New Way to Kill Viruses: Shake Them to Death
Autymn D. C.
New Way to Kill Viruses: Shake Them to Death
Scientists may one day be able to destroy viruses in the same way that
opera singers presumably shatter wine glasses. New research
mathematically determined the frequencies at which simple viruses
could be shaken to death.
meta...@hotmail.com
Interesting technology. A much higher frequncy version of lithotripsy
to bust up gallsones or kidney stones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithotriptor
Pittsburgh Pete
Benj
OLD technology!
These facts were discovered long ago by Royal Rife who not only found
ways to destroy viruses by resonance but practitioners of his methods
repeatedly and consistently cured diseases, even cancer this way.
Rife machines are still for sale, but those in power hounded Rife and
his practitioners out of the country, burned his labs, destroyed his
microscopes and suppressed his work. It's a truly hideous story of
power mongering in science and medicine. Go look it up!
# The Cancer Cure That Worked. Barry Lynes. Markus Books, Queensville,
Ontario, Canada, 1987. 169 pages. ISBN 0-919951-30-9
The basic Rife theory was that viruses could be destroyed by finding
their resonant frequencies. To do that he used the powerful microscope
he invented himself which he claimed could see living viruses. He
would tune the frequencies while observing the viruses and when he
found a resonance he'd use that frequency on the patient to cure them.
Today, all his microscopes have disappeared and probably reside in
some government warehouse in a mountainside. Without the microscope to
'tune" the frequency, machines you buy today simply sweep the
frequency back and forth hoping to hit a resonance in there. Obviously
that method is not going to be very effective. But gotta keep
medicine big business. (even BIGGER once Hillary gets elected!)
Jim
......
There are websites devoted to the work of Royal Rife.
http://www.rife.org/
http://www.royalrife.com/
http://www.rense.com/health/rife.htm
I have only glanced at these, and cannot endorse or dispute anything at
this time. I retain the right to begin with a skeptical attitude, as the
magnitude of the claims is such that high standards of proof would tend
to be required.
On the other hand, those familiar with the medical/economic politics of
medicine will know that there was a lot of backstabbing on the "Diet
Heart Health" issue with a great deal of substandard "research", and the
situation with Cholesterol has been given pretty negative reviews for
overly optimistic and overly simplified interpretation of the research
findings.
It wouldn't be the first time at all that manipulations of careers has
occurred to the detriment of innovative ideas.
Autymn D. C.
Richard Herring
<c48938ef-32b9-4426...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>On Feb 6, 8:26 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
>> New Way to Kill Viruses: Shake Them to Death
>>
>> Scientists may one day be able to destroy viruses
"may one day"...
>>n the same way that
>> opera singers presumably shatter wine glasses. New research
>> mathematically determined the frequencies at which simple viruses
>> could be shaken to death.
"could"...
>
>OLD technology!
You really think Rife could generate 60 GHz or laser pulses?
>These facts were discovered long ago by Royal Rife who not only found
>ways to destroy viruses by resonance but practitioners of his methods
>repeatedly and consistently cured diseases, even cancer this way.
http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html
<sigh> There's one born every minute.
--
Richard Herring
malibu
> In message
> <c48938ef-32b9-4426-b209-b22c7ab53...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> writes
I saw two people who were testing positive for Hepatitis C
suddenly start testing negative after using a
'zapper' for a week.
I saw two MS patients go into remission and start
regaining function after using a 'zapper'.
I. too, am a fool.
John
gdew...@gmail.com
> [snip]
> http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html
>
>[snip]
On Feb 6, 11:56 pm, Jim <jb...@NOSPAM-revealed.net> wrote:
> [snip] I retain the right to begin with a skeptical attitude.[snip]
>
Oh but your scepticism's make sure practically everyone on this planet
dies years to soon. Hundreds of millions of lives your kind of
skepticism decapitated.
Then there is the suffering you want to submit mankind to. All this to
bless your pathetic little ignorance's?
huh what? A right to be skeptical? To slowly drool away and die a
painful death Those are your rights!
TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT! ROFL!
I'm not a doctor so I assume video evidence like this is not staged.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-661201775015095955
This video does say much about the quack watch article. It seems to me
the author of that rant is some what of a quack himself?
He doesn't seem to investigate his subjects at all. More like he is
having a go at selective journalism where there isn't enough
journalism to make the selections?
Isn't there a law against liar doctors? Like:
"The bottom line is that radionics devices have no value for
diagnosing or treating anything."
A clear lie. As it suggests this is a final conclusion based on
objective investigation.
I see exploding cells on jet another video while we see Dr quackery
writes his "bottom line" crap?
http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
Have you already forgoten John Kanzius?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkzCSNTYWXg
robert beck
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2095786730805958061
hulda clark
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-135125406106198814
and bjorn nordstrom ?
Why do the Chinese have professors in acupuncture?
Everyone to busy being septical right? The right to behave like a
raving idiot over subjects. Yeah, but we already did that for 100
years. It didn't work! Your septicims was unworkable! Show me the
fruits of it for I claim there are non.
Enchant everything with an aura of negativity?
Why even bother?
Richard Herring
<15e52a51-e9be-4d4d...@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> writes
>On Feb 7, 11:35 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> [snip]
>> http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html
>>
>>[snip]
>
>On Feb 6, 11:56 pm, Jim <jb...@NOSPAM-revealed.net> wrote:
>> [snip] I retain the right to begin with a skeptical attitude.[snip]
>>
>
>Oh but your scepticism's make sure practically everyone on this planet
>dies years to soon. Hundreds of millions of lives your kind of
>skepticism decapitated.
But quacks selling snake oil at a thousand-fold markup would have saved
them all, right?
Don't confuse an open mind with an empty one.
[snip rant]
--
Richard Herring
gdew...@gmail.com
> Don't confuse an open mind with an empty one.
>
You seem to me as close minded as a person may get. I suggest you try
again.
That would be nice.
Here:
http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
rife:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3807238317495330586
John Kanzius
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkzCSNTYWXg
robert beck
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2095786730805958061
hulda clark
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-135125406106198814
and bjorn nordstrom
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8092825228034713610
Peter Bowditch
Yes you are if you believe that.
>
>John
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Richard Herring
<6eada8af-1608-4c29...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> writes
>On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> Don't confuse an open mind with an empty one.
>
>You seem to me as close minded as a person may get.
Appearances can be deceptive.
>I suggest you try
>again.
>
>That would be nice.
>
>Here:
>
>http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
Speculative.
"Scientists _may, one day_..."
It's a long step from theory to something that works, even in a test
tube, let alone in vivo.
>
>rife:
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3807238317495330586
[snip]
You really think I'm going to sit through 4 hours of self-promotional
videos?
If these people really have anything, surely you can find better
evidence than that. Peer-reviewed journal articles, perhaps?
That would be nice.
--
Richard Herring
Knud Soerensen
> In message
> <c48938ef-32b9-4426...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
> Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>> On Feb 6, 8:26 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
>>> New Way to Kill Viruses: Shake Them to Death
>>>
>>> Scientists may one day be able to destroy viruses
>
> "may one day"...
>
>>> n the same way that
>>> opera singers presumably shatter wine glasses. New research
>>> mathematically determined the frequencies at which simple viruses
>>> could be shaken to death.
>
> "could"...
>>
>> OLD technology!
>
> You really think Rife could generate 60 GHz or laser pulses?
>
technology in detail !
I think that he employed the same longitudinal waves as Tesla discovered
and which might be described by quaternionic electrodynamics.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4445/quaternionic-electrodynamics
>> These facts were discovered long ago by Royal Rife who not only found
>> ways to destroy viruses by resonance but practitioners of his methods
>> repeatedly and consistently cured diseases, even cancer this way.
>
> http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html
>
> <sigh> There's one born every minute.
>
The problem with the article is that it looks at single cases.
Using singe cases your could easily write a similar article which shows
that ordinary cancer treatment is buggy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3807238317495330586
This video givers some backgound about the rife technology, and also
gives some single case where it have worked.
But what we need is scientific studies not more focus at single cases.
Richard Herring
Soerensen <4tuu...@sneakemail.com> writes
>Richard Herring wrote:
>> In message
>> <c48938ef-32b9-4426...@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
>> Benj <bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>>> On Feb 6, 8:26 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
>>>> New Way to Kill Viruses: Shake Them to Death
>>>>
>>>> Scientists may one day be able to destroy viruses
>>
>> "may one day"...
>>
>>>> n the same way that
>>>> opera singers presumably shatter wine glasses. New research
>>>> mathematically determined the frequencies at which simple viruses
>>>> could be shaken to death.
>>
>> "could"...
>>>
>>> OLD technology!
>>
>> You really think Rife could generate 60 GHz or laser pulses?
>>
>If you think that Rife used radio or laser you haven't studied Rifes
>technology in detail !
I'd be the first to agree that he used nothing that was described in
that article. Indeed, nothing known to science...
>I think that he employed the same longitudinal waves as Tesla discovered
(which might those be?)
... or even to Tesla.
--
Richard Herring
gdew...@gmail.com
> If these people really have anything, surely you can find better
> evidence than that. Peer-reviewed journal articles, perhaps?
>
> That would be nice.
>
> --
> Richard Herring
But of course I can do that Richard. The thing is Richard, first
people complain there is to little evidence. But now you are like
sniping a whole list and the complain has changed into to much
evidence? haha?
Could you please stop sniping away the context of my message. I'm not
posting 1 link I'm posting a list of real scientists with the most
respectable training in the art of medicine. The context is in their
numbers.
People have already debunked each person individually, I know you are
well capable of successfully dismissing a person as a hoax. now it's
time to also see a context where the same claim goes again and again
supported by one group of big names while the others pretend it
doesn't exist.
When was the last time the quackwatch doctor seen a patient? Why is he
not showing his Radionics machines? He doesn't own any you say? Then
how does he confirm something doesn't work?
By saying so eh? O_O
I can search the web for you, give you details on their background and
post the links here but so can Mr Herring.
The reason I only post videos should be obvious. This is because their
lives work doesn't fit into that handy paragraph you want it served up
in. I would have created that post long ago if I could.
You sniped, complain about the length of videos and you didn't look at
each case separately in favor of not looking at all.
From this I concluded I had to post the videos and nothing but the
videos in order for you to become aware of the bigger picture. From
your snippery I conclude the list was already to long.
no, I coudn't have guessed you wanted to read things.
Here is a paper by Nicola Tesla
http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19400001.doc
rife
http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.med.diseases.lyme/2004-08/0234.pdf
John Kanzius
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/6/1/2
bob beck
hulda clark
bjorn nordstrom ref 8
http://www.zetatalk.com/health/theal20a.htm
And the videos
http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
rife:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3807238317495330586
John Kanzius
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkzCSNTYWXg
robert beck
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2095786730805958061
hulda clark
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-135125406106198814
and bjorn nordstrom
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8092825228034713610
Good enough?
Does it now fit your ridiculous standards or do you want a picture of
a sitting dog with it?
gdew...@gmail.com
> Richard Herring wrote:
> > In message
> > Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> writes
> >> On Feb 6, 8:26 am, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
> >>> New Way to Kill Viruses: Shake Them to Death
>
> >>> Scientists may one day be able to destroy viruses
>
> > "may one day"...
>
> >>> n the same way that
> >>> opera singers presumably shatter wine glasses. New research
> >>> mathematically determined the frequencies at which simple viruses
> >>> could be shaken to death.
>
> > "could"...
>
> >> OLD technology!
>
> > You really think Rife could generate 60 GHz or laser pulses?
>
> If you think that Rife used radio or laser you haven't studied Rifes
> technology in detail !
> I think that he employed the same longitudinal waves as Tesla discovered
>
> >> These facts were discovered long ago by Royal Rife who not only found
> >> ways to destroy viruses by resonance but practitioners of his methods
> >> repeatedly and consistently cured diseases, even cancer this way.
>
> >http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html
>
> > <sigh> There's one born every minute.
>
> The problem with the article is that it looks at single cases.
>
> Using singe cases your could easily write a similar article which shows
> that ordinary cancer treatment is buggy.
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3807238317495330586
>
> This video givers some backgound about the rife technology, and also
> gives some single case where it have worked.
>
> But what we need is scientific studies not more focus at single cases.
Ask google. :P
here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diathermy
words by Nicola Tesla
http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19400001.doc
He refers to darsonvalisation
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/arsonval.html
"Dr. D'Arsonval
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/arsonval.html
Brown-Séquard
http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XVI/3/280
rife
http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.med.diseases.lyme/2004-08...
Benj
> You really think Rife could generate 60 GHz or laser pulses?
Strawman. Rife used Diathermy frequencies. Do I really think you
don't have a "debunking" agenda here?
> http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/News/rife.html
Gosh, "proof by assertion"! THAT is real "scientific" isn't it? So the
Government and Medical establishment burns Rife's lab, runs him out of
business, destroys all this records and data, smashes his inventions
and then says, OK, NOW "prove" he's not a quack! No vested interest
there, I'm sure!
If you really believed what you purport, then you would be working to
PRESERVE Rife's work, to create a WORKING version of one of his
microscopes and then have a SCIENTIFIC test let the chips fall where
they may. All you want is to set up a strawman and then chop it down
to "prove" how "right" you are!
Anyway, what kind of "proof" is an article about some woman being sued
for claiming to cure cancer? Everybody knows you can't legally claim
to cure cancer unless you are poisoning people with dire chemicals or
dangerous radiation! And how could she be using Rife's method when all
his records and equipment have been destroyed or hidden by those in
power? She can't. So she's one more of your "strawmen" designed to
steer everyone AWAY from the Rife Story. Your goal isn't public
"education", it's public DISINFORMATION designed to keep the Rife
STORY hidden, let alone his methods. You know that you and your pals
are guilty, guilty, guilty!
> <sigh> There's one born every minute.
Oh sure, you are REAL disappointed that there are people who can be
fooled. That is why you are trying so hard to fool the suckers! How
could you operate if there were NOT "one born every minute"?
How about you just get a transfer to Homeland security and do your
spooking against terrorists and leave the science to scientists?
Benj
> Don't confuse an open mind with an empty one.
Obviously another Herring ad hominem attack.
This is proof certain that he has no actual facts to back up his
assertions.
Benj
> In message
> <6eada8af-1608-4c29-b55c-819503533...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com>,
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >On Feb 7, 4:28 pm, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >> Don't confuse an open mind with an empty one.
> >You seem to me as close minded as a person may get.
>
> Appearances can be deceptive.
Careful there, Richard!
You are getting rather close to revealing the truth: You actually KNOW
these things to be true, but your job is to "debunk" them.
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Feb 7, 5:35 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> guilty, guilty, guilty!
>
lol
o noes, they changed the subject again :-(
Well I'm changing it back.
Nice try tho.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Diathermy&oldid=47490774#Radiowave_Diathermy
words by Nicola Tesla
http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19400001.doc
He refers to darsonvalisation
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/arsonval.html
"Dr. D'Arsonval
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/arsonval.html
Brown-Séquard
http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XVI/3/280
rife
http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.med.diseases.lyme/2004-08
John Kanzius
hhc...@yahoo.com
> On Feb 7, 9:12 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 7, 5:35 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> > > <sigh>
> > guilty, guilty, guilty!
>
> lol
>
> o noes, they changed the subject again :-(
>
> Well I'm changing it back.
>
> Nice try tho.
>
So now we are discussing medical quackery on sci.physics (and not for
its humor content)?
If so, here are a few links for you:
http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Cancer-news/smh001230rife-aus.html
http://www.quackwatch.com/
http://www.americanartifacts.com/smma/abrams/abrams.htm
Harry C.
hhc...@yahoo.com
Actually, Rife killed more people than he cured. He was a consumate
quack.
Doubt this, then look him up. His microscopes were unable to be used
by anyone but him, and the accepted explanation is that unlike seeing
vriuses, he was seeing "floater" in his own eye, if anything at all.
Today, we know that anything less than a scanning electron microscope
is incapable of imaging a virus. His "vibrations" were little more
than a bit of quackery that he had acquired by reading about Dr.
Albert Abrums and the success of Abram's crackpot devices.
Total nonsense, but take notice that some scammers today are selling
devices like these on the web. Be aware, and be afraid of these guys.
http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Cancer-news/smh001230rife-aus.html
Harry C.
Richard Herring
<dc33bfdc-9f97-464b...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"hhc...@yahoo.com" <hhc...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>So now we are discussing medical quackery on sci.physics (and not for
>its humor content)?
I thought so at first, but I fear you won't find any "discussion" here.
These are True Believers with a conspiracy theory, and anyone posting
actual facts is just part of a vast government conspiracy to suppress
the Truth.
>If so, here are a few links for you:
>
>http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Cancer-news/smh001230r
>ife-aus.html
>http://www.quackwatch.com/
>http://www.americanartifacts.com/smma/abrams/abrams.htm
>
--
Richard Herring
Richard Herring
<5d8893e6-35b2-4e1e...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Benj
<bja...@iwaynet.net> writes
>On Feb 7, 5:35 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> You really think Rife could generate 60 GHz or laser pulses?
>
>Strawman. Rife used Diathermy frequencies.
Exactly. So whatever he did or didn't do, it has nothing to do with the
research reported in that news story.
>Do I really think you
>don't have a "debunking" agenda here?
Of course. Rife was just one in a long line of snake-oil salesmen (which
unfortunately continues to this day) who take money from frightened,
gullible, sick and dying people by promising to cure them. There's
nothing admirable, or worthy of preservation, about that.
--
Richard Herring
Benj
> Actually, Rife killed more people than he cured. He was a consumate
> quack.
Actually, you just made this up, right? I've seen NO references
ANYWHERE that Rife did ANY medical procedures on ANYBODY. I guess that
shows the depth of your lies. Now if you mean (hafta have your "out",
doncha?) that medical persons who SAID they followed Rife's methods
had patients that died, perhaps that would be correct, but it's hardly
HIS "quackery". It sure is YOURS though!
> Doubt this, then look him up.
Sure, provide us some proof of your wild allegations, please.
> His microscopes were unable to be used
> by anyone but him, and the accepted explanation is that unlike seeing
> vriuses, he was seeing "floater" in his own eye, if anything at all.
Totally FALSE statement! Rife produced PHOTOGRAPHS with his
microscope. They were PUBLISHED in a peer-reviewed journal! I've never
heard your so-called "plausible" explanation that is supposed to be
"accepted". If he could use his microscope to photograph "floaters"
in his own eyes that alone is an amazing device! You sure have a
vested interest in debunking this. My "accepted" explanation for your
actions is Rife was just a bit too close to a real device for the
comfort of the establishment. The same establishment I presume you
are a shill for.
> Today, we know that anything less than a scanning electron microscope
> is incapable of imaging a virus.
Except that they have to be dead. Rife imaged LIVE organisms. What
you mean to say is that today the only advanced microscope technology
allowed to exist in the public knowledge is the electron microscope.
I'm sure that is a true statement.
> His "vibrations" were little more
> than a bit of quackery that he had acquired by reading about Dr.
> Albert Abrums and the success of Abram's crackpot devices.
And the way you know Rife read about Dr. Abrams (note spelling) is?
His methods had to do with "staining" images with light (whatever that
means) not "vibrations". Dr. Abrams had to do with "Vibrations". You
are just throwing chaff in the wind trying to make us all sneeze! Any
other quack cures you can bring in and claim that Rife "read" about?
Your methods are SO transparent!
> Total nonsense, but take notice that some scammers today are selling
> devices like these on the web. Be aware, and be afraid of these guys.
More Chaff! Rife's inventions have been successfully suppressed.
NOBODY in the general public knows how they work. Therefore any
devices on the web are pretty much not able to be authentic. YOUR
people saw to that! Hence they are mostly scams. One exception in a
way are the devices built by Rife's machinist. He of course built the
original devices. But on the other hand he never understood them and
admits that he can't remember a lot of details. So there is no real
information there either. That he has no real inside information is
obvious by the fact that his is not dead! It's YOU people need to be
aware and afraid of.
So if Royal Rife is such a crackpot, then please explain just how it
is he was offered Honorary doctorate degrees, was widely held to be a
microscope expert at the time, and was hired by the government to
construct optical devices for Atomic Bomb tests. Oh sure, he was the
"Consummate Quack"! The government ALWAYS hires "Consummate Quacks"
to provide advanced instrumentation for atomic tests! NOT! The only
"explanation" that makes sense to me is that YOU are the "consummate
liar".
How about you take your little "debunking" operation back to your own
quack website?
malibu
I actually played with these.
I put them on some MS patients.
I put them on myself.
Over a period of months and years.
What is *your* experience?
"scientist"?
Do you know the meaning of 'experiment'?
gdew...@gmail.com
> So now we are discussing medical quackery
>
No, you are not legally allowed to brand any kind of medicine as
quackery.
Nice try tho Mr disinformation.
Here is another post of yours for global reference.
On Feb 7, 11:49 pm, hhc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Right, cover the surface of the planet with photovoltaic cells! Not!
> If you do that it becomes an ecology issue. The lesser evil is to
> build more nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams -- That is, if you
> are willing to live with the severe restrictions imposed by electric
> and hybrid cars.
>
HAHAHAAHAHA!!
Nicola Tesla
http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19400001.doc
He refers to darsonvalisation:
gdew...@gmail.com
> I fear you won't find any "discussion" here.
You don't have to be afraid to talk Mr Disinformation.
HERE:
words by Nicola Tesla
http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19400001.doc
He refers to darsonvalisation
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/arsonval.html
"Dr. D'Arsonval
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/arsonval.html
Brown-Séquard
http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XVI/3/280
rife
http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.med.diseases.lyme/2004-08...
gdew...@gmail.com
> So whatever he did or didn't do, it has nothing to do with the
> research reported in that news story.
>
You start reading now, your guesses are not interesting to anyone.
You complaint how you was unable to use a search engine all by
yourself. I then added the links for you.
Now read you.
Read the words by Nicola Tesla
Peter Bowditch
gdew...@gmail.com
> Do you know the meaning of variability?
>
You ask me questions now?
You may try asking a question related to the topic.
http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
Then what about the links I supplied you with?
Richard already complaint it was to much, He then complaint it was
just video, then I added some documentation and he turned silent like
a grave.
You should pick on the list. As you can see I'm not on the list.
People on the list have credentials that makes yours look like a
swimming diploma. You haven't begun reading up on the topic.
Here, do try again:
Nicola Tesla refers to darsonvalisation
http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19400001.doc
Dr. D'Arsonval
http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/arsonval.html
Brown Séquard
http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/XVI/3/280
Royal R Rife
http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Archive/sci.med.diseases.lyme/2004-08
John Kanzius
http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/6/1/2
Bob Beck
Hulda Clark
Bjorn Nordstrom ref 8
http://www.zetatalk.com/health/theal20a.htm
And the videos
Royal Raymond Rife:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3807238317495330586
John Kanzius
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkzCSNTYWXg
Robert Beck
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2095786730805958061
Hulda Clark
Peter Bowditch
>On Feb 8, 10:06 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> Do you know the meaning of variability?
>>
>
>You ask me questions now?
>
>You may try asking a question related to the topic.
>
>http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
>
>Then what about the links I supplied you with?
>
>Richard already complaint it was to much, He then complaint it was
>just video, then I added some documentation and he turned silent like
>a grave.
>
>You should pick on the list. As you can see I'm not on the list.
>People on the list have credentials that makes yours look like a
>swimming diploma.
And you know this how?
> You haven't begun reading up on the topic.
And you know this how?
<snip repetition>
gdew...@gmail.com
> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You haven't begun reading up on the topic.
>
> And you know this how?
>
Then say something that makes sense about it.
Lets go back to "video only"
Peter Bowditch
>On Feb 10, 11:54 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> "gdewi...@gmail.com" <gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > You haven't begun reading up on the topic.
>>
>> And you know this how?
>>
>
>Then say something that makes sense about it.
I notice that you didn't answer my question. This is because you don't
know so you just blathered bullshit.
>
>Lets go back to "video only"
>
>Royal Raymond Rife:
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3807238317495330586
Rife? Oh, please.
Here's me mentioning Rife:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ausdoc0304.htm
And here's me reviewing a drivelous book which simultaneously claims
that Rife's work was suppressed while telling you how to reproduce it.
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/reviews/bl_rife.htm
>
>John Kanzius
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkzCSNTYWXg
>
>Robert Beck
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2095786730805958061
>
>Hulda Clark
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-135125406106198814
Hulda Clark? Oh, please.
I mention Clark here:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/quackery.htm
And here is her $15,000 per week clinic:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/clark08.htm
I've been there. Have you?
>
>and bjorn nordstrom
>
>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8092825228034713610
Don't any of these people want a Nobel Prize?
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/cancer100.htm
Richard Herring
<def1d611-3e3a-446d...@v46g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
"gdew...@gmail.com" <gdew...@gmail.com> writes
>On Feb 8, 10:06 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> Do you know the meaning of variability?
>>
>
>You ask me questions now?
>
>You may try asking a question related to the topic.
>
>http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html
>
>Then what about the links I supplied you with?
>
>Richard already complaint it was to much, He then complaint it was
>just video, then I added some documentation
"Documentation"? ROFL.
>and he turned silent like
>a grave.
That would be something called the weekend, and having a life.
