HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DOCTORJ@SLACVM.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU (Jon J Thaler)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Another Reference to a Paper Dealing With Puthoff's Work
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:37:57 GMT
Organization: Stanford Linear Accelerator Center

columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) says:

> SED stands for stochastic electrodynamics.  From my limited knowledge of
> it, SED is essentially a "classical" theory-- SED has no "collapse of the
> wave packet".

> Calculation isn't everything.  If SED could be shown to be formally
> equivalent to QED (in the same sense that matrix mechanics and wave
> mechanics were shown to be formally equivalent), that would change the
> whole framework of the debate over the foundations of QM.

If SED is a conventional classical theory it can't be equivalent to QM.
That would violate Bell's theorem.  So, the crucial test of SED is to find
out where its predictions disagree with QM and look there.  Or, if it *IS*
equivalent to QM, then it must have at least one unusual feature such as
non-localality.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Wanted: pics of the vacuum triode
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 19:18:38 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <1992Apr9.063535.9442@cc.tut.fi> no104956@cc.tut.fi (Ojala Nikolas) writes:
>
> 
>              WANTED !
>
> Wanted these pics in any format:
>
> * Infolded EM plane wave structure of whittaker wave
>
> * A pumped phase conjugate mirror
>
> * The Vacuum Triode Concept
>
> * Antigravity Test of Sweet's Adapted Vacuum Triode

BTW, these figures were in Bearden's published papers in the Proceedings of
the 26th IECEC Conference.

Jon


-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
From: altarrib@madrone.eecs.ucdavis.edu (Michael Altarriba)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Another Reference to a Paper Dealing With Puthoff's Work
Date: 9 Apr 92 17:55:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: ucdavis.12085
Organization: Division of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, UC Davis

In article <COLUMBUS.92Apr9094316@strident.think.com>, columbus@strident.think.com (Michael Weiss) writes:
|> In article <2033@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl
|> Neustaedter) writes: 
|> 
|>    Last I checked, QED had been shown to be accurate down to 13 decimal places
|>    or so; only limitations on measurement kept it from being shown to be more
|>    accurate (I'll have to dig up my reference from Feynman on this one).
|> 
|>    Since SED (presumably scalar electrodynamics) won't be more accurate, the
|>    only thing that could make it replace QED would be that it is easier to
|>    use and produces the same results. In that case, BY ALL MEANS, show us the
|>    derivation of Schroedinger's equation and how their formulations can be
|>    used more easily than QED's quite cumbersome mathematics.
|>    -- 
|> 	    Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
|> 	    Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
|>    Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
|> 
|> SED stands for stochastic electrodynamics.  From my limited knowledge of
|> it, SED is essentially a "classical" theory-- SED has no "collapse of the
|> wave packet".
|> 
|> Calculation isn't everything.  If SED could be shown to be formally
|> equivalent to QED (in the same sense that matrix mechanics and wave
|> mechanics were shown to be formally equivalent), that would change the
|> whole framework of the debate over the foundations of QM.
|> 
|> The history of this debate is, I think, what makes people skeptical
|> (myself included) of SED.
|> 
|> As for the "energy from the vacuum" stuff, at least someone has a start on
|> a good sf yarn!

Ahem. It's already been done. See Arthur C. Clark's "The Songs Of Distant
Earth" (someone please correct me if I have the title wrong; my copy is 
3000 miles away). In it, a starship uses energy extracted from the vacuum as
a power source. In the forward to the book, AC refers to a paper discussing
the possibility.
From: lafave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov (Dr. Norman J. LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Gravitons
Date: 9 Apr 1992 17:20:40 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

I should point out that the whole concept of a "particle" is ambigouous in
full quantum gravitation due to the ambiguous nature of the zero-point
energy of the vacuum. DeWitt and others have warned that the concept of the
graviton as a particle is a result of attempts to do perturbation theory
about flat spacetime, a procedure which has been largely discredited. The
problem occurs because the particle definition is not a covariant quantity
and is, therefore, not frame independent. Modern researchers in Quantum
Gravity: a.) use the energy-momentum tensor to describe matter because it is
covariant, and b.) are studying non-perturbative formulations.

Dr. Norman J. LaFave
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: ftdmacki@atlas.cs.upei.ca (David MacKinnon)
Subject: Graviton emission
Originator: ftdmacki@atlas.cs.upei.ca
Organization: Prince Edward Island Food Technology Centre
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:19:45 GMT

Here's an idea some of you can play with. Is there a way to increase the
rate of graviton emission by a given mass of matter? By increasing the
density of the waves of gravitons naturally emitted, would it not be like
increasing the local magnetic field, only being able to effect all nearby
objects, not just those suseptible to magnetic effects?
From: no104956@cc.tut.fi (Ojala Nikolas)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Wanted: pics of the vacuum triode
Date: 9 Apr 92 06:35:35 GMT
Organization: Tampere University of Technology


 
              WANTED !

 Wanted these pics in any format:

 * Infolded EM plane wave structure of whittaker wave

 * A pumped phase conjugate mirror

 * The Vacuum Triode Concept

 * Antigravity Test of Sweet's Adapted Vacuum Triode

 

 Nikolas

-- 
"   Nikolas Petri Ojala      # Static truth is     # My home address is:   "
" An Engineering Student of  # dead truth and only # Finninmaenkatu 4 H 75 "
"Tampere University of Tech. # dead truth can be   # 33700 Tampere Finland "
"   no104956@cc.tut.fi       # held as a theory.   # See: It was my text.  "
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Another Reactionless Drive?
Keywords: Cook Cooke Dean CIP
Date: 12 Apr 92 22:49:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: transfer.2125
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <WN71WFK@zelator.in-berlin.de>, leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
> [CIP drive, supposedly better than Dean Drive]
>
> I red in the Book about the Cook device, that he was able to propell a
> little boot on the swimming pool !!
> 
> Is this enough proof ????

Nope. I can come up with something that propells a boat in a pool, without
violating any laws of physics.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Subject: Re: Another Reactionless Drive?
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 06:31:33 GMT
Keywords: Cook Cooke Dean CIP 

Hi,
from my research with free energy devices and anti-gravity patented drives etc..
for the last several years,
I could say, that the Dean drive did never that, what it claimed to be.

But I red a book about Cook and his CIP-drive a year ago or so.
I have copied already his patent from the local patent office over here just
a few year ago. I still have it !

The old patent is a real clever and smart design !

I have thought myself of trying the device, but conversion of flywheel forces
to unidirectional forces is not as easy as it might seem without the right
mechanical laboratory !

I red in the Book about the Cook device, that he was able to propell a
little boot on the swimming pool !!

Is this enough proof ????

What did he say in the radio broadcast ?

What is the latest claim to propell ?

Anybody heard lately of Sandy Kidd and his gyroskopic levitation device ?

I heard from a Toronto,Canada based friend, that his device should give
some ounces of thrust, when the gyroskops are proppelled in the 20.000 to
50.000 rpm range !

The flywheel forces must be giant !!

Please let me know the latest news about it !

Best regards, Stefan Hartmann,c/o Workshop for
Decentral Energy Research
email to: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de

-- 
 
*******************************************************************************
*  Stefan Hartmann       This is how to contact me:                           *
*  EMAIL: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de                                            *
*  Phone : ++ 49 30 344 23 66      FAX : ++ 49 30 344 92 79                   *
*******************************************************************************
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Wanted: pics of the vacuum triode
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:02:19 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <1992Apr11.042649.21928@merlin.hgc.edu>, husa5954@hgc.edu (chris husack) writes:
> [Dan Davidson's "The Theta Device]
> [...] The forward (10+ pages) includes CAD drawings and electronic
> schematics for the frequency modulation/flip-flop circuit (fairly trivial
> actually...) that drive the circuit should someone want to attempt to
> "roll their own" - my only complaint is that it only gives you 80% of the
> detail you probably need, so one would have to do a little homework first
> unless your interested in wasting a lot of bench time and $$$ on materials.

I guess it's my turn to be the cynic this month. What makes you think that
you have 80% of the detail you need? Or that the 80% you have is correct?

Do the people posting to this group really have a problem recognizing fraud?
When someone says "I have this wonderful device, which will shake the entire
foundation of human knowledge, but I can't show you a working model and I
can't give you enough detail to make one", the person speaking is either a
fraud or self-deluded.

If you think my above paragraph is an incorrect version of reality, give
me a call. I have options on some wonderful condo-building land in florida.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.energy
From: asherman@wombat.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Aaron Sherman)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: SED, ZPE, and Bearden (etc)
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:35:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: wombat.ASHERMAN.92Apr7093506
Reply-To: uunet.uu.net!fmrco!asherman
Distribution: alt
Organization: I-Kinetics, Cambridge, MA


Ok, so the Puthoff papers seemed reasonable, and the first couple of
Bearden claims were not too hard to swallow, as far as gut reactions
go, but then:

> 			   Progress Report
> 			    T. E. Bearden
> 			Updated Jan. 29, 1992
> 
> Phase I Operation Completed
> 
> In 1991 we ended Phase I, and began the opening round of Phase II of
> our decades-long operation.  Phase I was to alert the free nations to
> the dangers of Soviet scalar EM weapons, and the necessity of
> countering them. That phase has been successfully completed.  There
> are now three other nations - not hostile to the U.S. - that have
> developed and deployed scalar EM weaponry. The Soviets/KGB are soundly
> checked by these three nations, with regards to scalar EM weaponry.
> 
> Phase II Operation Begun
> 
> The goal of the phase II operation is to get cheap, clean energy from
> the vacuum, obtain antigravity, and develop scalar EM healing of
> notorious diseases such as cancer, leukemia, AIDS, etc.  In this phase
> we are now
> 

HUH?!? Did I miss something here? He dropped from "gee, neat idea,
whish I had the math to figure it all out" to "What the heck did this
crackpot smoke for breakfast".

If, in fact, I am missing some aspect of reason, here, please let me
in on it.

Also, what do people think of the other papers that Bearden has put
out? Are his theories sound? Does the math come close to working
(which is about as good as any theory gets these days)? What are the
chances that his (Sweet's) generator exists? What are the chances that
it works?

Thanks, all.



			-AJS

PS: I do not get news very regularly at work (which is why I'm posting
from GNU), so Email replies are more likely to reach me. If you post,
I will probably, but not certainly, read it.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Subject: Re: Another Reactionless Drive?
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 92 12:48:00 GMT
Keywords: Cook Cooke Dean CIP

In <2125@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

>In article <WN71WFK@zelator.in-berlin.de>, leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
>> [CIP drive, supposedly better than Dean Drive]
>>
>> I red in the Book about the Cook device, that he was able to propell a
>> little boot on the swimming pool !!
>> 
>> Is this enough proof ????

>Nope. I can come up with something that propells a boat in a pool, without
>violating any laws of physics.
>-- 
>         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
>         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
>Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

Okay, how do You do it by not using reacting forces (Newton's 3rd law ) ???

Best regards, Stefan Hartmann,c/o Workshop for
Decentral Energy Research
email to: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de


-- 
 
*******************************************************************************
*  Stefan Hartmann       This is how to contact me:                           *
*  EMAIL: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de                                            *
*  Phone : ++ 49 30 344 23 66      FAX : ++ 49 30 344 92 79                   *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann)
Subject: Re: Another Reactionless Drive?
Organization: Puplic-Access-Xenix-System
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 92 12:43:35 GMT
Keywords: Cook Cooke Dean CIP

In <2158@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:

>In article <D791NYF@zelator.in-berlin.de>, leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
>> Okay, how do You do it by not using reacting forces (Newton's 3rd law ) ???

>I didn't say I wouldn't use reaction. You didn't prove the boat didn't use
>it either. If I were going to do this without having a visible jet or
>propellor, I'd simply put in a fore-and-aft vibrator. With a pointed bow
>and a flat stern, the boat will move forward.ve
>-- 
>         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
>         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
>Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.

Hi,
when I remember it correctly it was claimed in this book, that the boat had
not only moved forward a little bit due to the vibration of the device,
but really accelerated on the pool !!!

This was my interest about the original posting, claimed, that there was a radio
broadcast about some engineers, who have witnessed the recent model and
claimed that it violated the 3rd law.
Can anyone who has heard the radio broadcast give more info ?

Did You already take a look at the original Cook patent ?
It would be good if You wish to discuss this story further on !!!


BTW, what has happened to the Sandy Kidd gyroscopic levitation device ?
I only heard a year ago, that a California based company has tested it.
What was the real outcome ?

Maybe this technology already has been incorporated in the US "black" research
programs, cause there was lately in Avation WeeK some hints about new very
"strange" aircrafts, tested at the Groom Lake test site ??!! :-)

Best regards, Stefan Hartmann,c/o Workshop for
Decentral Energy Research
email to: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de


-- 
 
*******************************************************************************
*  Stefan Hartmann       This is how to contact me:                           *
*  EMAIL: leo@zelator.in-berlin.de                                            *
*  Phone : ++ 49 30 344 23 66      FAX : ++ 49 30 344 92 79                   *
*******************************************************************************
From: tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Another Reactionless Drive?
Keywords: Cook Cooke Dean CIP
Date: 13 Apr 92 19:23:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <D791NYF@zelator.in-berlin.de>, leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
> Okay, how do You do it by not using reacting forces (Newton's 3rd law ) ???

I didn't say I wouldn't use reaction. You didn't prove the boat didn't use
it either. If I were going to do this without having a visible jet or
propellor, I'd simply put in a fore-and-aft vibrator. With a pointed bow
and a flat stern, the boat will move forward.
-- 
         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Subject: Re: Another Reference to a Paper Dealing With Puthoff's Work
Date: Thu, 09 Apr 92 19:16:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 

In article <2033@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
>In article <xgrjtwj.noring@netcom.com>, noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring) writes:
>> that Shroedinger's equation can be derived from SED;  right now several
>> researchers are working on firming up the foundations of the proof (several
>> papers have been published already, with more coming), and he believes that
>> it won't be long before the proof will be unassailable.  From what I gather
>> (this was not mentioned by Dr. Puthoff), this lends further support to the
>> possibility that SED may very well supplant QED since its fundamental
>> postulates are more firmly grounded (again, this is my interpretation, so
>> flame me and not Dr. Puthoff).
>
>Last I checked, QED had been shown to be accurate down to 13 decimal places
>or so; only limitations on measurement kept it from being shown to be more
>accurate (I'll have to dig up my reference from Feynman on this one).
>
>Since SED (presumably scalar electrodynamics) won't be more accurate, the
>only thing that could make it replace QED would be that it is easier to
>use and produces the same results. In that case, BY ALL MEANS, show us the
>derivation of Schroedinger's equation and how their formulations can be
>used more easily than QED's quite cumbersome mathematics.

You're exactly right.  That's what I tried to say, but maybe the words got a
little garbled.  My impression is that the physicists in SED are tackling the
successful results of QED and showing that they can be derived in a SED
framework.

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.netcom.com | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: bobp@hal.com (Bob Pendelton)
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Subject: Re: Another Reactionless Drive?
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:06:17 GMT
Organization: HaL Computer Systems, Inc.

From article <D791NYF@zelator.in-berlin.de>, by leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann):
> In <2125@transfer.stratus.com> tarl@sw.stratus.com (Tarl Neustaedter) writes:
> 
>>In article <WN71WFK@zelator.in-berlin.de>, leo@zelator.in-berlin.de (Stefan Hartmann) writes:
>>> [CIP drive, supposedly better than Dean Drive]
>>>
>>> I red in the Book about the Cook device, that he was able to propell a
>>> little boot on the swimming pool !!
>>> 
>>> Is this enough proof ????
> 
>>Nope. I can come up with something that propells a boat in a pool, without
>>violating any laws of physics.
>>-- 
>>         Tarl Neustaedter	tarl@sw.stratus.com
>>         Marlboro, Mass.	Stratus Computer
>>Disclaimer: My employer is not responsible for my opinions.
> 
> Okay, how do You do it by not using reacting forces (Newton's 3rd law ) ???

Kind of a long jump there, isn't it? You haven't shown that the boot
was propelled without the use of the 3rd law.

				Bob P.

-- 
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bob Pendleton              | Engineering Anathema:                     |
| bobp@hal.com               |   1) You've earned an "I told you so."    |
| Speaking only for myself.  |   2) Our customers don't do that.         |
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories
From: baarniy@iastate.edu (Scott A Coon)
Subject: re: reference
Followup-To: baarniy@iastate.edu
Summary: oooops
Keywords: apology
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 00:45:16 GMT

I very recently posted a letter complaining about the use of the word
"reference" as a verb, instead of as a noun.  I suggested that "cite" was
the correct word and encouraged everyone to use it.  My apologies.  I
have been informed by a Mr. Edwards that an 1891 edition of Webster's
gives a verb definition for "reference" that fits with the way it has been
used in this group.  Not having been around before this edition was 
published, I have no real grounds for complaining about the modern misuse
of the language based on the word "reference."  So I hereby retract the
parts of my article that insisted that "cite" must be used.
	However, I still think "cite" sounds better, and is more commonly
used.  Also, the English majors I hang out with all felt "referenced"
sounded about as attractive to them as "irregardless."
	Anyway, this is my absolute last word on the topic.  Sorry.
Back to physics....

Scott



Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories