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/