--
Richard Herring
john
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I have actually used a 'zapper'.
Two of the three MS patients I tried it
on went into remission and today, three years
after using it for three months and one month respectively,
are still in remission.
That must have been the placebo effect?
I also saw two Hep C positive girls try it
for one week each at different times.
Both tested negative at their next Hep C test and
subsequently.
But 5% of Hep C infections get better spontaneously, right?
So what do I know- really?
You are probably much more experienced and hands-on!
John
Peter Bowditch
>
>
>I have actually used a 'zapper'.
How unfortunate for you.
>
>Two of the three MS patients I tried it
>on went into remission and today, three years
>after using it for three months and one month respectively,
>are still in remission.
Then either they didn't have MS or you are lying.
>
>That must have been the placebo effect?
>
>I also saw two Hep C positive girls try it
>for one week each at different times.
>Both tested negative at their next Hep C test and
>subsequently.
Then either they didn't have Hep C or you are lying.
>
>But 5% of Hep C infections get better spontaneously, right?
>
>So what do I know- really?
Nothing, by the look of things.
>
>You are probably much more experienced and hands-on!
>
>John
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
john
> john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote: >> --
>
> >I have actually used a 'zapper'.
>
> How unfortunate for you.
Unfortunately, to actually learn about things,
you *do* have to go into the field.
On the other hand, if you want to be
indoctrinated into a way of thinking, you better
not stick your nose out into the real world-
it *won't* match your delusions.
John
Peter Bowditch
I have no delusions about zappers and the vermin who promote them.
john
> john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
> >On Feb 11, 7:59 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
> >> john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote: >> --
>
> >> >I have actually used a 'zapper'.
>
> >> How unfortunate for you.
>
> >Unfortunately, to actually learn about things,
> >you *do* have to go into the field.
>
> >On the other hand, if you want to be
> >indoctrinated into a way of thinking, you better
> >not stick your nose out into the real world-
> >it *won't* match your delusions.
>
> I have no delusions about zappers and the vermin who promote them.
>
>
>
> >John
>
> --
Have there been any real medical studies
to determine the effectiveness of zappers?
No?
Hmm.
Maybe there are other vermin around who
like to charge old people hundreds and
thousands of dollars *every month* for pills
that make them zombies, interact with each other
and end up requiring them to be permanently hospitallized.
Perhaps those people don't want actual clinical trials
on zappers.
Have there been any double-blind studies on zappers
showing them to be worthless? Can you point to even one?
Buy a zapper. It costs $100. I don't claim it cures
all cancers- once those puppies get going good, the
knife and radiation is probably your best shot- but
aspirin doesn't cure cancer either, and neither does
penicillin.
My father pays four times that *every month*
for various pills that he "needs", according to the doctors.
Who are the vermin? Where are the *billions* donated to
cure cancer? How many are dying from drug interactions,
overdoses, wrong prescriptions?
Look at people over 30 years of age.
Healthy?
Or going down fast?
Watch TV.
How many ads do you see for drugs to cure your cold, make you
lose weight, get your cock hard?
Who are the vermin? The Pharmas, Peter.
Peter, peter, peter.............
By the way, I work with MS patients, and one
of the two I mentioned earlier that zapped for
a few months was talking up a storm
last night. Very unusual- he hadn't talked for years.
No lie.
John
Benj
> >Two of the three MS patients I tried it
> >on went into remission and today, three years
> >after using it for three months and one month respectively,
> >are still in remission.
>
> Then either they didn't have MS or you are lying.
PETER, Peter! Are you REALLY this ignorant?
Are you posting in public for the world to see that you believe there
is no such thing as "spontaneous remission" in disease?
Are you ignorant or are you lying?
> >That must have been the placebo effect?
>
> >I also saw two Hep C positive girls try it
> >for one week each at different times.
> >Both tested negative at their next Hep C test and
> >subsequently.
>
> Then either they didn't have Hep C or you are lying.
Read comment above AGAIN! Note that the comment about the placebo
effect is TOTALLY valid and a proper place to look for answers here.
To say that "incurable" diseases NEVER get cured is plain
uneducated!
> >But 5% of Hep C infections get better spontaneously, right?
>
> >So what do I know- really?
>
> Nothing, by the look of things.
So you repeat your ignorance a third time and then try to "win" the
debate with ad hominem name-calling!
You DO know that you are making a public spectacle of your ignorance,
don't you? You wouldn't know a "health cure" if it bit you on the
ass!
And please note that what we are talking about here has absolutely
NOTHING To do with the alleged effectiveness of any "zapper".
We are talking about spontaneous remissions and placebo effects.
Peter Bowditch
>On Feb 12, 6:08 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
>> >On Feb 11, 7:59 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>> >> john <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote: >> --
>>
>> >> >I have actually used a 'zapper'.
>>
>> >> How unfortunate for you.
>>
>> >Unfortunately, to actually learn about things,
>> >you *do* have to go into the field.
>>
>> >On the other hand, if you want to be
>> >indoctrinated into a way of thinking, you better
>> >not stick your nose out into the real world-
>> >it *won't* match your delusions.
>>
>> I have no delusions about zappers and the vermin who promote them.
>>
>>
>>
>> >John
>>
>> --
>
>Have there been any real medical studies
>to determine the effectiveness of zappers?
>No?
Of course not. Do you think that the promoters of these frauds are
ever going to test them to see if they work? They generate deposits
into bank accounts and that is all the "medical" evidence needed.
>Hmm.
>Maybe there are other vermin around who
>like to charge old people hundreds and
>thousands of dollars *every month* for pills
>that make them zombies, interact with each other
>and end up requiring them to be permanently hospitallized.
>Perhaps those people don't want actual clinical trials
>on zappers.
These people (if they existed) would love to see clinical trials of
zappers. Properly conducted trials would show that zappers do exactly
what zappers do, which is nothing, and the world could then move on
and leave the fraudsters behind.
>
>Have there been any double-blind studies on zappers
>showing them to be worthless? Can you point to even one?
Have there been any double-blind studies on zappers showing them to be
useful? Can you point to even one?
>
>Buy a zapper. It costs $100. I don't claim it cures
>all cancers-
Hulda Clark does.
> once those puppies get going good, the
>knife and radiation is probably your best shot- but
>aspirin doesn't cure cancer either, and neither does
>penicillin.
Has anybody ever claimed that they do?
>
>My father pays four times that *every month*
>for various pills that he "needs", according to the doctors.
Why not take his pills away and refuse to let him fill his
prescriptions. Get back to us after the funeral.
>
>Who are the vermin? Where are the *billions* donated to
>cure cancer? How many are dying from drug interactions,
>overdoses, wrong prescriptions?
Too many.
>
>Look at people over 30 years of age.
>Healthy?
>Or going down fast?
>
>Watch TV.
>How many ads do you see for drugs to cure your cold,
None, because only quacks claim to be able to cure colds.
> make you
>lose weight,
The only one I have seen recently came from a quack who used to lie on
her books and web site about her qualifications and the university she
got them from.
> get your cock hard?
None where I live.
(I assume that you aren't talking about those late-at-night ads for
telephone sex services.)
>
>Who are the vermin? The Pharmas, Peter.
>
>Peter, peter, peter.............
>
>By the way, I work with MS patients, and one
>of the two I mentioned earlier that zapped for
>a few months was talking up a storm
>last night. Very unusual- he hadn't talked for years.
If he keeps zapping he will have eternity to keep not talking.
>
>No lie.
Peter Bowditch
>On Feb 11, 8:59 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>> >Two of the three MS patients I tried it
>> >on went into remission and today, three years
>> >after using it for three months and one month respectively,
>> >are still in remission.
>>
>> Then either they didn't have MS or you are lying.
>
>PETER, Peter! Are you REALLY this ignorant?
>Are you posting in public for the world to see that you believe there
>is no such thing as "spontaneous remission" in disease?
>
>Are you ignorant or are you lying?
Are you claiming that this was spontaneous remission? Thank you for
admitting that the zapper had nothing to do with it.
>
>
>> >That must have been the placebo effect?
>>
>> >I also saw two Hep C positive girls try it
>> >for one week each at different times.
>> >Both tested negative at their next Hep C test and
>> >subsequently.
>>
>> Then either they didn't have Hep C or you are lying.
>
>Read comment above AGAIN! Note that the comment about the placebo
>effect is TOTALLY valid and a proper place to look for answers here.
>To say that "incurable" diseases NEVER get cured is plain
>uneducated!
Are you saying that a cure from Hep C can be due to a placebo effect?
Thank you for admitting that the zapper did nothing.
