vacuum or themselves defy the laws of conservation.

I've heard people waffle on about how permanent magnets "can't do work... conservative forces... etc" but you only have to see one lifting a metal object to see that the magnet is doing something. I know to most physicists that this sounds like a comment someone in primary school might make but maybe we actually need to forget some of that which is taught to ever crack the code of OU or FE.

@chrisC
I see you didn't take me up on that pact 
I didn't reply in the thread, there was no point.

shakman

[fletcher]

Hey shakman .. I have no problem with people doing experiments to prove their case or their theories, as the case might be - science & the math to explain it was built ground-up from observations & extrapolations of data from fundamental experiments - if anyone here can see either gravity or magnetism as a source of energy & can prove it by robust experimental evidence, I'll certainly sit up & take notice immediately - until then, theories remain theories, until proven to be scientific fact.

Theories are being presented all the time, then supplanted by better or more complete theories, but they have to be very robust to knock established laws from their perches & replace them.

I tend to apply Ockam's Razor to problems - don't make them anymore complicated than need be, but not so simple as to be farcical - we need extreme thinkers amongst us to push the envelopes but even they must operate within the confines of this physical world - not new science, just as old as the cosmos - how we describe behaviour might change but not the physical processes & relationships that have existed for all time, practically unchanged by all accounts - yes, there are some under-explained theories that have yet to be completed e.g. since you mentioned it, Einstein's cosmological constant which he later withdrew as the biggest mistake of his career IIRC - constants in equations are fillers, they are numbers inserted to make equations balance, substitutes for proper explanations [the as yet unknowns] of the bits missing to complete the equation completely - that leaves room for better theories to be developed & perhaps some latitude for further expression, but does it upset the established laws of conservation of momentum & energy ? - time will tell if a member here can prove with a shadow of doubt & with repeatability that one or both these laws are not immutable afterall - a big ask in anyone's language, that would take some radical thinking !

[Evil Roy Slade]

engineers take what they "know" and design and build into the future. they do not wait for proof, that is a replicator, not an engineer.

Is this what you think Engineers do?

Design and build bridges,skyscrapers, cars, computers and medical equipment without proof!

You are a fool.

ERS