ENLIGHTENED MAGNETISM (The Full Proof of Ken Wheeler's Theories)

[Dog-One]

Then, on your question, please re-read my explanation: Reducing the distance (insulation), decreases the voltage and because C = Q / V, it increases the capacitance. Exactly as you said in your first line. And if you stuff in more dielectric insulation, the voltage increases and so the capacitance decreases.

I hear you, but what about the voltage? How did it change again? Did I do that?

What I'm getting at is you have an inverse relationship in that formula, a reciprocal. In my head that triggers something needing a closer look. The behavior you describe just doesn't fit with a mechanical observation. If I take a can full of water, then stretch the can, I don't magically get more water in it. Instead, the can is now capable of holding more water--the active word being more. More capacity. With a can of water it doesn't matter which dimensions I increase, I always get more capacity. But this electrical device we call a capacitor only gets more capacity if we increase the plate area. If we increase the volume, it gets less capacity. Something just doesn't sit well with me about that. I didn't change the voltage at all. All I did was smash the plates together tighter and now the capacitor can hold more electrical energy. Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else, just on a real primitive, common sense level?

If nothing else, doesn't that blow the whole water/electricity analogy, uh hum, out of the water?

[bistander]

Capacitance

But this electrical device we call a capacitor only gets more capacity if we increase the plate area. If we increase the volume, it gets less capacity. Something just doesn't sit well with me about that. ...

Doesn't that seem odd to anyone else, just on a real primitive, common sense level?

Hi Dog-,

When you increase the plate area you do in fact increase the volume. You get less capacity when you increase the distance between the plates. It is a bit different, but lots of physical relationships decrease as the distance increases such as the attraction force between two charges. So it does not surprise me that the quantity (capacitance) decreases with increasing distance between the plates.

bi

[bistander]

Capacitor voltage

So the voltage is created by the insulator and not by the charges.

Hi Ernst,

This is a strange concept. Vacuum is an insulator. It can be used to separate the plates in a capacitor. So you're saying that a vacuum can create a voltage? That is hard for me to imagine.

The insulator between the plates will support an electric field. It is my understanding as charge is delivered to the plates from an external source that a potential difference (voltage) is established between the plates and this creates the electric field.

Anyway, I like your discussion here. Thanks.

bi

[Ernst]

Hi Bi-,
It is a strange concept, I agree, but allow me to try to reduce the strangeness somewhat.
This idea I got from reading Tesla's "the Problem of Increasing Human Energy", where he gives us a very mechanical view on electricity, even to the point of applying Newton's laws of motion. Whatever an electrical current is, we know that it is a movement of some sort and a movement implies an object being moved and a propelling force.
Look at a capacitor there are two plates with charges on it one (more) positive and one (more) negative. These charges act on eachother, the positive attracting the negative and vice versa. So far I have not told you anything new, I am sure.
Now, if these attracting forces were the only forces acting on the charges, the charges would move towards eachother and neutralize, consequently there would be no voltage.
But we see that the charges are not moving while we know there is an attracting force working on them. Therefore we KNOW that there MUST be another force neutralizing the attracting force. And it is this force that creates the electric potential.
Compare it to gravity. A bowling ball is laying on the floor, it can not go any lower so there is no potential (energy). Now I put it on a table and the height of the table determines its gravitational potential. And the reason the ball now has this potential is because the table is providing a force to counter the Earth's attracting force. If the table would not provide this force, the ball would fall through the table to its 0-potential level.
So the table gives the ball its potential within the gravitational field of the Earth.
Likewise the negative charges are given a potential by the insulator in the field of the positive charges.
I must admit different approaches are thinkable, but the point I wish to make and maintain is that there are two forces at work when a potential is created and normally in the field of electricity we only look at one.
Now we must extend this example a bit to answer Dog-One's question.
The attracting force and the resisting force (of the insulator) 'pressurize' the charges. When the plates are closer together the forces increase and so does the pressure. A higher pressure means more charge fits into the same volume (the volume of the capacitor plates), hence the increased capacitance. Your confusion seems to come from thinking that the electricity is stored in the volume between the plates. That volume does play a role, but not in that way.

Then back to the video about RS2. I still have not seen more than the first 16 minutes but I let it sink in for a while and my conclusion (for now) is that what he describes is very similar (but not the same) to Steiner's theory. And that means that he only changes the way he describes space but space remains space. So his counterspace is nothing more or less than a different view on normal space.
There also seems to be some misunderstanding about Euclidean geometry and polar coordinates. If I have a 3 dimensional Euclidean space, then I can describe that space using any coordinate system that would give me access to all points in that space, polar or Cartesian, it does not make any difference. Euclidean space means that Euclid's set of axioms apply and if so, then also all derived laws apply. For example that the sum of the angles of a triangle is 180 degrees.
If we look at the surface of a sphere we can easily draw a triangle with 3 angles of 90 degrees, meaning that the surface of a sphere viewed as a 2 dimensional space is not an Euclidean space. However looking at the same space in our 3 dimensional world we see that these triangles are made with curved lines and therefore are not triangles. In 3 dimensions we can view the surface of a sphere as an Euclidean space.
The space that we live in I can describe with polar coordinates but that does not change ANYTHING AT ALL about the space that I am describing. It only changes the math and in some cases polar coordinates work easier. So it is a choice...


Ernst.

[Ernst]

a little extra for Bistander, because you like the discussion.

Maxwell's equations focus on the charges just as I described before, they are missing the second forces that MUST be present in many situations.
It is known, though never said aloud, that Maxwell's equations violate Newton's 3rd law of motion (every force is accompanied by an equal and opposite force). My friend Koen van Vlaenderen has rewritten these equations so that this obvious mistake is corrected. These rewritten equations are very interesting as they allow for longitudinal waves but also a very strange kind of wave which he has called a Phi-wave. I imagine this wave to be an electrical wave in an insulator (such as the vacuum), which you can only think of when you see this second force that I described. This force (and wave) of course implies a medium (the ether)....
This Phi-wave can induce a voltage without charge movement....


Anyways.... back to counterspace....

Ernst.

[bistander]

Potential energy

mgh (mass x gravity x height) is used to determine the potential energy in an object of a certain weight at a certain height. In the popular conventional model, the context that is used it to show how much potential energy is claimed to be stored in the object as it was lifted to that height.

Hi Aaron,

The mgh equation is just a shortcut for those not wanting to use the gravitational force equation and distance to calculate the work (or energy). The shortcut assumes a nominal radius of the planet and incorporates that and the planet's mass into a constant. So when using the shortcut, people often forget it is actually the attraction force between two objects with which they are dealing.

I agree. The small object does not store energy in itself because it was lifted. The force acting on the two objects was changed due to an increase in the distance between their centers. Work was done to increase that distance and so that energy was taken from the field. This actually decreases the energy stored in the gravitational field while the shortcut equation would indicate an increase in energy. The shortcut equation is just an approximation for small objects close to the surface of the earth.

At least the way I see things,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

I just got a another idea, Ufopolitics.
You have seen a little bit of who I am now and how I think.

Hello Ernst,

I did not get to see your work "now" just because you posted on this Thread...I have read must of your Threads here as must of your posts.

Now...Have you seen my work?

What I really don't understand is how come, you being such a solid supporter of Tesla, Wardenclyffe, plus all your beautiful testing and builds...what is actually retaining you for opening your mind to this Theory?

Based on that, do you believe your proof can convince me or at least provide a new insight to me?

Not only to you, am sure...but it will change the mind of many in this Forum.

Or... do you want me as a test case to see if your proof is complete?

I am sorry, but the first time I read the above question, I laughed...

Answer is: Nope, I am not looking for You nor ANYONE as a test case...my proof is completed and yes definitively it is complete.

If the answer to both questions is no, then we could safe eachother a lot of time.

You've got the answers.

I also tried to read the pages that you posted from Ken's book, but
- dielectric gravitative centre

The gravitational center of any permanent magnet or electromagnet

- mirror membrane ether deflection

That applies to Repulsion (Countervoidance) where the Two Dielectric Fields from both magnets in repulsion are mirroring two like ether bubbles, extremely high pressure space.

- negative pressure counterspatial voidance sink

The opposite from previous statement: Attraction (Voidance) and of course, negative pressure because counterspace is negative space (-space)
Both Forces "sink" to dissapear (void)

- dielectric inertial plane

Is the Plane of the Dielectric Field

- the vacuum seeking equilibrium must trace itself CW to the CCW or CCW to the CW to the Bloch wall
- the hourglass shaped Ether bubble travels centrifugally as high pressure either CCW or CW and travels centripetally towards low pressures to CCW or CW directed at the null-point fulcrum of the counterspacial dielectric inertial plane.

It resumes how the polarizations vortexes FROM (Centrifugal) and TO (Centripetal) the Gravitational Center of a Magnet, where the Dielectric Field is located.

- The 'shrinking sphere' of polarization voidance is then completed

Magnets in attraction make contact physically...

- a magnets 'desire' to self fold is enormous, dielectricity seeks its counterspacial homeostasis and CW on CW or CCW on CCW fields are polarized against a non-polarized 0-point dielectric seeking like on like for collapse as against its own created space,....

If you brake a magnet in pieces they will always seek to "centerfold", or seek attachment of all pieces by using minimal space than when it was a complete magnet...and not following the expected N-S-N-S-N-S chains...this is a very simple demo of counterspace gathering.

All this are words combined in an obscure manner which do not trigger any image or thought in my mind. It might as well be Cantonese...

Ernst, let me ask you...Is English your native language?

I am asking this because English is not my native language...however, I do understand all this above...of course...I have to put(add) some logic to what Ken means as well.

Can I be saved or should I let it go?


Ernst.

I am pretty sure you could be saved...as soon as you see and be able to witness by yourself "a miracle"...then, am sure, you will become a very strong believer...just have Faith...


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Ufopolitics: Can You imagine an IMPLOSION of a Solid Mass to the tiniest particle in the shape of such small sphere that would look just like a Point?
Yes, but how does that relate to the above? Some believe that stars in their later years implode and can become a neutron star or even a black hole.
BTW. I am NOT a supporter of such theories, but I can envision such a process.

An Implosion is pure, 100% the physical way that Counterspatial Forces work.

Don't go to the Stars again...think here, in our space...can you imagine an object imploding into just a point in space?

If you search "Implode" definition: collapse violently inward., then give you abstracts examples of non real objects...eg: the firm … imploded from greed and factionalism —etc...
And of course the star implosion example that you posted.

If we were to create a fake effect of an implosion in real time of an object, we will need several external forces from many different points from a 3D sphere surrounding object, all pressing towards the gravitational center point of such object...and still there would never result in just a point in space, because we do not have the means to compress mass to a void or just to a point..

I am trying to read your posts Ufopolitics, but you use words like "counterspatial Field Plane" that have absolutely no meaning to me. I'm a new kid in the world of counterspace, build it up slowly, please.


Ernst.

I am using words from Ken Wheeler's Book and Theory...because that is the subject here...

I will build it up slowly...

The best way to picture all this is by 3D Graphics and Animations with CGI...

Ufopolitics

[Aaron]

potential energy

Aaron, do you really believe that everything you say is so crystal clear that it can not possibly be misinterpreted? If someone can not make sense of your endless rant of your mistakes in high school physics, then he is intentionally and wilfully confusing people. Just like your high school teachers?
You also seem convinced that only you really understand the concept of potential energy and all those scientists, including Tesla BTW, they are all totally wrong.
You compared a ball in water to the basic cause of gravity and not gravitational attraction?
Then how come that when this basic cause of gravity is abundantly present there is still no gravitational attraction?
Yeah, I know, I am the one trying to confuse people, not you. You are crystal clear and in no uncertain terms.
Energy is work done, right? Where is the 'work done' in 'polarized ether'? And how is it different from a spring pulled out of its equilibrium, or a swing?
I am so sorry I do not immediately recall the conversation about DePalma. If it is relevant to this thread please provide a link s we can all look it up and see how right you are and how clear.

Earlier in this thread I said that we all have mental issues, only some more severe than others. Nobody is perfect and nobody gets through life without suffering some damage.
You are the exception to this rule, Aaron. You are perfect in everything you do, say and think.
Now your only problem is that you have to cope with people like me who are imperfect.
You know what?
Let me quote Tesla here:
"Let the future tell the truth...."

I'm getting more and more convinced that I am not 'open minded' enough for this.


Ernst.

If your misinterpretations of what I said were in the same demeanor and spirit as the rest of your communications, it would be easier to believe that it is an honest misinterpretation. You are condescending and sarcastic.

Define the potential energy instead of telling people they're wrong for disagreeing with you. My definition of potential energy is correct and conventional explanations of it are wrong. Conventionally, it is discussed as an abstract while energy is discussed as the thing, when in reality, it is the opposite. Source potential (aether) is the thing and the dissipation of that organized potential is work (energy), which is the abstract or verb that the thing experiences.

If you're so naive to believe that an analogy that displays one point (displacement) does not encompass all universal principles, then you should speak for yourself when you state that everyone has mental issues because you have an attachment problem where you can't let go of first base in order to get to second. The analogy of the ball is water is simply to illustrate the concept of displacement and the scale at which gravitational attraction will happen is many orders of magnitude too large to illustrate with two bowling balls in water - no, I do not believe you simply misunderstood me, I believe you understood quite well what I was explaining and are using the most ridiculous example that you can come up with to make the analogy look wrong.

I'm a lot more clear than your ambiguous hen pecking manner of simply stating that anything is wrong that doesn't align with your belief system - while refusing to answer what is wrong. So not only are you condescending, you are sarcastic, which is the lowest form of comedy.

Yes, energy is work.

When a battery is charged, you can measure work done to "charge" it up, which is really separating the charges of the chemistry and the aether is polarized and made available at the terminals of that battery. Since you can measure the work done to create the dipole and that is all we expended, the polarization is automatic.

When you lift an object, you create a dipole - the work needed to lift that object can be measured and the potential energy available is automatic by the fact that the dipole is there. You pay for the creation of the dipole, which sets up the automatic circumstance that allows the aether, the source potential, to be made available when it is needed when the object drops.

When you stretch the spring, you can measure the energy dissipated to do that work and all that energy is gone when you are finished stretching it. You have now created a potential difference, which can cause the spring to move back to equilibrium and do more work AFTER you let go of it or when it is released.

There is no difference as far as the nature of energy and potential energy in any of the above 3 examples.

1. You destroy potential energy through the process of work (dissipation of the organized potential) to create a dipole.

2. The dipole is a potential difference allowing more work to be done that is in addition to the work that was already expended to create the dipole.

3. Both the input work to create the dipole and the work that the dipole allows to happen are both entropic forward energy events that cause heat and can be added since they both "contribute to the entropy of the universe", which has a combined total in excess of our input at a COP of 2.0 typically.

If you have a gallon of gas in a car and drive up a hill until the gas runs out, you are at the peak of the lift for that much input energy. You obviously didn't store anything because there is no more gas. Put the car in neutral and gravitational potential will push the car back down and any resistances on the way until the car stops is free work donated by nature and is entropic work that can be added to the entropic work you did by burning gas going up the hill and you will have a COP of 2.0 roughly. Obviously, the engine is wasting 80% of the gas since it will be about 20% efficient and you burn more gas in joules of energy necessary to lift that weight of the car to that height but the point is so you do not take the liberty of manipulating the intent of the example like you have multiple times before, is that you created a dipole and dissipated x energy to do so. That dipole creates a potential difference, which allows free environmental source potential to enter the system to do more work, which you did NOT pay for. You paid for the transportation of that car to that height - you ALREADY got out of it what you put in and that is the movement of that car up the hill in and of itself. The "polarization" or availability of the aether (gravitational potential in this case) is automatic and free.

If you believe it cost something, then you still have to admit that the work you expended to move the car, lift the object, etc... simultaneously actually did more work than you can measure.

You ask where the work is to polarize the aether, but it doesn't take work directly to polarize the aether, it is a free benefit of doing work to create the dipole and the creation of the dipole actually accomplished something. In the car example, it traveled a distance to drop off a package to your friend at the top of the hill. In a gravity powered device, your input did mechanical work that rotates the system in way that accomplishes forward motion, which happens to create a potential difference for that mass that was moved in respect to gravity, which will allow gravity to come in and do more work further moving the mass along its trajectory.

When you create the dipole, you ALREADY got out of it what you put it and that was the creation of the dipole in and of itself. The potential differences created by the creation of these dipoles doesn't require extra work to polarize the aether, etc... because that is a free benefit from nature and that is the point. What we input is MEASURABLE and we account for that by looking at the creation of the dipole and what it accomplished so the polarization of the aether is FREE because it was accomplished AFTER we already accounted for all our input in the creation of the dipole.

You can speak for yourself - I have no mental issues because I accept all my imperfections as part of being human and am constantly working to improve myself - so there are no issues here. The real issue is if someone uses insincere humility and inauthentic humbleness in including themselves as having issues as an excuse to insult others.

The moment you mentioned that my use of counterspace for example is different than Eric's - I have no attachment to that, no bruised ego, etc... I simply admit that my use of the term is indeed different than Eric's and offer up that I should use a different word since I am indeed talking about something different so as to not cause confusion. That is a clear demonstration that I do not believe I am perfect in any way shape or form or I would still be here trying to convince you that Eric and I are talking about the same thing. Your statements about me are not just condescending and sarcastic, they're completely wrong.

I actually enjoy communicating with others that disagree with me as long as it is done in an authentic manner without the sarcasm and with a true open mind.

If you can actually get yourself to share in the enthusiasm of other people's beliefs whether they agree with yours or not for the sake of recognizing and appreciating that we're on the same team, you will find that others will be way more receptive to your criticism and will be more open to hearing you out.

[Aaron]

gravity, potential and aether

Hi Aaron,

The mgh equation is just a shortcut for those not wanting to use the gravitational force equation and distance to calculate the work (or energy). The shortcut assumes a nominal radius of the planet and incorporates that and the planet's mass into a constant. So when using the shortcut, people often forget it is actually the attraction force between two objects with which they are dealing.

I agree. The small object does not store energy in itself because it was lifted. The force acting on the two objects was changed due to an increase in the distance between their centers. Work was done to increase that distance and so that energy was taken from the field. This actually decreases the energy stored in the gravitational field while the shortcut equation would indicate an increase in energy. The shortcut equation is just an approximation for small objects close to the surface of the earth.

At least the way I see things,

bi

I only mention the difference between mgh and force x distance because Ernst is such a stickler for conventional belief that I'm simply pointing out that he is not using the conventional force (mass x gravity) times distance (height) and is instead using mgh, which is normally allocated for potential energy of the object at a height and not the work done to lift an object, which would be force x distance. It gives the same product but based on context, one or other other is normally used.

Yes, it is an approximation and is not an absolute constant, which is evident the further we move out. I think the gravitational potential that is used is instantly and dynamically replaced since the aether is constantly trying to maintain an equilibrium.

[Ufopolitics]

Conflicts in the Classic Electromagnetic Model(s)

Well,


This is basically what we all have in the Classic Electromagnetic Model:

[IMG][/IMG]

Model 1 Explains the way we either magnetize permanently a ferromagnetic core...or how an electromagnet works...

Model 2 refers to Domain Walls...Bloch Walls, Néel Wall

Now,You guys tell me how do we "reconcile" Model 1 & 2?


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Dog-One]

Now,You guys tell me how do we "reconcile" Model 1 & 2?

To make matters even more interesting, show the two models based on a pancake coil.



Specifically when a ferrous core is inserted in the center, but not aligned top-to-bottom within the coil.

[Ernst]

Ufopolitics,

Just a few quick answers (that do not require much thought ), more later...
I must admit I have not seen much of your work, one of the reasons being that I do not believe that the path you have chosen will be very fruitful. Of course that is just my opinion, there is no ill intend or anything. Many believe that I am following an absolute fruitcake, and well, I can't even deny that, but he also has some brilliant insights that should never get lost.
If you'd have to choose 1-3 videos from your hand that would give a good idea of what you are doing, which ones would that be. (I will have a look)

Why I have not joined the counterspace legions?
There are many reasons. Eric's work is the first place where I read the term and I have found numerous errors in his work. Also I don't like his redefinition of 'dimension', doing so only causes confusion. As a mathematical concept it (counterspace in his definition) may serve a purpose, but in practical work I see no use for it other than causing confusion. This confusion arises already from the name; it looks as if it is some kind of space, while it is not. Objects which require space to exist (virtually all objects) can not exist in counterspace. I often hear/read about things going into or coming out of counterspace, while that is obviously impossible. Therefore the whole concept becomes ridiculous.
It is like my countertime example; I do not have time today, I am very busy, so I'll do it in countertime at 546 Hz and have it ready tomorrow.
The RS2 video shown in this thread makes it 100 times worse, but I don't know if I should spend time on that. If you think it is worthwhile I will list some more errors that he makes.

I am glad to hear you have so much confidence in your proof. I read a few times that you wrote that people should at least have an open mind or they should give you the benefit of the doubt, and that gives me some doubt.
At this point there is no doubt in my mind that counterspace is nonsense, so I can not give you the benefit of that doubt. The best thing I can do is try to see and understand how you see things and follow your proof. If your proof is as good as you say it is, that should at least cause some doubt in my mind. Maybe then you can have the benefit.

My native language is Dutch....

I think I understand what you write about implosions. If my understanding is correct then counterspatial forces are forces that (seek to) reduce the amount of space occupied by the object they work on. So, example, a balloon filled with air is held under water. The water pressure makes the balloon smaller. So these forces, of the water on the balloon, you call counterspatial forces.
Here the term counterspatial, could be replaced by inward, and this follows Steiner's definition, namely: these forces are present and acting wholly in 'normal' space, but they are directed inward.
So in our counterspace dictionary we can enter:
counterspatial: inward directed.
If that is correct, then we finally have our first entry, but there are many more to come.


Ernst.

[BroMikey]

Well,


This is basically what we all have in the Classic Electromagnetic Model:

Model 1 Explains the way we either magnetize permanently a ferromagnetic core...or how an electromagnet works...

Model 2 refers to Domain Walls...Bloch Walls, Néel Wall

Now,You guys tell me how do we "reconcile" Model 1 & 2?


Regards

Ufopolitics

They don't tell us in school to reconcile the inconsistencies we instead
are told to memorize whatever we are told and then that is the answer.
And when you ask questions they are meant with the belittling tactic
of teacher knows best so therefore we have huge numbers of people
running around who think they have attained some form of intelligence
that project the same belittling attitude on everyone who questions.

It is a sort of pay back type of social cause and effect.

Clearly your question is a legitimate one and yet it has been completely
ignored just as most of your hard work posting previously in this wonderful
thread. Unless we can get past the misused analogies practiced by schools
as a form of mind control the block "mental illness" will remain.

When we consider the idea that mental blocks as a form of mind
control were put in place by gov planners it explains everything
we are going through. It means that the people will suffer mental
dysfunction so maybe we can pity one another once in a while?

But one thing seems very strange to me is that you can post
simple diagrams and almost no one can give an answer. It's like
the people are all afraid they will be slapped down so they are to
afraid to open the door.

Who cares what everyone else thinks, answering any question
shouldn't be like pulling teeth and yet these are ignored as if they
never existed.

Don't worry some of us understand you very well.

[BroMikey]

Aaron this post is so right on I will have to applaud you
There is perfect harmony in every line, both of the post below
deal with a suggestion that free thought outside the Gov run box=
mentally ill.

This is a battle for position in the public eye, not a display of a genuine
thirst from learning. Just one trick sentence after another to keep
those listening in off balance, stopping them from timely progress.

Always planting seeds of doubt. This is the same distraction all over again.

Keep up the charge, hold up that sword. Below are my favorite quotes
from you that made my day.

If your misinterpretations of what I said were in the same demeanor and spirit as the rest of your communications, it would be easier to believe that it is an honest misinterpretation. You are condescending and sarcastic.

Define the potential energy instead of telling people they're wrong for disagreeing with you.

If you're so naive to believe that an analogy that displays one point (displacement) does not encompass all universal principles, then you should speak for yourself when you state that everyone has mental issues

no, I do not believe you simply misunderstood me, I believe you understood quite well what I was explaining and are using the most ridiculous example that you can come up with to make the analogy look wrong.

I'm a lot more clear than your ambiguous hen pecking manner of simply stating that anything is wrong that doesn't align with your belief system - while refusing to answer what is wrong. So not only are you condescending, you are sarcastic, which is the lowest form of comedy.


You can speak for yourself - I have no mental issues because I accept all my imperfections as part of being human and am constantly working to improve myself - so there are no issues here. The real issue is if someone uses insincere humility and inauthentic humbleness in including themselves as having issues as an excuse to insult others.

The moment you mentioned that my use of counterspace for example is different than Eric's - I have no attachment to that, no bruised ego, etc... I simply admit that my use of the term is indeed different than Eric's and offer up that I should use a different word since I am indeed talking about something different so as to not cause confusion. That is a clear demonstration that I do not believe I am perfect in any way shape or form or I would still be here trying to convince you that Eric and I are talking about the same thing. Your statements about me are not just condescending and sarcastic, they're completely wrong.

Ufopolitics,

I must admit I have not seen much of your work.............. Many believe that I am following an absolute fruitcake, and well, I can't even deny that,

Why I have not joined the counterspace legions?

There are many reasons. Eric's work is the first place where I read the term and I have found numerous errors

Therefore the whole concept becomes ridiculous.

I am glad to hear you have so much confidence in your proof. I read a few times that you wrote that people should at least have an open mind or they should give you the benefit of the doubt, and that gives me some doubt.