>
>> >But 5% of Hep C infections get better spontaneously, right?
>>
>> >So what do I know- really?
>>
>> Nothing, by the look of things.
>
>So you repeat your ignorance a third time and then try to "win" the
>debate with ad hominem name-calling!
Why do quackery supporters almost universally fail to understand what
"ad hominem" means?
>
>You DO know that you are making a public spectacle of your ignorance,
>don't you? You wouldn't know a "health cure" if it bit you on the
>ass!
>
>And please note that what we are talking about here has absolutely
>NOTHING To do with the alleged effectiveness of any "zapper".
>We are talking about spontaneous remissions and placebo effects.
Thank you for admitting that the zapper did nothing.
If it does nothing, why do you suggest that people spend money on it?
Benj
> Thank you for admitting that the zapper did nothing.
> If it does nothing, why do you suggest that people spend money on it?
LIAR, LIAR, Pants on fire! Why is it all you can do is lie and try to
twist any conversation into some kind of political agenda that you
seem to be following? What in hell are you up to anyway? It sure
ain't science and it sure ain't truth!
I in NO WAY "ADMITTED" that the "zapper" did nothing. Neither did I
say it did something! The topic (which I forcefully return you to)
was whether or not diseases are sometimes cured by "spontaneous
remission" or if the "placebo effect" exists. You have categorically
denied that either exist. You are so stupid (or such a liar) that you
don't even deserve a civil response.
And furthermore I in NO WAY, suggested that people spend money on ANY
medical device or treatment. Again, what is your political agenda
here that keeps you telling lies to make some imaginary point? The
effectiveness of any "zapper" available for purchase today was not a
topic of any of *my* posts. A liar is NOT a "skeptic"? Are you
giving medical advice as to which treatments should never be used? Do
you have a license to practice medicine?
This is a science newsgroup. You are fooling nobody here. Your lies
have been exposed over and over and yet you persist in repeating them
as if somehow repeating them enough times will eventually make them
true. It will not.
john
John
Benj
> >> >So what do I know- really?
>
> >> Nothing, by the look of things.
>
> >So you repeat your ignorance a third time and then try to "win" the
> >debate with ad hominem name-calling!
>
> Why do quackery supporters almost universally fail to understand what
> "ad hominem" means?
Why do you insist upon demonstrating your ignorance in a public
forum? Don't you know how to actually READ the things you post?
*Ad Hominem* dear boy, is a latin phrase meaning "to the man" meaning
in a debate an attack upon the character of the opponent rather than
addressing his arguments. Now I know you can do this: Read carefully
the above statement you posted. John said "what do I know?" and you
countered with "nothing by the look of things". Anyone with even a
modest command of the English language can easily see you said that
John "knows nothing"! It was an attack on John's intelligence. It was
NOT a response to his debating points. It is in short, an "ad
hominem" attack!
Why do you insist over and over that I embarrass you and demonstrate
your ignorance in public? Did you ever think of taking an on-line
correspondence course to get your diploma?
It's better to keep silent and be suspected of being a fool than to
open your mouth and remove all doubt!
I'm sorry. This is just too easy. I'm outta here.
Peter Bowditch
>On Feb 12, 2:40 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for admitting that the zapper did nothing.
>
>> If it does nothing, why do you suggest that people spend money on it?
>
>LIAR, LIAR, Pants on fire! Why is it all you can do is lie and try to
>twist any conversation into some kind of political agenda that you
>seem to be following? What in hell are you up to anyway? It sure
>ain't science and it sure ain't truth!
>
>I in NO WAY "ADMITTED" that the "zapper" did nothing.
Oh, yes you did.
> Neither did I
>say it did something!
Then why mention it at all?
> The topic (which I forcefully return you to)
>was whether or not diseases are sometimes cured by "spontaneous
>remission" or if the "placebo effect" exists.
No, the topic is shaking viruses to death with a zapper. You brought
up "spontaneous remission" and "placebo effect" as possible mechanisms
by which the zapper might do its work. Put another way, you said that
the zapper doesn't work because something else is going on.
> You have categorically
>denied that either exist.
You might like to point to where I have said this. It will be
difficult, if not impossible, as I have never said it. They certainly
do exist and are among the reasons that people get fooled by
fraudulent treatments such as zappers.
> You are so stupid (or such a liar) that you
>don't even deserve a civil response.
Which is why you didn't give one, I suppose.
>
>And furthermore I in NO WAY, suggested that people spend money on ANY
>medical device or treatment.
It must have been someone else who suggested spending $100 to make or
buy a zapper. Would that be spending money?
> Again, what is your political agenda
>here that keeps you telling lies to make some imaginary point? The
>effectiveness of any "zapper" available for purchase today was not a
>topic of any of *my* posts. A liar is NOT a "skeptic"? Are you
>giving medical advice as to which treatments should never be used? Do
>you have a license to practice medicine?
>
>This is a science newsgroup. You are fooling nobody here. Your lies
>have been exposed over and over and yet you persist in repeating them
>as if somehow repeating them enough times will eventually make them
>true. It will not.
Nice rant. Have you ever thought of taking up professional ranting?
Peter Bowditch
>On Feb 12, 2:40 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>> >> >So what do I know- really?
>>
>> >> Nothing, by the look of things.
>>
>> >So you repeat your ignorance a third time and then try to "win" the
>> >debate with ad hominem name-calling!
>>
>> Why do quackery supporters almost universally fail to understand what
>> "ad hominem" means?
>
>Why do you insist upon demonstrating your ignorance in a public
>forum? Don't you know how to actually READ the things you post?
>
>*Ad Hominem* dear boy, is a latin phrase meaning "to the man" meaning
>in a debate an attack upon the character of the opponent rather than
>addressing his arguments.
Why do quackery supporters almost universally fail to understand what
"ad hominem" means?
> Now I know you can do this: Read carefully
>the above statement you posted. John said "what do I know?" and you
>countered with "nothing by the look of things". Anyone with even a
>modest command of the English language can easily see you said that
>John "knows nothing"! It was an attack on John's intelligence. It was
>NOT a response to his debating points. It is in short, an "ad
>hominem" attack!
"Ad hominem" is an attack based on an a priori assumption or
statement. In this case John had exhibited his ignorance and then
asked a question which I answered based on the evidence before us all.
>
>Why do you insist over and over that I embarrass you and demonstrate
>your ignorance in public? Did you ever think of taking an on-line
>correspondence course to get your diploma?
>
>It's better to keep silent and be suspected of being a fool than to
>open your mouth and remove all doubt!
>
>I'm sorry. This is just too easy. I'm outta here.
That's the way. Run away.
Carl
Carl
john
Hey, all I can say is, I experimented with
these 'zappers', and immediately after starting to
'zap' these two MS patients, who I still work with,
they both went into remission and are actually still
*regaining* function.
The one fellow had absolutely
*no* movement in three out of four limbs and limited
movement in the right hand. Immediately he regained
most of the right hand and some in the other three.
Today, I notice his left hand is still loosening up and
regaining tone and flex.
Coinkydink?
Then there were the two HepCers that immediately
stopped testing positive.
Also coincidence?
HepC once is 5%, so give me
the odds of all four of these, all immediately following
getting 'zapped' .
Would it be............5% of 5%? Times
what for the MS remissions? Those are less or more than 5%
Wait, I'll Google it................well, they seem to say remissions
occur with MS also at 5%, but the disease is still
occurring underneath, and they're toast just as fast, so big deal,
but anyway, that's a 5% X 5% X 5% X 5% chance- hey,
I'm sure that's quite possible Peter, Peter, Pumpkin Eater.
John
Benj
> Can't we just put this thread to sleep ?
>
> Carl
Amen Carl! I'm already outta here. Tell John not to bother. Peter
is so stupid that he provides the replies to his nutty posts right in
the text he's posting! All you have to do is quote him to put him
down. Hopefully, nobody will quote him further.
ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.
Bob Cain
That's incorrect and still changing, Peter. From dictionary.com:
"Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo
of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not
its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's
emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of
pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad
hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be
waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The
phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary
rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are
a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety
percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has
a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of
an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to
attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65
percent of the Panel. · Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun
denoting personal attacks, as in "Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich
insists that he and Panetta can work together" (Washington Post). This usage may
raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic
style. · A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in "Its
treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on
character assassination" (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this
neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans
generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more
specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as
women or because they are women, as in "Their recourse ... to ad feminam attacks
evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus" (Donna M. Riley)"
And, Benj, stick to drumming.
Bob
--
"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
A. Einstein
Peter Bowditch
Narcolepsy?
