Having "THE RIGHT TO KNOW"

[htmagic]

Then what do you propose us to do, Mikado?
Grin and bear it?
I believe Tesla wanted to give energy to mankind. J.P. Morgan controlled it and put a stop to free electricity. And it's been that way ever since. The Internet has helped get the word out. But it can also spread disinformation.

We know we are getting price gouged. And they know it too so they are trying to get the most out of it before someone releases something to the public. Hydrolyzers can reduce gasoline consumption and extend fuel economy. People are starting to put them on their vehicles and save money. If everyone does a little, it can add to a lot. Then we can reduce foreign oil consumption. And that would be a good thing.
http://www.high-techmagic.com/energy.html


Mikado, you're a smart man. What are you doing to help the energy cause? Or will you just build a FTM and zap to a different era. Just think if you could invest in IBM during the 1960s or GM?

MagicBill

[Mikado14]

Then what do you propose us to do, Mikado?
Grin and bear it?

For the time being...yes. The smart squirrel knows where he will land when he jumps. Waiting does not mean to emulate the bump on the log.

Mikado, you're a smart man. What are you doing to help the energy cause? Or will you just build a FTM and zap to a different era.

I'm not too smart for if I were, I wouldn't be where I am at today but, I will do a Morgan here.....a question begets a question... do you believe that I should be doing something for the energy cause? If I where to build an FTM, would it really have a beneficial use to help the world?

Mikado

[htmagic]

Then what do you propose us to do, Mikado?
Grin and bear it?

For the time being...yes. The smart squirrel knows where he will land when he jumps. Waiting does not mean to emulate the bump on the log.

Squirrels? You won't get much power out of them! LOL!

If I where to build an FTM, would it really have a beneficial use to help the world?

Mikado

Only if you took me with you! LOL!!!

MagicBill

[FM No Static At All]

The California Air Resource Board (CARB) is looking at changing its Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Mandate due to effective lobby of the automobile and oil industries. This is being fought by Silicon Valley Electric Automaker Tesla Motors and other groups, which see it as a sellout. But reality is that they are getting paid handsomely for selling out. Stan Meyers would not sellout, so he was "rubbed out," erased from contention by the powers that be.

Had he not tried to become oil baron wealthy and would have patented and released his technology to public domain with only a small royalty for his R & D efforts, he probably would have succeeded. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak did make the Apple from a garage startup, but Woz dropped out because even he viewed Jobs as greedy. I heard him say so on television so it must be true.

Hydrogen fuel can work and does. I have an appointment to visit a man tomorrow that has a hydrolyzer in his turbo diesel pickup which he claims is getting him a 60% reduction in fuel costs/consumption. And yes Bill, there are other units and system being put together by hobbyists and garage/backyard tinkerers as well. But Ford and Gm are not jumping on the bandwagon. Neither are Honda or Toyota. Until they do, it will be debated and ridiculed as nothing more than hot water.

Solar cells by themselves will not produce enough energy to warrant their installation on a Tesla Roadster (so says their CEO) because they cannot produce enough energy to provide adequate power to warrant the additional cost and weight added to the vehicle. But what about a pair of wind turbines mounted in the front cowling? By utilizing a vortex design and by allowing the exhaust air to be moved in a manner that does not increase drag or resistance, there must be an appreciable gain in electrical energy. Mitsubishi is supposed to be marketing a new electric car that looks a little like the new VW Beetle in 2009. In addition to regenerative braking, it also employs twin wind turbines and solar cells.

If every home in America would employ small wind/solar cells, we could significantly reduce oil/gas/nuclear fuel dependence. It will also reduce the risk of attacks to the grid by terrorists taking out large sections of the nation's power.

