Posted: Wed Aug 08, 2007 5:32 pm
Grinder,
Yes, I still believe what I said there.
We've discussed in other threads how our understanding of the universe is based on our beliefs or training, and the same can be said for how we look at the nuts and bolts of the universe.
Whether we like it or not, we have been taught a specific way of looking at electricity, gravity, nuclear force, communications, etc. I like to bring up Bill Beatty over at http://www.amasci.com who enjoys messing with our preconcieved notions of physics.
For example, Brown's "Structure of Space" is an entirely different paradigm of how the universe is put together, but more importantly is that Townsend Brown didn't just think it up - he used it as a working model to build and invent equipment.
Take the propulsion aspect, the basic Biefeld-Brown Effect (one of my favorites). If you take a capacitor and put a high voltage across it, you might get a minimal effect. Without an understanding of the concepts behind the Effect, the ordinary person considers it a wash.
That's because if you have gone through electric engineering school, or are self-taught, you have learned a paradigm of how electricity works. An apparatus using the Biefeld-Brown Effect appears contradictory to the current EE school of thought.
I liken it to putting the wheels of a car on the roof. Anyone will tell you that won't work (I've never tried it myself, but I'll bet it won't work either), and to a person trained in the current EE school of thought, the BB apparatus looks like "the wheels are on the roof," i.e. or they end up saying something to the effect of "That capacitor won't work. Here's what you need to make a capacitor."
Or the Ohio University professor who gave me the motivation to continue studying Brown's work, "We know all there is to know about capacitors. You're wasting your time." That statement was from a very intelligent PhD in physics - unfortunately, he could only look at the issue from one side.
Yes, I still believe what I said there.
We've discussed in other threads how our understanding of the universe is based on our beliefs or training, and the same can be said for how we look at the nuts and bolts of the universe.
Whether we like it or not, we have been taught a specific way of looking at electricity, gravity, nuclear force, communications, etc. I like to bring up Bill Beatty over at http://www.amasci.com who enjoys messing with our preconcieved notions of physics.
For example, Brown's "Structure of Space" is an entirely different paradigm of how the universe is put together, but more importantly is that Townsend Brown didn't just think it up - he used it as a working model to build and invent equipment.
Take the propulsion aspect, the basic Biefeld-Brown Effect (one of my favorites). If you take a capacitor and put a high voltage across it, you might get a minimal effect. Without an understanding of the concepts behind the Effect, the ordinary person considers it a wash.
That's because if you have gone through electric engineering school, or are self-taught, you have learned a paradigm of how electricity works. An apparatus using the Biefeld-Brown Effect appears contradictory to the current EE school of thought.
I liken it to putting the wheels of a car on the roof. Anyone will tell you that won't work (I've never tried it myself, but I'll bet it won't work either), and to a person trained in the current EE school of thought, the BB apparatus looks like "the wheels are on the roof," i.e. or they end up saying something to the effect of "That capacitor won't work. Here's what you need to make a capacitor."
Or the Ohio University professor who gave me the motivation to continue studying Brown's work, "We know all there is to know about capacitors. You're wasting your time." That statement was from a very intelligent PhD in physics - unfortunately, he could only look at the issue from one side.