Still trying to blame spontaneous remission and the placebo effect on
zappers?
gdew...@gmail.com
> On Feb 18, 7:24 pm, Carl <cwsa...@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
> > Can't we just put this thread to sleep ?
>
> > Carl
>
> Amen Carl!
Yeah, you do what Peter says.
Perhaps one day his words will make sense to you.
Hey, but why don't you do a google search and find us some interesting
links on Tesla / Arsonval / Séquard / Rife / Kanzius / Beck / Clark /
Nordstrom
Anything else is pure minioning IMHO.
Get alive? Say 800 years? It sounds good to me? But I guess your
excuse is that yo don't have time for that?
that's funny as hell.
Benj
> That's incorrect and still changing, Peter.
<snip references to actual meanings>
Hey, Bob, I TOLD everyone Peter always supplies the reply to his goofy
posts right within in his own words!
> And, Benj, stick to drumming.
Hey, I'll work to expand the horizons of BOTH drumming and electro-
magnetics if I so choose!
Benj
(who notes that the hand-drum group seems to have dried up and blown
away...)
Benj
> >> Can't we just put this thread to sleep ?
> >ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> Narcolepsy?
>
> Still trying to blame spontaneous remission and the placebo effect on
> zappers?
Still beating your wife?
Moron.
Benj
> On Feb 19, 6:38 am, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 7:24 pm, Carl <cwsa...@dejazzd.com> wrote:
> > > Can't we just put this thread to sleep ?
> > Amen Carl!
> Yeah, you do what Peter says.
Sure, glad too...just about the time Hell freezes over!
> Perhaps one day his words will make sense to you.
No chance of that! His grade school conversation is not worth anyone's
time. He still keeps taunting me though as if he really enjoys being
shown to be an idiot in a world-wide public forum! Not playing
anymore.
> Hey, but why don't you do a google search and find us some interesting
> links on Tesla / Arsonval / Séquard / Rife / Kanzius / Beck / Clark /
> Nordstrom
By the way, very nice collection of references! Peter will never read
them. He's too busy playing school kid games. Wait until daddy finds
out he sneaked on his computer.
Benj
Peter Bowditch
I thought you were ignoring me. Add that lie to the lies about
effectiveness of zappers.
Bob Cain
> (who notes that the hand-drum group seems to have dried up and blown
> away...)
Not just the group, but the fad, I think. Damn shame. Here in Santa Cruz
(where Arthur Hull, my first teacher, started the whole community drumming
thing) it is a mere shadow of its former self. Barely visible. Sigh. I've
still got enough high quality (mostly Drumskull) djembes, ashikos, dununs,
shakeres and bells to supply a troupe but, alas, they gather dust. It sure the
hell was fun while it lasted. :-)
gdew...@gmail.com
>
> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
>
> A. Einstein
Cool, there is still some one propagating the lies of E.
Well tell me Bobby.
Is this simple enough for you?
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
I have done my homework well haven't I?
Then now that you clearly agree we have all been livin-the-lie on just
about any topic you think you know something about, I think giving me
your compliments would be appropriate here. And thank me for gifting
you the invention of course. yes....
Then I look forwards to your review there of when you have acquired
the magnets to back up your claims.
I claim the generalized doubt theorem doesn't hold against 20 sec
experiments. Earth would become the center of the universe if that
approach was credible.
My thanks in advance.
Don Kelly
<gdew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f062bc8a-3bd2-4482...@64g2000hsw.googlegroups.com...
And how does this cute little animation with weak narrative indicate
perpetual motion? Perpetual motion would be easy if one could build a
lossless system. So far nobody has done so. Of course, any attempt to
extract energy would bring it to a stop in any case.
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
gdew...@gmail.com
> ----------------------------<gdewi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> remove the X to answer
Hello Don,
Thanks for the review,
(1680) mathematician, Claus Wagner, refused to view the Bessler wheel.
He calculated that it was impossible and against all laws of physics
so there was no point in even considering the possibility.
I now calculate 300+ years this divine truth('S?!:) never had the
pleasure of validation.
But you are making it even worse aint ya? I understand you learn:
"Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion
Machine is impossible."
But teh facts are that Helmholtz said: "Because a Perpetual Motion
Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;"
You swap the child and the parent.
Sure additional proofs where searched for to further propagate
established doctrine.
But hey, if by law you never have to look at the alternatives it
becomes awfully easy.
I tried to answer your technical questions here under the cute
animation. :-)
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=758#758
Thanks,
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, it's also because of wanks like Helmholtz that
we invented the first law of robots. Which says that
the second law of thermodynamics never happened.
And the first law of lasers, which says that the
first law of thermodynamics was invented on
Monday for Sunday idiots.
>
> You swap the child and the parent.
>
> Sure additional proofs where searched for to further propagate
> established doctrine.
>
> But hey, if by law you never have to look at the alternatives it
> becomes awfully easy.
>
> I tried to answer your technical questions here under the cute
> animation. :-)
>
> http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=758#758
>
> Thanks,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
gdew...@gmail.com
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
On Feb 21, 8:05 am, "zzbun...@netscape.net" <zzbun...@netscape.net>
wrote:
Bob Cain
> On Feb 20, 12:03 am, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>> "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."
>>
>> A. Einstein
>
> Cool, there is still some one propagating the lies of E.
>
> Well tell me Bobby.
>
> Is this simple enough for you?
>
> http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
> View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
Idiot.
Bob
--
gdew...@gmail.com
>
> Idiot.
>
tata, what cute response.
(1680) famous mathematician, Claus Wagner, refused to even
view the Bessler wheel. He calculated that it was impossible and
against all laws of physics so there was no point in even considering
the possibility.
You learn: "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual
Motion Machine is impossible."
But Helmholtz said: "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible,
therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;"
The idiot card was the last resort on your crusade of Scientology
truths.
HERE
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
Perpetual motion explained in such a way you cant really attack it.
Everyone can see this is perpetual motion.
Questions are welcome
back-up images:
http://img70.imageshack.us/my.php?image=gabydewildeperpetualmotgt0.gif
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v338/Enkhuizen/gaby-de-wilde-perpetual-motion.gif
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2794.0;attach=17839;image
http://gabydewilde.googlepages.com/gaby-de-wilde-perpetual-motion.gif
Zilla
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rife, orgones, energy medicine, etc.
Fortunately, we don't have to wait very long. The Large Hadron
Collider will find new physics in the electroweak sector that will
have
impact on low energy everyday scale and in all forms of life. After
data
were sorted out in years ahead and theoretical framework built
come 2012. We will enjoy the planet like never before...
Z.
G=EMC^2 Glazier
per second could this be used to destroy cancer cells safely? Its worth
thinking about Bert
Benj
Of course it is. However, you do have to realize that the problem
with all cancer "cures" of this type is that it is necessary to have a
differential effect between cancer cells and normal cells. The
differential between the two for poisonous chemicals and radiation is
usually quite small which is why the person gets quite sick from the
"cure". The idea is that the cancer cells die before yours do.
An effective cure would be one with a large differential where the
action is highly specific. To return to the original topic of this
monster thread, Rife in particular had claimed that through his
microscope he could observe various resonant frequencies that would
destroy a virus. This is not especially an off the wall theory in
that we know that viruses are crystalline structures which implies a
possibility of such resonance.
The point (in spite of the invasion of "debunkers") is not whether
Rife's methods were valid, but more to the general concept of using
resonance to greatly increase the destructive differential of various
energies when applied to body cells.
Yeah, it's worth thinking about.
john
The 'resonant frequencies' were supposed to
break the viruses.
The chip the the zappers use progressively divides the impulse in
fives
to achieve 20,000 per second, but they are not a constant
frequency; rather a sweep of frequencies from low to very
high each second.
I hear with T.E.N.S. units you can set
to a frequency, but I don't know how fast it will go.
It would be interesting to experiment with
all different frequencies to find these 'resonant frequencies' of
viruses, if there are such.
John
Autymn D. C.
> On Feb 21, 10:42 am, Bob Cain <arc...@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Idiot.
>
> tata, what cute response.
>
> (1680) famous mathematician, Claus Wagner, refused to even
> view the Bessler wheel. He calculated that it was impossible and
> against all laws of physics so there was no point in even considering
> the possibility.
>
> You learn: "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual
> Motion Machine is impossible."
>
> But Helmholtz said: "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible,
> therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;"
>
> The idiot card was the last resort on your crusade of Scientology
> truths.
>
> HERE
>
> http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
> View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
>
> Perpetual motion explained in such a way you cant really attack it.
>
> Everyone can see this is perpetual motion.
Okay, shithead:
it's -> its
it's -> its
Materials shield a magnetic or other interaction by makan the opposite
poles, with a payment of work--such payment reflects the shielding of
field, neither of which is infinite. So each shield has a span of
extinction or attenuation, which is 1/e of the outter field, which is
neither infinitely wide. So all bodies do feel all fields, whether or
not they are thwarted.
How come your claims are in cartoons and not video clips?
-Aut
Autymn D. C.
> And how does this cute little animation with weak narrative indicate
> perpetual motion? Perpetual motion would be easy if one could build a
> lossless system. So far nobody has done so. Of course, any attempt to
> extract energy would bring it to a stop in any case.
"Loss" is a subjective and arbitrary term. The first law imposes
perpetual motion by definition--even thouh scientists use the term
"persistent motion" to save face, when it comes to motors with
equipotential orbital or trajectoral transitions, such as
superconductors, geometricly frustrated [molecular] magnets, Brownian
reservories, the planets, the elèctròns, etc. All of these are
lossless.
The next law is wrong in thas it claims onely open sustems can lose
entropy, when it's the other way around: Shut sustems lose entropy, as
its information is finite and its evolution thus cannot be monotonic.
-Aut
Benj
> The 'resonant frequencies' were supposed to
> break the viruses.
> The chip the the zappers use progressively divides the impulse in
> fives
> to achieve 20,000 per second, but they are not a constant
> frequency; rather a sweep of frequencies from low to very
> high each second.
> I hear with T.E.N.S. units you can set
> to a frequency, but I don't know how fast it will go.
This is exactly the problem with "modern" zappers. They sweep
frequencies in hopes of hitting the "right" one. I suppose it's not
that it can't work, but think about the energy difference between a
frequency sliding past resonance as it goes by and one which is CW set
right on resonance. There is a HUGE difference in the amount of energy
that can be put into the cells you desire to "zap".
> It would be interesting to experiment with
> all different frequencies to find these 'resonant frequencies' of
> viruses, if there are such.
Exactly. The problem, of course, is that only the Rife microscope had
the ability (supposedly) to watch LIVING viruses while different
frequencies were tried. This enabled a precise tuning and hence a high
energy density that can not be achieved by frequency sweeping.
Unfortunately the Rife Microscope was removed from public domain by
the establishment. So presently we have no tools with which to tune
such destructive vibrations. However the ideas of using certain
frequencies to destroy pathogens does remain. Perhaps if we are very
lucky someday a Rife microscope will turn up in the back of some huge
government warehouse and the caretaker finding it will know exactly to
whom to deliver it so as to restore that technology to humanity.
gdew...@gmail.com
> Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> >On Feb 18, 7:24 pm, Carl <cwsa...@dejazzd.com> wrote:
> >> Can't we just put this thread to sleep ?
>
> >> Carl
>
> >Amen Carl! I'm already outta here. Tell John not to bother. Peter
> >is so stupid that he provides the replies to his nutty posts right in
> >the text he's posting! All you have to do is quote him to put him
> >down. Hopefully, nobody will quote him further.
>
> >ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> Narcolepsy?
>
> Still trying to blame spontaneous remission and the placebo effect on
> zappers?
>
> --
> Peter Bowditch aa #2243
> To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
If you search you can find closed moderated discussion groups where
people are actively using this technology.
It's pretty obvious they are sick people, and that our medical
establishment left them to rot. If you are lucky you find some one who
had the same illness to help you. People almost never die from one
thing alone. Most often it's a combination of things.
Like your lies posted in this topic, we cant say those killed
everyone. But they did die much sooner thanks to the lies.
If any claimed to work cure is deliberately not investigated then the
people involved should loose their license.
journalism is not medicine.
Some may scream at sick people how they are in to quackery.They bend
the facts, are deliberately vague, make conclusions out of their
wallet.
Quackery is a derogatory term used to describe questionable medical
practices. According to Random House Dictionary, a "quack" is
considered a "fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill" or "a
person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill,
knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess;
This is quackery:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A
And this is medical science:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-661201775015095955
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4712831998895427138
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6277107509272726216
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4897293122738659504
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1365612506774109869
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6523588049632078918
Not hard to see what is what?
This is perpetual motion:
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
This is clean nuclear energy:
http://clean-nuclear-energy.go-here.nl
But what about energizing the water before consumption?
http://www.frank.germano.com/viktorschauberger_2.htm
Why wait for Rife therapy if you can prevent getting ill in the first
place?
Then what about silver colloids (colloidal silver)
the cockwack writes:
http://www.quackwatch.com/911QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/silverad.html
"Colloidal silver is a suspension of submicroscopic metallic silver
particles in a colloidal base. Long-term use of silver preparations
can lead to argyria, a condition in which silver salts deposit in the
skin, eyes, and internal organs, and the skin turns ashen-gray."
Yes, and if you go outside you may get run over by cars. If you have
to much sex your cock may burst open. What is your point? As usual you
ignore the whole topic.
Colloidal silver is thousands of years old, it was outlawed because
the official research was never done. The lack of official research
created a frenzy of con artists.
Doing their job well the FDA kept a watchful eye on unethical
practices in the colloidal silver industry. But to banish every
product containing silver is just pure quackery.
NEWSFLASH: Colloidal silver is thousands of years older as the FDA!!
When is the FDA going to clean up THEIR act?
Never?
Do they seriously want ME to create their regulations? And pay for
them also?For example some one mentioned A colloidal silver
manufacturer with a single product, wishing to submit studies for
approval for only 10 claims, would need to conduct and submit 10
'individual studies' at a total expenditure of roughly ONE BILLION
DOLLARS!
It's a miracle nobody wanted to pay that! The internet is plastered
with people who used it. They claim it works, I claim that means it's
worth investigating the topic. A lack of proof doesn't make a valid
excuse not to look for proof.
I would like A nose spray that can cure a cold. Sure why not? I have
to pay millions for it? WTF??? It's just a cold FFS!!
The medical establishment claims not to have done any research on the
topic. Or shall we say they celebrate not doing the research on the
topic. A bit like physicist didn't look into perpetual motion devices
the last 500+ years.
The thousands of eye witnesses are all liars. Like when an ufo flies
over a town and there are 20 K witnesses. Then we may conclude they
are all delusional!
Yeah right!
So, tell us:
As there evidently isn't enough research done. What basis do you have
for your conclusions? A horse is a horse buddy! It seems to me that
insufficient research means insufficient research. And not something
else! I would love to see you try spin that around. You are making
medical claims you have no evidence of.
A quack is a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have
skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess.
How colloidal silver nose drops cause Argyria?
You are making up stuff here? Are you 100% sure you are not talking
about SILVER NITRATE?
As it is your medical conclusion, you should make it evident.
Official channels say something vastly different from your quack page.
Is it forbidden because the workings have not been researched though
the official billion dollar channels.
Or do you want to argue it is because you have all the evidence you
need to show us it is dangerous to use it? It seems to me that if
there isn't sufficient evidence then there isn't sufficient evidence?
To pretend it's something different would be fraud.
Here is the perpetual motion device again.
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
oh and other questions: You know Townsend brown? What about Pons and
Fleishman? Perhaps you can make up some cute lies about that also?
Where is our plasma reactor now? On the back of some guys lawn mower
in his garage you say?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5238596150388648518
But I want to travel around the galaxy with that! You with your
mortality fetish are not helping at all! Can you at least close this
US private reserve bank? Money should be printed by our governments
not by some private special interest group.
One more time the perpetual motion device.
http://forum.go-here.nl/viewtopic.php?p=750
View topic - Perpetual motion made simple.
I know it doesn't look that way but I can assure you it's all very
closely related. Viruses also absorb resonant frequencies. They are
nanobots.
Colloidal silver particles also resonate. Thats why John Kanzius uses
them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRh4vwLJAiU
He also burns salt water!
I bet the perpetual motion fascists must be going nuts over this?
What about Stanley Meyer? What about Yull Brown? What about Daniel
Dingle? I remember how everyone welcomed the oxyhydrogen powered car.
*NOT*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyhydrogen
His research dealing with the thermal effect on gases shed light on
the properties of atomic hydrogen and resulted in the manufacture of
the atomic hydrogen torch used for welding. In atomic structure he
contributed to the modern theory of electronic bonding. For his
pioneer work in the fields of catalysis and adsorption Langmuir was
awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
The Nobel Prize for Chemistry?
Mix the shit with gasoline and you might just make it beyond 1000 MPG.
But who would want that?
Life is much to short?
The planet is much to small?
Right?
Don Kelly
Actually, you haven't done at all well for a technical explanation. You have
resorted to hand waving and assumptions which you haven't supported.
In addition, you appear to confuse force and energy- two different things.
One can exert a force without any change in energy - I am doing this now-
just sitting still in my chair.
However, consider that in a given position x of the moving armature at any
given time, there is a total energy W(x) which is the sum of the magnetic
field energy, the kinetic and potential mechanical energy of the system.
This is position dependent. If one moves from position x to y and then one
returns to the original position (x) and the original total energy as well
as the original distribution of this energy. No net energy change in the
cycle. Assuming that there are no losses or energy extracted as useful
work, the oscillation can go on forever because nothing is sucking energy
from the system. This would be perpetual motion. Note that this idealised
system allows perpetual motion.
However: No ideal system exists and even it it did, it couldn't do any more
than keep itself going.
Any useful work as well as the inevitable losses that occur will remove
energy from this system. If there is no compensating energy input (from
outside), the motion will eventually cease. There must then be some energy
input to keep the system going.
The magnets are not such a source as extracting net energy from the magnets
will demagnetize them.
Soooo, you are left with the problem of "where the hell does the energy come
from to keep such a system going?" Do you have any suggestions that stand
up to scrutiny?
As an aside, I do have the tools and understanding of magnetic and
mechanical systems to back up my statements. Electromagnetic/mechanical
energy conversion has been at the center of a large part of my life. I
suppose that this makes me unhappy in the "ignorance is bliss" sweepstakes
and leaves me wanting more rational arguments than what you have presented.
By the way, conservation of energy (actually based on experiment just as any
other physical "law" )hasn't been disproved by many years of experimentation
and claims. This makes it a useful tool from an engineering viewpoint
because it works to predict behaviour correctly.
That doesn't mean that it can't be disproved but playing with permanent
magnetic configurations has been repeatedly shown to be unable to disprove
it. This is one of those systems.
--
Don Kelly dh...@shawcross.ca
Autymn D. C.
> By the way, conservation of energy (actually based on experiment just as any
> other physical "law" )hasn't been disproved by many years of experimentation
This is bullshit. Every experiment froproves the first law, as you
earlier spoke of the rundown in nonideal sustems in support of the
next law. And my treatise, which you don't bother to look at, cites a
bunch of experiments which breach enthalpic and entropic invarianse--
thermodunamic laws are bunk.
> and claims. This makes it a useful tool from an engineering viewpoint
> because it works to predict behaviour correctly.
> That doesn't mean that it can't be disproved but playing with permanent
> magnetic configurations has been repeatedly shown to be unable to disprove
> it. This is one of those systems.
Then the two successful permanent magnetic motors froprove the next
law, of entropy.
-Aut
gdew...@gmail.com
Actually, you haven't done at all well for a technical explanation.
You have resorted to hand waving and assumptions which you haven't
supported.
things.
One can exert a force without any change in GOD - I am doing this now-
just sitting still in my chair.
However, consider that in a given position x of the moving armature at
any
given time, there is a total GOD W(x) which is the sum of the magnetic
field GOD, the kinetic and potential mechanical GOD of the system.
This is position dependent. If one moves from position x to y and
then one
returns to the original position (x) and the original total GOD as
well
as the original distribution of this GOD. No net GOD change in the
cycle. Assuming that there are no losses or GOD extracted as useful
work, the oscillation can go on forever because nothing is sucking GOD
from the system. This would be perpetual motion. Note that this
idealised
system allows perpetual motion.
However: No ideal system exists and even it it did, it couldn't do any
more
than keep itself going.
Any useful work as well as the inevitable losses that occur will
remove
GOD from this system. If there is no compensating GOD input (from
outside), the motion will eventually cease. There must then be some
GOD
input to keep the system going.
The magnets are not such a source as extracting net GOD from the
magnets
will demagnetize them.
Soooo, you are left with the problem of "where the hell does the GOD
come
from to keep such a system going?" Do you have any suggestions that
stand
up to scrutiny?
As an aside, I do have the tools and understanding of magnetic and
mechanical systems to back up my statements. Electromagnetic/
mechanical
GOD conversion has been at the center of a large part of my life. I
suppose that this makes me unhappy in the "ignorance is bliss"
sweepstakes
and leaves me wanting more rational arguments than what you have
presented.
By the way, conservation of GOD (actually based on experiment just as
any
other physical "law" )hasn't been disproved by many years of
experimentation and claims. This makes it a useful tool from an
engineering viewpoint because it works to predict behaviour correctly.
That doesn't mean that it can't be disproved but playing with
permanent
magnetic configurations has been repeatedly shown to be unable to
disprove
it. This is one of those systems.
--
Babtist Don Kelly
Don Kelly
> misquote:
> Actually, you haven't done at all well for a technical explanation.
> You have resorted to hand waving and assumptions which you haven't
> supported.
> In addition, you appear to confuse force and GOD- two different
> things.
> One can exert a force without any change in GOD - I am doing this now-
> just sitting still in my chair.
>
> However, consider that in a given position x of the moving armature at
> any
> given time, there is a total GOD W(x) which is the sum of the magnetic
> field GOD, the kinetic and potential mechanical GOD of the system.
> This is position dependent. If one moves from position x to y and
> then one
> returns to the original position (x) and the original total GOD as
> well
Oh dear, puerile parody is a poor substitute for thought. Is this the best
you can do?
Here's a nice reference for you until you can learn some elementary
mechanics as well as something about permanent (or electro-) magnets.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
gdew...@gmail.com
>
> Oh dear, puerile parody is a poor substitute for thought. Is this the best
> you can do?
>
Perhaps you have learned so much it is now impossible for you to see
the value of your own thoughts.
Or perhaps your overall creative capacity is just so immensely limited
that it could never compete with divine mis-quotations from long long
long ago. It was because there was no known perpetual motion device
that didn't have a power source THEREFOR conservation of energy. A
fairly rational conclusion we may observe and conclude. Specially the
concluding part is important here.
We have not seen an elephant so we assume elephants do not exist. You
say elephants do not exist so the person who has seen one must be
wrong. This you can-not derive from the original information.
It's total bull.
You don't have to explain how we shifted the goalpost over the years.
It was a preposterous statement to begin with. It included heat
engines, solar, just about any tech we use today was impossible under
the LAW of perpetual motion. We even have quantum physics today but
that doesn't prevent you from spewing up 500 year old dogma as teh
absolute truth.
Then there is nothing in your entire post even so much addressed the
construction of the device.
Nothing! You are rambling on and on in an eruption of total BS.
You went as far as to suggest I didn't know my own motivation for
researching the topic.
******************************
However, consider that in a given position x of the moving armature at
any given time, there is a total GOD W(x) which is the sum of the
magnetic
field GOD, the kinetic and potential mechanical GOD of the system.
This is position dependent. If one moves from position x to y and
then one returns to the original position (x) and the original total
GOD as
well as the original distribution of this GOD. No net GOD change in
the
cycle.
********************************
Yes we must not temper with creation Babtist Don Kelly !
I now see the light at the end of the global economy tunnel.
It's coming closer rapidly!!
Happy prayer!
********************************
By the way, conservation of GOD (actually based on experiment just as
any other physical "law" )hasn't been disproved by many years of
experimentation and claims.
********************************
HAHAHAHAHAHA
I didn't see your version of my experiments.
May I conclude you didn't do them?
Can we expand this conclusion to your not looking into all other
devices?
Furthermore may we derive from such that other trained monkeys and
parrots have looked just about as in-depth as you have?
Then wouldn't that allow for each and every previous claimant to own
like series of working contraptions while everything escapes your
attention down to the last detail?
Your post proves it, nothing addresses the innovation though out the
whole psalm.
Then we can apply this to the other monkeys again like above? yes?
Then it looks like there is statistical room for lots of working
devices to escape your attention entirely each and every time.
From your own godly denial we can make the consistent lack of
investigation evident.
Thus therefor as a result there of and so on we may conclude the
denial it self is not available for self validation.
Questioning it is like saying GOD doesn't exist.
The only difference is that religious people actually know they
subscribe to a believe system.
But ok-ok have it your way.
If you think you can predict the future then I will have to accuse you
of which craft.
I have an email from an anonymous source who has seen you fly on a
broomstick.
He says he knows you well but he is afraid to reveal his name.
We don't have to further validate this, we can just do the flotation
test.
I mean everyone knows witches can walk on water right?
Perhaps burring is a better idea?
What are your thoughts on this?