I may be flogging a dead horse here but have posted another answer to MH via Allcandadian - on another dot.com.
By Allcanadian
.... Regarding the Ainslie (name edited as MH persistently refuses to spell this correctly) paper---"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?"--Albert Einstein.
Hi AC. I get it that you're defending us here and am grateful. But there's an unhappy implication in your chosen quote that leaves one with the impression that we 'don't know what we are doing.' I beg to differ as the claim here has never been entirely that these heat signatures MAY be evident - but rather - that they WILL be evident. The initial Quantum paper detailed a circuit configuration that was intended to test a magnetic field model that proposed that all identifiable three dimensional objects - or amalgams - are bound by the very thing that astrophysicists claim 'binds' our galaxies. They call this energy 'dark energy' and propose that it's from a dark particle. The magnetic field model claims that this same particle binds amalgams and that it is invisible to light precisely because it is both smaller and faster than light. In effect the particle that binds the material of conductive wire on a circuit is the particle that is able to extrude the body of that material and adjust its position in space. In other words the 'thing' or the 'energy' that has been transferred to the atoms in that wire - is simply fields of these zipons as I have presumed to call the particle.
So. The departure from classical physics is that these fields are extant, in the first instance, and that they are responsible for the apparent exchange of energy in the second instance. They are the fields that adjust to imposed imbalances - of whatever nature. And they are plastic and can and do move through space to balance their own charge. This, in turn, balances the distribution of charge of the actual atoms. But they only ever interact with the atom's energy levels. The atoms themselves are invisible to the field just as the field itself is invisible to us. We can only measure the ionised state of the amalgams. We cannot see these fields. We can only measure their effect over time. Their positional adjustment precedes our own time frame which answers both questions of locality and the apparent and instantaneous measure of voltage across a circuit that has this innate measurable imbalance. As presumptuous as it is, the proposal is that the change in the distribution and manifestation of these fields is precisely what classicists term and measure as an exchange of energy. In effect, the proposal is that energy is vested entirely in these fields and that the energy exchange actually occurs at a level that is also entirely invisible to us. And, in any event, the exchange has come and gone as we can only measure those 'changes' in its wake.
All this would simply constitute an alternative description of classical views of energy exchange - but for one difference. The proposal is that these fields have properties of mass that vary. If their orbits are broken through some applied imblance their mass changes. And their mass has innate properties of heat and velocity. They become fast and small and cold or slow and big and hot in precise and inverse proportion to each other. Small and cold and fast, they have achieved their balance and interact with atomic energy levels. Hot and big and slow, they have lost their own balance and manifest in our own dimensions as 'flame'. The proposal is that the flame is simply another manifestation of the zipon that then decays again when it has found another field which may be outside the body of the amalgam that it first bound. Which explanation confronts classical understandings.
But the simple fact is that if this is correct, as seems to be evident in this circuit's breach of classical norms in the exchange of energy - then the implications are that both thermal and kinetic energies can be far better and more efficiently exploited that is possible in terms of our Thermodynamic Laws. Which is very good news for those of us who would prefer to cater to our rampant energy requirements. That MileHigh chooses to ignore the evidence in the data that has been so carefully presented in the paper - is not a reflection on this new and emerging technology. Rather it is a sad reflection on that rigid and inflexible mind that can no longer adjust to new thinking. I am sure that there are many MileHighs in this world. Fortunately there are others who are well able to flex their intellects as required and they are also among those many credentialed readers. It does not constitute an argument to say 'you are wrong' or 'this is nonsense'. That only reflects on the incapacity of his intellect. It is usual that this stiffens with age, along with the aging body. So it is something to be pitied rather than criticised.
What is alarming is MH's revision of history where he makes some reference to a semi-scientific dialogue in the art of gliding as opposed to motorised flight. This is so exaggerated as to be entirely fantastical and would require today's level of international discussion through the internet and through forums such as this - to be enabled. Nonsense indeed. And it's malicious nonsense, to boot.
Leave a comment: