"we do not seem to have the correct theory of gravity"

Our friend river supports Plasma/Electric Universe theory.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[amongst a few other pseudoscientific claims]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, I remember River from way back.
He's not achieved any more of an education (or rationality) than he had when I was a "permanent" regular here.
I would have though, at the very least, he'd have understood by now that something that hasn't ever been shown to work can't really be claimed as a valid theory.
But apparently not...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

here is part of a letter written to , Rho Sigma , by Brown

" This 4 ft. wheel was tested in air and also transformer oil . The total thrust or torque remained virtually the same , in both instances , seeming to prove that aero-ionization was not wholly responsible for the thrust observed "( transformer oil being dielectric of course )

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yeah.
Another misunderstanding.
Regardless of the medium an electrostatic (ionic) wind works by "repelling" that medium.
Ergo being tested in transformer oil doesn't show anything about it being "electromagnetic gravity".
That it has been show to not work in a vacuum (no medium) is a pretty good indicator that it does not, in fact, involve gravity at all.

PS: Rho Sigma? Seriously? You do know that Schaffranke is another nutcase, don't you? Maybe not not since you seem to think Farrell is a viable source.
Next thing you're going to tell me is that you're a fan of Tom (Not Quite Right In The Head) Bearden. Please don't.

 

how ? in an dielectric transformer oil

explain

 

Yeah...
Do you think that applying a voltage may have caused heating to the oil? (And thus some "thrust"?)
Was that oil very carefully checked to ensure there was no water vapour in it? I.e. was it treated? (The dielectric strength of new untreated oil is 12 MV/m (RMS) and after treatment it should be >24 MV/m (RMS)).

How about:
The behavior of the dielectric now depends on the situation. The more complicated the situation, the richer the model must be to accurately describe the behavior. Important questions are:
Is the electric field constant or does it vary with time? At what rate?
Does the response depend on the direction of the applied field (isotropy of the material)?
Is the response the same everywhere (homogeneity of the material)?
Do any boundaries or interfaces have to be taken into account?
Is the response linear with respect to the field, or are there nonlinearities?
(From the link).

Again, given that your "evidence" relies - so far entirely -on unsupported testimony (from at least two certifiable nutcases [sup]1[/sup]) I'm inclined to ask, do you have any genuine evidence?

1 Farrell and Schaffranke. Schaffranke is the guy who reported (apparently with a straight face!) on a tachyon field flux motor-powered motorbike that ran for 20,000 km - a test that was completed just before its "public demonstration" in late June 1982. Oh, how I remember the howls of delight when that happened. And I also remember the huge queues of people lining up to buy one. Oh, wait... (More lunacy here).

 

further from the letter

" Voltage used on experiments under oil could be increased to about 300KV and the thrust appeared to be approximately linear with voltage ."

" In subsequent years , from 1930 to 1955 , critical experiments were performed at the Naval Research Laboratory , Washington , DC.; the Randall-Morgan Laboratory of Physics , University of Penna., Philadelphia; at a field station in Zanesville, Ohio, and two field stations in Southern California , of the torque of multi-segmented rotors containing hi-K dielectrics.The torque was measured continuously day and night for many years. large magnitude variations were consistently observed under carefully controlled conditions of constant voltage , temperature , under oil , in magnetic and electrostatic shields , not only underground but at various elevations "

 

You appear have not understood my final question.

Apart from Schaffranke's letter are there any other reports?
Yes or no?
Either one will do.

With regard to the claims posted (about dates and locations) perhaps it'd help if you knew that, for example, while at the NRL in Washington Brown wasn't doing research on his "effect" at all. He was busy with assigned duties a seaman.
Likewise, Brown has claimed that he did a series of experiments with professor of astronomy Paul Alfred Biefeld. (At Denison University).
What do Denison say?
“He made things up,” she said.
“How’s that?” I asked.
“Well, we have files on him,” Heather explained. “This inquiry comes up constantly from people, because, you know, apparently he was not very truthful in things that he said about himself, and gave the impression of a lot contact here at Denison. He even claimed to have been faculty or staff here when he really wasn’t even a student and claimed to have worked with Professor Paul Biefeld, who hardly even knew him. I mean, he just made a lot of claims that were false.”

Not looking good so far is it?
On your side you've got nutters and fantasist.
On my side I've got actual science.

 

to finish the letter :

" These variations , recorded automatically on tape , were statistically processed and several significant facts were revealed. There were pronounced correlations with mean solar time , sidereal time and lunar angle. This seemed to prove beyond doubt that the thrust of " gravitors " varied with time in a way that related to solar and lunar tides and a sidereal correlation of unknown origin. These automatic records , acquired in so many different locations , over such a long period of time , appear to indicate that the electrogravitic coupling is subject to an extra-terrestrial factor, possibly related to the universal gravitational potention [sic] or some other ( as yet ) unidentified cosmic variable. "

 

Since you seem to be incapable of reading (or perhaps the problem lies in your comprehension of what you've read) I see no point in continuing this.
All you've got is uncorroborated claims from known cranks about something supposedly done by a known fantasist.
I can only assume that
A) you don't have any evidence as such, and
B) you aren't bothered about finding any, preferring to stick with the unsupported delusion that what you post has some validity.

 

as with Einstein , it takes time to understand what Brown is saying

river

 

How much time is required when
A) his work has resulted in absolutely viable zero hardware, and
B) has zero evidence.

 

the time required , is when it is understood , fully and then its implications upon cosmology

A) zero hardware , who cares

B)the evidence is evident

river

 

More empty unsupported claims.

 

not when the evidence is looked at , objectively

 

Objectively, having read all your posts in this thread, you have no idea what evidence is, nor physics.

 

then read again

 

Objectively, having read all your posts in this thread, you have no idea what evidence is, nor physics.

 

read again

 

@ river

Read thrice
Objectively, having read all your posts in this thread, you have no idea what evidence is, nor physics

I think I see a possible solution

start here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence
try this one next: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
After that one, read this one, as it is closely related to that last link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
this last one is a great one and is VERY helpful: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm