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 

>> 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 

> 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"

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list