5 ms·

> Yes, I will dismiss the work of Thompson Brown based on the Wikipedia criticism section which has multiple convincing reasons to dismiss it and neither the Wi

by egfx 5y ago

> Yes, I will dismiss the work of Thompson Brown based on the Wikipedia criticism section which has multiple convincing reasons to dismiss it and neither the Wikipedia page, nor you, have given any convincing reasons to think otherwise. Is that unreasonable of me? Like I need to be your paralegal and go find you evidence. I left the breadcrumbs. Go find out the rest and share what else you find out. it's not about give me the evidence or I'll dismiss it. .. As for the comments regarding known phenomenon. I don't dismiss that. In fact even as an eyewitness of an object that moved in incredibly erratic directions I am interested to find out if these all can be explained by advanced projections: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27405291 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27405291 But saying that knowing what I know, I cannot take the comments such as bokeh effects or camera glitches seriously because the actual accounts from the Navy pilots track so closely to exactly what I witnessed. If your interested to learn more about that than read through my past comments. I'm not a scientist and not qualified to comment on the particulars of this patent. But clearly it was postulated on by the scientific community. And if you want to dismiss that argument with .. well you can get a patent for anything.. that's actually not true.

jodrellblank 5y ago
> "I'm not a scientist and not qualified to comment on the particulars of this patent." Do you need to be a scientist to agre that "works by air pressure" and "works in space" are incompatible? > "But clearly it was postulated on by the scientific community. And if you want to dismiss that argument with .. well you can get a patent for anything.. that's actually not true." I dismiss that by the Wikipedia articles on Electrogravitics and Biefeld-Brown saying every attempt to demonstrate it in the last 100 years failed and concluded it was ionic wind. I want to dismiss your argument that "it's in patents so there must be something to it" with the facts that there are impossible ideas in patents, so that carries no particular authority. > "Like I need to be your paralegal and go find you evidence. I left the breadcrumbs. Go find out the rest and share what else you find out. it's not about give me the evidence or I'll dismiss it." Right, no. There's too many people claiming too many things - why aren't you out looking for the evidence on Eat right for your blood type, or timecube, or timewave, or an endless infinity of other ideas? You started off with "To all those downvoting. Do your due diligence first like I did ;)" - if you don't have any of that to hand to share, can't name anything specific to look at, don't have anything more convincing than a sci-fi story, repeatedly dodge around addressing flaws in the unrelated patent you did link, the preliminary Wikipedia links I found into Brown's work suggests it's misguided and not involved with gravity, the Wikipedia link on electrogravitics is just as critical, who would read this back and forth between us and conclude that it would be a good idea to spend hours or months trying to piece together "add rotation to electromagnets"? Refresh understanding of complex numbers, their use in describing electrical phase rotation, or rotating non-inertial reference frames? "Some scientists speculated this in some patents" - the US Patent Office grant ~400,000 patents every year, spend a few weeks sifting through millions of patents to find a quote where someone speculates this is how UFOs work? Who would conclude this is convincing enough to be worth investing more time in?
- egfx 5y ago
  > Who would conclude this is convincing enough to be worth investing more time in? "The Super Powers Issue" Wired.com would too in 2003. https://www.wired.com/2003/08/pwr-antigravity/ https://www.wired.com/2003/08/pwr-antigravity/ Hmmm what timing ;) Time will tell and I'll expect a continuation of this thread in the months to come as the trend continues and if we ever do in fact reveal the reality of UFO's at least in part as our own technology. The trend is that hard nosed scientific thinkers and skeptics are about to be have their realities met. I did some digging and to my mind this is the best course of evidence of what I think these UFO's are. An enigmatic mix of known universal forces being manipulated and captured in circuitry and encased in unique metal alloys. I could be on track, or completely wrong about everything.

by egfx 5y ago

jodrellblank 5y ago

> "I'm not a scientist and not qualified to comment on the particulars of this patent." Do you need to be a scientist to agre that "works by air pressure" and "works in space" are incompatible? > "But clearly it was postulated on by the scientific community. And if you want to dismiss that argument with .. well you can get a patent for anything.. that's actually not true." I dismiss that by the Wikipedia articles on Electrogravitics and Biefeld-Brown saying every attempt to demonstrate it in the last 100 years failed and concluded it was ionic wind. I want to dismiss your argument that "it's in patents so there must be something to it" with the facts that there are impossible ideas in patents, so that carries no particular authority. > "Like I need to be your paralegal and go find you evidence. I left the breadcrumbs. Go find out the rest and share what else you find out. it's not about give me the evidence or I'll dismiss it." Right, no. There's too many people claiming too many things - why aren't you out looking for the evidence on Eat right for your blood type, or timecube, or timewave, or an endless infinity of other ideas? You started off with "To all those downvoting. Do your due diligence first like I did ;)" - if you don't have any of that to hand to share, can't name anything specific to look at, don't have anything more convincing than a sci-fi story, repeatedly dodge around addressing flaws in the unrelated patent you did link, the preliminary Wikipedia links I found into Brown's work suggests it's misguided and not involved with gravity, the Wikipedia link on electrogravitics is just as critical, who would read this back and forth between us and conclude that it would be a good idea to spend hours or months trying to piece together "add rotation to electromagnets"? Refresh understanding of complex numbers, their use in describing electrical phase rotation, or rotating non-inertial reference frames? "Some scientists speculated this in some patents" - the US Patent Office grant ~400,000 patents every year, spend a few weeks sifting through millions of patents to find a quote where someone speculates this is how UFOs work? Who would conclude this is convincing enough to be worth investing more time in?

egfx 5y ago
> Who would conclude this is convincing enough to be worth investing more time in? "The Super Powers Issue" Wired.com would too in 2003. https://www.wired.com/2003/08/pwr-antigravity/ https://www.wired.com/2003/08/pwr-antigravity/ Hmmm what timing ;) Time will tell and I'll expect a continuation of this thread in the months to come as the trend continues and if we ever do in fact reveal the reality of UFO's at least in part as our own technology. The trend is that hard nosed scientific thinkers and skeptics are about to be have their realities met. I did some digging and to my mind this is the best course of evidence of what I think these UFO's are. An enigmatic mix of known universal forces being manipulated and captured in circuitry and encased in unique metal alloys. I could be on track, or completely wrong about everything.