Now about that need to know and releasing technology, I think the Wright Brothers saw the good and realized that it far outweighed the possibility of evil. But the proliferation of atomic energy does more harm than good. In addition the the possibility for bombs the waste products themselves pose an enormous health risk. It was a technology that suppression would have been the better choice to make. But there are ways to clean up the mess that they leave behind also. There was a nuclear physicist that did claim to have an answer but he met with an untimely death when a hit and run vehicle mowed him down on the sidewalk in Seattle. But you already know how many others have met similar fates because they thought they could beat the status quo.

You are correct in thinking that it takes a shift in the paradigm to make it work. That is what I have been advocating for several years now. Changing the way we think about energy. Looking at energy as something that exists rather than something that requires generation. Basic Newtonian physics. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Converting energy from one form to another can work, only we think of technology to do so in terms of brute forces. Nature uses subtle forces to create massive energy.

How much research has been done to improve the fuel efficiency of the internal combustion engine? Why is so much fuel left unburned? Doesn't it seem that the ignition of that fuel is a good place to start to find better efficiency? While electric vehicles would provide a clean alternative to fuel, we are living with the reality that 99% of the vehicles on the road burn gas or diesel fuel. Until we have an infrastructure to support electric cars, they will be few of them on the roads. I say start with making fuel efficiencies that will give 50-70 MPG to the average car. Not the tiny compact, but the big SUV. Better efficiency will produce less pollution and greenhouse gases. Supplemental hydrogen cells will further reduce fuel consumption and clean the exhaust as well. Running pure hydrogen is feasible for gasoline engines but not for diesel as the latter requires lubrication inside the cylinders which the diesel fuel itself provides. Perhaps a "mister" that is based on a bio-based oil can be introduced for diesels.

There are ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and also to reduce our slavery to the energy industry as well. But the costs of making these changes have been just high enough to make the changes impractical to the average person. So lobby the elected representatives to make buying into alternative energy more affordable. Mandates that require all new buildings to incorporate alternative energy and energy efficiency into the design.

We don't require releasing new technology to do this. We just need a shift in the energy paradigm, from enslavement to freedom. Isn't freedom worth fighting for?

[Mikado14]

Long post there Mr. FM just a few comments.

Hydrogen fuel can work and does. I have an appointment to visit a man tomorrow that has a hydrolyzer in his turbo diesel pickup which he claims is getting him a 60% reduction in fuel costs/consumption. And yes Bill, there are other units and system being put together by hobbyists and garage/backyard tinkerers as well. But Ford and Gm are not jumping on the bandwagon. Neither are Honda or Toyota. Until they do, it will be debated and ridiculed as nothing more than hot water.

There are inherrent problems with Hydrogen that involve people and regulations. If gasoline had to clear UL and other regulatory bodies as a fuel, it wouldn't. However, I do agree that there are ways to create the Hydrogen on demand thus the total amount on board is reduced. People remember the Hindenburg but what about the Pinto? Any fuel that requires combustion will be volatile otherwise it would not be fuel. Someone should expand upon what Puharich did in the 70's with a Winnebago no less.

But what about a pair of wind turbines mounted in the front cowling? By utilizing a vortex design and by allowing the exhaust air to be moved in a manner that does not increase drag or resistance, there must be an appreciable gain in electrical energy.

Drag is drag, Fred. If you are going to extract energy from the flow of the air, the air must be made do to some work and there will be a trade off, but then I will go out on a limb here and assume that you knew so.

If every home in America would employ small wind/solar cells, we could significantly reduce oil/gas/nuclear fuel dependence. It will also reduce the risk of attacks to the grid by terrorists taking out large sections of the nation's power.

That is too idealistic for my blood. I work with individuals that have had the same pay/hour for the past two years with no increase in sight. With the cost of fuel and heating oil, where are they to get the disposable income to perform the improvements that you mention? With that in mind, I believe that is part of the Energy Consortium's battle plan.

How much research has been done to improve the fuel efficiency of the internal combustion engine? Why is so much fuel left unburned? Doesn't it seem that the ignition of that fuel is a good place to start to find better efficiency?

