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

Dywyddyr

Who is this Schaffranke , because he has nothing to do with anything I quote from , further

http://ttbrown.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=10&sid=54eba5fda2776e72c49f7fdaf2f0c85a

Would probably help here

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which just shows how much attention you pay to what YOU are doing, let how much attention you pay to my posts.
I'll give you clue.
The guy's name is Rolf Schaffranke.
You gave quotes from a letter written by someone who called himself Rho Sigma.
(One clue was my post saying "PS: Rho Sigma? Seriously? You do know that Schaffranke is another nutcase"

Yeah, and again...
I'm expected to wade through a pile of woo to find something that supports YOUR view?

By the way, for someone who thinks that directing me a particular forum is going to do any good, don't you think it would help your case if you'd actually read that forum?
I mean, the Rho Sigma/ Rolf Schaffranke thing is mentioned IN THAT VERY SAME FORUM in a thread about Brown himself. (Probably the same thread AND post that you quoted that letter from...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
How can you expect me to take you seriously when. clearly, you know less about this entire subject than I do and are so inept/ lazy/ procedurally sloppy/ whatever that you can't even be bothered to look things up for yourself?
Did you not even try Googling "Schaffranke"? (Disregarding the inconvenient fact that if your knowledge on this subject was anything more than credulously cursory you should have KNOWN the people and background anyway).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The letter was written to Rho Sigma ( or Rolf Schafranke ) if it matters really , from T.T.Brown

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I knew that.
What does it have to do with either:
my post, or,
the question that you asked which prompted my post?

How does it address ANY of the points in my post?
Are you, once again, avoiding - entirely - the multiply-demonstrated fact that you have very little clue as to what you're talking about?

Since you obviously didn't understand any of the "clues" in my post I'll spell it out loud: Rho Sigma is a pseudonym (i.e. that's not the name on his birth certificate OR his passport). His REAL name is, wait for it, this may come as shock.... Rolf Schaffranke.
Now do you get it?

 

So what who the person is , the point is the letter was written by Brown

Therefore of course the content was written by Brown himself , so now the content takes on a whole new meaning

By the way the site I put forward has many ideas of gravity , not just Brown's , if you care to read

 

So what who the person is , the point is the letter was written by Brown

Therefore of course the content was written by Brown himself , so now the content takes on a whole new meaning

By the way the site I put forward has many ideas of gravity , not just Brown's , if you care to read

 

One more time.
Yes I knew that.

Since I already knew that (I think I may have mentioned this) it could hardly alter my perception of the letter, could it?

And, yet again, all you give is vague hand wave in a general direction.
After I have already shown that I'm more familiar with that site (and the topic) than you are.

In little hope or expectation of a coherent or relevant answer I'll ask for the last time: what is your point?
You asked me who Schaffranke is.
I answered.
You were shown to be wrong "Who is this Schaffranke , because he has nothing to do with anything I quote from".
How are your subsequent posts relevant?
Can you give me ANY reason (any at all? even a teeny one?) as to why I should continue with this, er, exchange ("conversation" certainly doesn't fit)?
As far as I can see all that's happened so far is you display part of your gullible ignorance, I correct it (with exact links) you repeat with vague generalised hand-waving. I provide more information, you ignore the fact that you were wrong and repeat again a previous statement.

 

So are we going to focus on the content of the letter or who it was written to ?

 

Oh look!
This is you once again completely ignoring the point.
We've been through the letter when you first started quoting it.
And also you diverting: YOU asked a question (with a mistaken claim attached).
I answered and showed you were wrong.
You then pointed out that Brown had written the letter.
I remarked that I was aware of that from the start.
Do you think that your pointing out something I already knew is going make any difference with regard to my responses?

Are you going to acknowledge ANYTHING I wrote as replies to your quotes of the letter?

It appears that your answer to my question "Can you give me ANY reason (any at all? even a teeny one?) as to why I should continue" is: No.

 

Are we going to get into the content of the letter or not !!!

Lets start with my post #27

 

Are you going to read my posts?

(Go back and look at MY posts between your numerous quotes of the letter).

Unless you have something to add OTHER than what you have already quoted from that letter (because that content has already been addressed) then what is there to say?

 

What posts of yours shall we begin with # them please

 

river's form is to continually ask inane and red herring type questions, while supporting ghosts, goblins and the long defunct Electric/Plasma theory.
Don't expect any different.

 

Well that's a difficult question to answer.
How about one after you started quoting the letter?
Would that do?
(By the way is it too hard for you to go back one page? The post I'm replying to now is #72, the first post you quoted the letter in is #43 and the last one is #49).
As for which, well surely that's up to you.
And somewhat strange.
I've replied to YOUR claims.

 

Well then discuss the content of this thread with me

Starting with my post #27

 

No , not replies but discussion

 

What sort of "discussion" are you looking for?
You have provided nothing whatsoever by way of evidence - a letter is a claim, it's anecdote.
Nothing of Brown's claims has been shown to work the way he said they did (e.g. affecting gravity).
There is no independent corroboration.
Etc.

What grounds, therefore, are there for "discussion"?
You made claims: you haven't supported them.

Like I said earlier: Unless you have something to add OTHER than what you have already quoted from that letter (because that content has already been addressed) then what is there to say?

 

From my post #27

further ,

" In other words, Brown has sandwiched a layer of a material that does not conduct electricity between two layers of a material that does conduct electricity. the material that does not conduct electricity is called the " dielectric, or insulator " and the material that does conduct electricity is called an electrode.

Because the dielectric layer interrupts the flow of electrical energy in the apparatus, the circuit is not completed, and this is one reason why Brown and the scientist called in by him to test the results , unite in saying the electrical energy present was not the cause of the force liberated ".

Inotherwords , there is a force that is repelled by the electrical force applied

river

 

Why is that you can manage to read (and quote) your own posts but you appear incapable of reading - and responding to - the reply that I gave to that post?
Perhaps, if you'd read (and understood) my post you'd have realised that simply adding more claims from Farrell - especially claims that don't even mention gravity being electromagnetic - was largely redundant.

 

Look at my above post

What he is trying to show is that gravity can be deflected