Mindforth

Bernd Paysan bernd.paysan at gmx.de
Wed Dec 11 06:38:42 EST 2002


jmdrake wrote:
> Hello Bernd,
> 
> You've clearly fallen into the "guilt by association" logic trap.  Not
> all who write about the Biefeld-Brown effect subscribe to the "Area
> 51" argument.

You have just asked if the people at www.americanantigravity.com are 
crackpots. Since they subscribe to the "Area 51" argument, they clearly 
are.

>> The assymetric capacitor is not in empty space, but close to a very large
>> plate, the ground (surface of our planet earth, tied to a certain
>> potential). Now it's a lot easier to understand how this is going to give
>> a force, even one that allows "infinite lifting". A lot of people make
>> mistakes like this one, because the ground is always present, and
>> therefore ignored.
> 
> Wrong again Bernd.  The force has also been observed moving PARALLEL
> to the ground.

In free, unobscured space? Or inside a lab with walls (the photos in the 
paper below show walls in their lab)? All these people completely ignore 
other surfaces, so how do you know their settings?

The force-distance curve depends on the capacitor plate geometry. That's a 
simple fact (from far away, all shapes revert to points, and there the 
force-distance relation is 1/r²). The ground and walls do form a third 
plate for sure. I think the best effect should be achieved with a flat 
plate on one side (no r dependency for sufficiently small r), and a sphere 
on the other side (1/r² dependency).

> Not only does this shoot your theory to shreds, but it also
> means that it's likely not "antigravity" either.  Here's a paper on
> this:
> 
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0211/0211001.pdf
> 
> But interesting theory.  Even if it were "tied to the ground" so to
> speak that would still be a positive result for "earth bound"
> transportation.

Sure. However: the breakdown voltage of air is too small to lift anything 
useful.

> Or maybe creation is no longer "perfect".  In fact the idea of a
> degraded creation is fundamental to Christianity.

You really mean that it's possible to invert a once perfectly layouted 
structure later? The problem is that it's exactly the other way round: 
Mutation can't easily invert a once wrongly layouted structure - that's why 
our eyes are still constructed "inside-out" after half a billion years of 
evolution, and so are the eyes of all our relatives who share a common 
non-blind ancestor (all animals with a spinal cord).

Science requires a critical mind, and I still fail to see how lots of faith 
does not contradict that.

-- 
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list