Forum Archive Index - November 2000

["Nigel Bree" <nbree@kcbbs.gen.nz>]

> Nigel

In context, I suppose you mean me. There are other Nigels about on
Sharechat. Apologies to the list for the non-stock content of the posting,
bad science is a pet peeve of mine.

> No one is claiming for it to be perpetual,

Indeed not; that claim is carefully not made explicitly, because then it
would be bloody obvious even to those unfamiliar with physics what is going
on. It is however, one of many obvious nonsensical corollaries to what *is*
explicitly claimed, which is effectively the ability to negate mass.

The IDC website is in fact quite muted about what the real consequences of
not having to obey Newton's First Law of motion would be. But then, I don't
get any real sense that the content of the IDC website was written with any
understanding of even secondary-school physics.

[ Aside for any non-physicists; Inertia is usually understood by referring
to Newton's Laws of motion. Excellent beginner's guides to the concepts
abound on the web, e.g. http://www.necc.mass.edu/MRVIS/MR3_13/start.htm
which I chose as an example because it also explains the consequences of
Newton's laws for machines. Unfortunately, inertia becomes a slippery
concept once you get deeper into exploring what underlying mechanisms
produce this effect, viz. Lense-Thirring frame dragging versus quantum
gravity http://www.calphysics.org/inertia.html which is handy for the likes
of IDC in being able to generate a great deal of hand-waving. However, as
long as you bear Newton's tenets in mind you know what you need to know. ]

> I would like to challenge you to explain what it is doing then in the
physical.

In the absence of any demonstration of any effect whatsoever in front of
reputable physicists (and if you need one, I have a good friend with a Ph.D
from Princeton I call on), I can't see why the onus of proof is upon me. I'm
not the one making an outrageous claims which go against all known physics.

> why does it have 2 electrical sines?

I'd be impressed just to see a cogent explanation of what they mean by this.
But since there's no detail about what their setup is or what exactly is
being measured - y'know, little details that would permit independent
verification of the claims[*] - I can hardly explain the significance of the
purported measurements.

[*] It's amusing to note that in addition to claiming a device which can
ignore Newton's Laws, they don't bother to follow the other precepts Newton
is credited with such as the scientific method.

> and how come it goes in at least 2 directions 90o opposed at the same
> time whilst staying still?

The simplest explanation, via Occam's Razor, is that in reality it does no
such thing. They may have a device; it may even do something which *appears*
to be like what they claim, and I don't dispute that you are honestly
reporting what was shown to you. Unfortunately, an eyewitness account is not
something a scientist can really take as real evidence of anything.

The essence of the process of science (and, for that matter, a requirement
for patents, which aren't that expensive to file that they couldn't have
done so) is disclosure.

Just as an aside, the Gallery of Obscure Patents which was under the IBM
patent server can now be found at http://www.delphion.com/gallery - there's
a good one on the first archive page at the moment for a faster-than light
communication device, the application even gives circuit diagrams :-). Pity
it doesn't work, eh?

> oh and where has the centralfugtical stretch gone?

Without even a proper diagram of the device in question, how could I tell?
All I can do is confidently assert that no example of inertialess behaviour
has ever been demonstrated; given that inertia is part and parcel of both
Newton's and Einstein's physics I think someone might have noticed had such
a thing ever been done!

Just by the way, feed "certrifugal force gyroscope" into your favourite
search engine and have a look at what it spits out. Google finds
instructions on how to build flying saucers, along with gems like this one
at http://www.alternativescience.com/eric-laithwaite.htm - remind you of
IDC? There's a reason why gyroscopes are beloved by crank science... just
like there's a reason why cranks who develop "revolutionary"
internal-combustion engines always have rotary designs.

> nevertheless, having seen, touched and witnessed the technology <without
> strings attached, excuse the pun> it seems pretty inertialess to me.

If *you're* satisfied with what you saw then that's fine with me.
Unfortunately, I have enough knowledge of what it is that they are claiming
that I require something rather more ironclad. Even a single refereed
physics journal article which admits that what they are claiming is possible
would be *something*.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
http://www.netbroker.co.nz/        Trade on Credit, Low Brokerage. Join now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remove yourself from this list, please use the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.shtml.