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement but if it is the vapor that is actually being used in the combustion wouldn't a means of vaporizing the fuel also be an improvement along with better ignition? Just a thought.

Not the tiny compact, but the big SUV. Better efficiency will produce less pollution and greenhouse gases.

I agree with that statement as well. Individuals that have a $40,000 SUV sitting in the driveway would be more willing to spend $2 - 3,000 on a modification that would quadruple their mileage.

Running pure hydrogen is feasible for gasoline engines but not for diesel as the latter requires lubrication inside the cylinders which the diesel fuel itself provides. Perhaps a "mister" that is based on a bio-based oil can be introduced for diesels.

Diesel fuel lubricates the injectors and the injection pump. Cummins has a big problem with lifter pump failures causing the injection pumps to sieze without the lubricity of the fuel. Just did one two weeks ago. As to the cylinder, very little lubrication. As to a "mister", essentially, that is what the injector is doing, ever see what one looks like when attached to a popper? You can't see the fuel when it opens.

There are ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and also to reduce our slavery to the energy industry as well. But the costs of making these changes have been just high enough to make the changes impractical to the average person.

Fred, I see you addressed this aspect at the end of your post. Yes, I agree but then what about just simple things like consolidating trips to town? Or turning off the light switch when you are not in the room? I see so many Yuppie homes with all the lights on, it's their money but then I, as you, believe that those types of individuals help to sustain what the Energy Consortium is doing.

I enjoy your soap box diatribes.

Mikado

[kevin.b]

Does anyone know what potential exists between the earth and all above the surface relative to how high above the surface you go?
By that I mean an earth point and an insulated pole above ground , insulated at least six feet from the surface?
Is there a graph?
Kevin

[FM No Static At All]

There are inherrent problems with Hydrogen that involve people and regulations. If gasoline had to clear UL and other regulatory bodies as a fuel, it wouldn't. However, I do agree that there are ways to create the Hydrogen on demand thus the total amount on board is reduced. People remember the Hindenburg but what about the Pinto? Any fuel that requires combustion will be volatile otherwise it would not be fuel. Someone should expand upon what Puharich did in the 70's with a Winnebago no less.

Yes, regulations that are designed to discourage innovation by the average user. Shell Oil is installing hydrogen on demand stations in New York and California to support the new Honda hydrogen powered vehicles. It's always okay when big oil does it, but not little ol' me.

Drag is drag, Fred. If you are going to extract energy from the flow of the air, the air must be made do to some work and there will be a trade off, but then I will go out on a limb here and assume that you knew so.

The object here is to create more electric power and decrease drag by "tuning" the air porting through the turbines. If that wasn't at all possible, then why would Mitsubishi install twin turbos on their iMEVi to be introduced in 2009?

That is too idealistic for my blood. I work with individuals that have had the same pay/hour for the past two years with no increase in sight. With the cost of fuel and heating oil, where are they to get the disposable income to perform the improvements that you mention? With that in mind, I believe that is part of the Energy Consortium's battle plan.

The money can come from repealing the tax incentives and breaks given to the oil industry, and that will subsidize homeowners financial burden for installation of solar/wind/battery systems. The additional taxes on fuels can be reduced to further reduce the costs to the taxpayers.

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement but if it is the vapor that is actually being used in the combustion wouldn't a means of vaporizing the fuel also be an improvement along with better ignition? Just a thought.

Yes it would, but the Fed claims that vaporizing the fuel can lead to safety issues, mainly the possibility of explosion. So the "trick" is to get the fuel vaporized as it passes into the combustion chamber and not when entering the intake manifold or fuel injection ports. The injector ports can be retooled to incorporate either heat or a vortex inlet that will vaporize the fuel as it enters the cylinder instead of before. By increasing the spark voltage and decreasing the compression ratio, you can eliminate the possibility of explosion.

Diesel fuel lubricates the injectors and the injection pump. Cummins has a big problem with lifter pump failures causing the injection pumps to sieze without the lubricity of the fuel. Just did one two weeks ago. As to the cylinder, very little lubrication. As to a "mister", essentially, that is what the injector is doing, ever see what one looks like when attached to a popper? You can't see the fuel when it opens.

My point is, that pure hydrogen does not provide the lubrication necessary to prevent those types of problems. But using an oil injection system (wherever that is relevant to allow hydrogen fuel to be used in place of diesel) can solve the lubricity issue and allow water to be hydrolyzed as fuel. In addition to the fuel savings it will reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants from diesel exhaust. It also will require exhaust system that are stainless steel to avoid rusting out.

Fred, I see you addressed this aspect at the end of your post. Yes, I agree but then what about just simple things like consolidating trips to town? Or turning off the light switch when you are not in the room? I see so many Yuppie homes with all the lights on, it's their money but then I, as you, believe that those types of individuals help to sustain what the Energy Consortium is doing.

If energy was free or next to free, there would be no need to blame the Yuppies for contributing to excessive costs and energy waste. I have consolidated my trips since gas cost 43.9 per gallon and always turn off lights when not in use. It wasn't always about saving money/energy, it just seemed common sense and practical. Why though is always incumbent upon the consumer to make sacrifices? Because of the refusal of the Energy Consortium to be accountable and responsible, that is the reality. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US for over 30-35 years, yet we are told that refining shortages are to blame for the higher gas prices. Diesel always has cost less to refine than gasoline, so why is diesel fuel costing more than a gallon of regular unleaded?

I do not enjoy getting on a soapbox and having to produce these diatribes, but I do it because it is necessary to create a new energy paradigm, one that is not dependent on the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) propaganda of the Energy Consortium. See, we don't need Zero Point Energy, nor do we need any new scientific breakthroughs to get ourselves free of the energy slavery. We have technology that can do that now, only we have an elected representative body that does nothing to support the cause. They enjoy the rewards of the Energy Consortium more than they care about those that put them in office. We settle for the choices they offer us as candidates instead of demanding representation for the public.

I choose to look at ways to make a positive difference instead of all the negative reasons why it doesn't or cannot work. Those that don't know that something is impossible make it possible, because thye cannot see impossibility within their reality.

[htmagic]

Tesla liked hydroelectric power as it is cheap and non-polluting. But the wacko tree huggers on the left coast (Oregon) want all the dams removed along with the hydroelectric stations. There were fish ladders and the fish used them but that isn't good enough for these wackos. And then they scream because there is no cheap electric and the coal plants belch out fumes.

Stepping off soapbox now...

MagicBill

[Mikado14]

Drag is drag, Fred. If you are going to extract energy from the flow of the air, the air must be made do to some work and there will be a trade off, but then I will go out on a limb here and assume that you knew so.

The object here is to create more electric power and decrease drag by "tuning" the air porting through the turbines. If that wasn't at all possible, then why would Mitsubishi install twin turbos on their iMEVi to be introduced in 2009?.

Why do you take the stance that I am challenging you? I see your "object" and you can tune all you want but regardless and as I said, drag is drag and turning a turbine is work, if you don't believe me fine. The fact that Mitsubishi is installing turbos I know nothing about but I can guarantee you, the engineers at Mitusbishi must consider the drag an acceptable loss for the power produced. I just wanted to make sure you were not communicating to the masses on the Internet that it is free.

The money can come from repealing the tax incentives and breaks given to the oil industry, and that will subsidize homeowners financial burden for installation of solar/wind/battery systems. The additional taxes on fuels can be reduced to further reduce the costs to the taxpayers.

I agree with the tax incentives and the breaks given to the oil industry but the fuel tax is a necessary evil to maintain the infrastructure for the Highway system. The tax is the price to be able to drive on the highways and a discussion of that will be getting off topic and political and I am NOT going there.

Yes it would, but the Fed claims that vaporizing the fuel can lead to safety issues, mainly the possibility of explosion. So the "trick" is to get the fuel vaporized as it passes into the combustion chamber and not when entering the intake manifold or fuel injection ports. The injector ports can be retooled to incorporate either heat or a vortex inlet that will vaporize the fuel as it enters the cylinder instead of before. By increasing the spark voltage and decreasing the compression ratio, you can eliminate the possibility of explosion..

Currently, Port Injection of any kind are referred to as "wet" manifolds (as is carbureatored and TBI) for the fuel is injected in the manifold at the port opening to the head. Direct Injection, as in a Diesel, is too expensive for the average gas engine. Injector ports are nothing more than a hole that the Injector is placed into to spray the fuel into the port opening to the head and this is located in the Intake where the Intake seats to the Head. These types of engines employ a two piece manifold, the upper plenum and the lower, retooling as to what you described really doesn't say much, you need to rethink that unless you mean the port opening in the head but then my experience has been with GM, Ford (shudder), Chrysler and a few Pacific Rims. One more item, a reduction in compression ratio will reduce torque and Horsepower.

Diesel fuel lubricates the injectors and the injection pump. Cummins has a big problem with lifter pump failures causing the injection pumps to sieze without the lubricity of the fuel. Just did one two weeks ago. As to the cylinder, very little lubrication. As to a "mister", essentially, that is what the injector is doing, ever see what one looks like when attached to a popper? You can't see the fuel when it opens.

My point is, that pure hydrogen does not provide the lubrication necessary to prevent those types of problems. But using an oil injection system (wherever that is relevant to allow hydrogen fuel to be used in place of diesel) can solve the lubricity issue and allow water to be hydrolyzed as fuel. In addition to the fuel savings it will reduce greenhouse gases and other pollutants from diesel exhaust. It also will require exhaust system that are stainless steel to avoid rusting out.

Here is what you said that I responded to : " Running pure hydrogen is feasible for gasoline engines but not for diesel as the latter requires lubrication inside the cylinders which the diesel fuel itself provides. Perhaps a "mister" that is based on a bio-based oil can be introduced for diesels." You made a definitive statement as to what the fuel lubricated, I interpreted you wrong. Perhaps you should have just simply said that hydrogen offers no lubricity.

If energy was free or next to free, there would be no need to blame the Yuppies for contributing to excessive costs and energy waste. I see way to many of them, sorry I touched a nerve. I have consolidated my trips since gas cost 43.9 per gallon and always turn off lights when not in use. It wasn't always about saving money/energy, it just seemed common sense and practical. Why though is always incumbent upon the consumer to make sacrifices? Because of the refusal of the Energy Consortium to be accountable and responsible, that is the reality. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the US for over 30-35 years, Due to Federal regulations making it too expensive and the NIMBY's, sorry, another dig at the Yuppies. yet we are told that refining shortages are to blame for the higher gas prices.You lived in the Philly area, remember all those storage tanks along Essington and the river? The Fed decided to TAX the oil companies for inventory carried over into the new year, they eliminated the tanks and storage is at a minimum.I don't blame the Oil Companies for that decision. Diesel always has cost less to refine than gasoline, so why is diesel fuel costing more than a gallon of regular unleaded?

I do not enjoy getting on a soapbox and having to produce these diatribes, but I do it because it is necessary to create a new energy paradigm, one that is not dependent on the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) propaganda of the Energy Consortium. See, we don't need Zero Point Energy, nor do we need any new scientific breakthroughs to get ourselves free of the energy slavery. We have technology that can do that now, only we have an elected representative body that does nothing to support the cause. They enjoy the rewards of the Energy Consortium more than they care about those that put them in office. We settle for the choices they offer us as candidates instead of demanding representation for the public.

I choose to look at ways to make a positive difference instead of all the negative reasons why it doesn't or cannot work. Those that don't know that something is impossible make it possible, because thye cannot see impossibility within their reality.

Fred, I was attempting to give you a compliment on the way you elucidate but I am sorry you didn't appear to take it that way and I am wrong for trying.

Mikado

PS: but don't stop doing it.

[htmagic]

Lowering the compression ratio is the wrong way to go, especially if you are using ethanol. Ethanol would work great in a diesel engine because of the high compression....

Normal internal combustion engines have too low a compression ratio to burn straight ethanol.
And I'm not talking about robbing our food stock to make fuel...

MagicBill
P.S. Mikado is right. Putting a turbine on a car to produce work will increase drag. It has to, it's thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and an energy balance...

[Linda Brown]

Everyone

This is a difficult subject to find an appropriate place for but " Having The Right to Know" seems the best for the moment.

I have a response for someone who sent me a private message, but first I have to explain a couple of things.

As some of you might already know the messages bound for me sometimes go through a delay process. Here is an example of how this sometimes happens so that you will be able to understand. I was sent an upsetting comment,( launched at me out of frustration from an unnamed source) that my thoughts to that point had been taken as " elitist mystical bullshit". Now I am rather fond of that phrase but at the time it would have hit me very hard emotionally. But in this age of nearly instantaneous communication that message actually took several days to reach me. Now looking back on it, ’ actually its pretty funny it how the whole body of that message was " delayed". My ability to open my Email suddenly disappeared after the individual wrote " And furthermore ....." .... nothing! ..... my computer finally came back to proper use enough time had gone by where I could accept the flood of incoming information with far better grace than I could have originally. No computer expert could explain it. This is something that I have learned to accept as a manipulation of my " right to know" I guess.

That doesn't explain much maybe but at least with that said I can continue.

I recently got another PM, which had been delayed for sometime. (Understandable because it had also been addressed to Mr. Twigsnapper.) The individual posting expressing his concern over many things and ended his post by saying that he could not share everything on the Internet anymore.

Fine. But I have a right to share my response in any way I see fit.

Dear Sir…………
You continue to say that you have been receiving “ downloads” that give you specific information. You expect me to trust in the fact that these “ downloads” are from a recognizable source to me. but yet …. You continue to express doubts about my agenda and those closest to me, particularly Mr. Twigsnapper. You wonder in print if we are generally interested in you or just what you feel that we can “lure from you “ in the way of information. When you asked that you lead me to ask these questions.

If you are genuinely recieiving “ downloads” from a “ source recognizable to me” then you would already know the answer to the above. There would be no question in your mind.. The fact that you even ask that question leads me to wonder about you and your participation here.

You continue to give advice as to the course I should take regarding the people I am working with and their various roles. You say “ Finally you and Mr. Twigsnapper yourselves will have to help because you know details how and where Dr. Brown traveled in his pursuit for rare rocks , sand, etc. All of you will have to work together. I can only give you the idea, the itinerary on how to proceed. And no excuses how this cannot be cone, etc. Everything can be done.”

I hope upon rereading your own words you will be able to see how insufferable your attitude is here. Why should I follow any kind of “itinerary” that you set down?

. I am sort of tired of being pushed around by you verbally. I am tired of the whining about how no one understands you. Just listen to yourself.

“ But then nobody would listen, nobody would take the time to read”……” There is nobody I can truly talk to and with whom I would be on one wave-length. I need somebody who listens full time and can serve as a partner, as a correction. A true mirror. Not people who are cold fish. Not people who feed me with flattery or hostile scorn. Somebody who treats me as a normal person. Mr. Schatzkin came closest to this and I prefer Mr. Mikados criticism to Mr. Twigsnappers flattery. Third, I am starting to have doubts that the whole enterprise is as benevolent as presented and will not serve the enslavement of man through technology……………………….” I have many ideas. I am a man who gives ideas. I want to help but nobody listens ………”

Well. There could be good reasons that your ideas are not finding fertile ground with me. I distrust you. You say one thing about these downloads but I wonder about their true source. If they were valid you would not have the questions that you do. I then have doubts myself about yourself and how you have presented yourself as a benevolent force. I believe that you say one thing but what is actually on your mind hides just beneath the surface.

Nobody listens perhaps for a very good reason. Linda

[FM No Static At All]

It is my experience that even those who somehow manage to perceive these "downloads" are often times led astray by their very own learned nature. I don't feel that humans are born with something wrong with them. What is wrong is what they are taught and the experiences in life that create and support belief systems. I know that we are multifaceted beings who are taught to see only the tip of the iceberg of our true selves. But there are many methods that one can use to break free from these enslaving beliefs and practices.

I find that sometimes I know intuitively, and cannot always express myself in terms that others can understand or comprehend. I beat myself up about that because I believed that perhaps I wasn't communicating properly. Now I come to yet another conclusion about that "belief" of mine. It's not so much that I am unable to communicate, it is more a matter of others being stuck in their own self-serving beliefs and refuse to see alternative views of reality.

Without an honest assessment of myself and what I truly am about creating, I am not better or worse off that those that ridicule and debunk people like Dr. Brown and you also Linda, for their outside the "normal" or accepted ways of thinking and seeing the realities of life. What I have come to "see" is that others will only accept that which they are comfortable with. The moment something comes along that challenges their beliefs of reality, they quickly defend their perspective and often make others seem like quacks for thinking otherwise.

There are no "accidents." We may not see how our own actions lead us through paths and "down the rabbit holes" of alternative realities, but each of us is ultimately responsible for what we create in life. Few even take responsibility as they are able to see beyond their own self righteousness, and can see how their words and actions have an effect on others. I have often been accused of some outrageous things for my visions and refusal to accept common dogma. But I was taught an an early age always to question, regardless of how widely something may be accepted as "truth" or a "law of nature or science.

Mr. Mikado, you said to me that everyone has an agenda. Right you are, and some of us have agenda that are more or less self serving than others. IN fact, some of us think that are agendas are not self serving even when they are. Ms. Brown, there are many people out there that will "test" your resolve. They will encourage you or compliment you, because they have reason to believe that you can offer them something. Others will ridicule you and put you down, because what you represent to them is frightening and challenges their beliefs and faith in life.

It was said not longer ago here on the forum that we can expect an onslaught from those that will not accept us because of the way we are. Please accept that as a reality, and rather than lose energy over them, place your energy into what will be a positive difference in the world. We cannot change others, but we can change ourselves. We may know in are very souls that we are about peace and love, and benefit to the whole of humanity, and others will simply not buy it. Let's just accept that as a fact and do what we came here to do as a group. We have been drawn here for a purpose. Others may be drawn to that purpose also, however they are not about participating in it, they are about negating it from being. Even negative energy towards them is energy that would best serve focused positively in what we are creating, as individuals and as a collective.

I suggest that each of look inside and see what we are truly about, what we are really doing here. How does it serve us to participate in these discussion and enlightening debates? Mr. Mikado has challenged many of us who put forth opinions or possibilities. I am truly grateful you do so sir, as it allows me to examine why I am posting what I write. Others have been offended by you and have directed quite a significant amount of negativity towards you. Some have felt so strongly about you that they have taken their toys and run away. That's too bad, but life continues with or without their participation.

Even though I have not met with you, I feel that many of you are my friends. I can express my love for many of you here in open forum because I know what you are about serves the highest good of humanity, and I am grateful to be a part of that with you. To the others that see us as a bunch of dreamers, all I can offer you is the phrase that I repeat when I feel it needs to be posted as a reminder to myself and to all that need it at that moment.

What are you pretending not to know?

[Trickfox]

I predict NOTHING WILL HAPPEN WHATSOEVER

Tests will continue into September to ensure that the entire machine is ready to accelerate and collide beams at an energy of 5 TeV per beam, the target energy for 2008. Force majeure notwithstanding, the LHC will see its first circulating beam on 10 September at the injection energy of 450 GeV (0.45 TeV).

Once stable circulating beams have been established, they will be brought into collision, and the final step will be to commission the LHC’s acceleration system to boost the energy to 5 TeV, taking particle physics research to a new frontier.

The so-called Large Hadron Collider (LHC) is the greatest experiment in the history of particle physics (see, Cosmic roulette, Cosmos Online).

The God particle

Scientists are banking that it will confirm the existence of a sub-atomic component – the Higgs Boson, known as "the God particle" – that would fill in the last missing piece of the so-called Standard Model of particle physics (see, Hunt for the God particle, Cosmos Online).

A gamble costing US$5.6 billion (A$6.25 billion) that has harnessed the labours of more than 2,000 physicists from nearly three dozen countries, the LHC is the biggest, most powerful, high-energy particle accelerator ever built.

This is beginning to look exactly like the Michaelson-Moreley experiments to find the Aether.
The problem is that 5.6 billion dollars were spent on building "STUFF"..... The Stuff is made of Particles which includes......you guessed it....the G_d particle.

Now here is the "strange loop".

Those instruments were built with the same particles that the instruments themselves are suppose to be looking for. If the G_d particle is responsible for causal relationships in other particles then those Higgs particles are what's deciding on "reality" itself.

Isn't that like asking G_d to create itself as a concept?

If you see Fred Allan Wolf's cartoon explanation of the dual slit experiment, you will see what I'm talking about.

At some point in time ALL of science feather-tails itself into mysticism.

The continued seach for consistency, symetry, beauty, elegance, and finally truth IS the final prize of science.

Accomplihments, awards, and sequences of proven consistency are but the results after the hard part is done.

Working so desperaty on a hunch that "There is another solution", one can get completely lost in the possibilities emerging from speculation.

Trickfox

[FM No Static At All]

A Prediction for you Mr. Trickfox:
When the LHC comes fully on line and is "fired" up, the results will prove very little and yet the science community will praise the effort. There will champagne celebrations and congratulatory slaps on the back, and let's not forget the awards of recognition. Like Michelson-Morley, the results will prove only that their theory is wrong, not the existence or nonexistence of anything.

Aether or ether, fine media, dark energy, doesn't really matter what it's called. It is still considered by most of physics to be pseudo-science, which is differentiated from such real science as Big Bang and String Theory. Nothing can be proven without demonstrable evidence and if that evidence itself is not acceptable by the peer review process, it too is debunked as having no cause for consideration. If it makes any of the "Saints of Science" seem in error, in addition to its rejection, the author is also ridiculed and denounced as a quack.

For many reasons explained and unexplained, very little of T. Townsend Brown's science is considered mainstream. Most of his work remains covered in classifications of top level secrecy, and yet we are all here praising a man who may have been light years ahead of his time, in seeing the practical applications of physics that most of his peers would still call science fiction.

We debate the "right to know" and discuss the good/evil aspects of certain technologies that must remain hidden because of the ways that it can be used. Some think that the LHC will create a black hole that will swallow up the planet if not the whole solar system. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician, so I cannot pronounce with certainty one view over another. But I can say that I still find it appalling that we are spending such enormous amounts of money without first addressing more pressing issues of energy and environment. A breakthrough in "aether energy" would make an expenditure such as that 5.6 billion dollars on a search for the "g-d particle" seem a bit more sensible. Not a lot, but a bit more.

My views on a creator is not the acceptable perspective of my peers. I cannot see such a creator that seeks worship from its creations. What I see is that we are extensions of that creator, that we are a part of that creator whether we choose to acknowledge it or not is a matter of choice, or free will. For me, all is possible, only some is more probable than others. I can see a world that is based on love and compassion, one in which we all are accountable for the well being of each other and the planet. I can see us all getting past our petty differences and working as a loving whole. It's certainly a challenge, but it's not impossible.

"You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one.
I hope someday you'll join us,
and the world will live as one."
- John Lennon

[arc]

Perhaps to the emergence, growth, nurturing and wonderment of this thing called …life.