Part II Begins Here

[Trickfox]

Here is the closest to a bitch board I can think of Mr Twigsnapper.

[Trickfox]

[twigsnapper]

To all of those good four legged bitches out there ... You know you have my utmost respect. Zoe, look what wonders you have wrought! And hes taking you to Texas with him too? Probably needs your good company.

But I use a phrase that Dr. Brown developed with the people who worked alongside him ( I say ALONGSIDE because he never liked assuming the "boss" role .... though everyone always knew, as Morgan said .... Dr. Brown was THE MAN.) Still he had some sensitive types working with him, his daughter also at his right hand side and he had to develop a method where they all could "bitch" at him relatively freely. I think he sensed that most of us would have done anything to keep from disappointing him or upsetting him .... so if we had disagreements we were prone to just swallow them. He did not agree with that and he preferred to have us all speak out. Face to face even , nose to nose. Morgan was about the only one who eventually could manage to do that. For the rest of us Dr, Brown devised what he called a " bitch board". If we had something that he did or wanted or something that he had some control over .... and we disagreed ... we could "post a bitch" and it was considered safe territory. I think he did it for us, to make it easier for us to come up against him. It spared hurt feelings. We could say anything and no offense could be taken because .... well .... that was the rule of the " bitch board". It didn't even have to be a physical thing. we just used the phrase " I have a bitch to post" and it was like the rule of the pirates .... we could say anything without fearing reprisals from the Captain. Its worked well and I suggest it to go along with your No Bulshit Policy. Good for the future, because things as you noted have ramped up and bound to start getting heated and dicey. Important to have free zones set up ahead of time. twigsnapper

[Paul S.]

Take for example the nuclear agenda, which is touted as the energy of the future..........the experimental reactor being built in Europe for example. It maintains a justification for nuclear activities and leaves no room for an alternative perspective.

David, I believe you and are on the same wavelength here, though perhaps coming at the issue from different angles.

"The experimental reactor being build in Europe" I presume is the ITER? I've written about that elsewhere as a $12 billion boondoggle.

https://www.ttbrown.com/2006/11/a_12billion_boo.html

It might surprise or even shock many to discover than atomic energy is a total failure, as there is no energy gain.

Do you mean that there is no energy "gain" because the amount of energy that goes into distilling nuclear fuel (i.e. extracting the necessary isotopes for a chain reaction) is so great that it offsets the resulting release of energy in the actual reactor? I hadn't thought of that before but I can see where that might be the case. Same with ethanol, no?

Atomic energy cannot itself be extracted from the nuclear fuel, what is extracted is a potential of resistance which results from a differrntial in energy relative to the system of reference. Resistance is the opposite of energy.

Well, sorry, but you lost me there.

I continue to hold some hope for the ultimate promise of "nuclear energy," but my interest stems from a rather fringe interest, i.e. Farnsworth's Fusor, which I think you are aware of. In fact, it might be that interest that has sucked me into this rabbit hole, going back now more than 30 years to when the fusor was first described to me on a hill top in Santa Cruz, CA by somebody who knew somebody who knew Philo Farnsworth's oldest son. But I digress... sorta.

Does your assertion hold true for ALL forms of nuclear energy? I can see where it applies to fission reactors, and certainly the input/output equation in a machine like the ITER should raise every eyebrow that ever looks at the thing.

But what about a device like the Fusor, which has relatlvely low power requirements (relative to a Tokamak or a fission plant, that is). Deuterium is a lot cheaper/easier to extract from water than U-whatever is to extract from yellow cake.

Granted, nobody has produced more energy coming out of a fusor than even the relatively low energy required to start the reaction, but, assuming that were possible, would your dismissal of all nuclear energy still apply?

--PS

[wdavidb]

Elizabeth.........I'm sorry I did not thank for your kind words, thank you.

[wdavidb]

Victoria.........hello

I will put a lid on the black ops, if it is a difficult subject, but I felt it had some degree of importance in regard to understanding the bigger picture.

[wdavidb]

Hi Paul,

Just as a point of interest, when I was a kid I used to hang out at Dr. Wil English's house, a couple of doors away, the Canadian physicist and remember riding on the running board of his old car, a real bit of fun.

The ITER is indeed a total waste of time, money and energy.

No that is not exactly what I was talking about......you cannot access the internal energy of any material. And this is the flaw in the nuclear program, as the idea of using atomic energy for peaceful purposes was to win acceptance from the public for further R&D.

So the atom is sold as a source of useable energy, just like coal and gas, but cleaner and safer..........they should have been selling used cars.

Of course uranium has energy, but you cannot utilize that energy directly through a process of fiss or fus..........as the actual underlying energy cannot be made to radiate.

Each element has a different ratio of energy per unit of mass, which of course is not generally accepted to be true, but nonetheless this is the case.

Consequently uranium has a very low ratio of energy to mass, but it has a great deal of resistance to offer, which is employed to heat water to make steam. The strange part about this is that you do not need the uranium to do the job, as you can do it without the nuclear fuel. The same is true of the hydrogen power cell, you don't need the hydrogen to do the same thing.

The consumption of a fuel is to maintain the concept of supply and demand, which equals control in its various forms.

In relation to the hydrogen power cell, I was in contact with Dr. Ballard some years ago and put some ideas before him and he was interested, but his business partners were not as it put the lid on the need for an actual fuel supply.

The idea of a fusion reactor has been in the works for many decades and has yet to be achieved in a manner which could be described as a real success and nothing is going to change that picture.

We are stuck with the condition of universe in which we exist and are limited by the applicable rules of the game.

It would also surprise many to discover that modern science is not exactly sure what energy is.......as it still remains a very big mystery of sorts.

Energy in its truest sense is a creative force and is non-destructive, but we have chosen to insert an element of resistance into the energy equation. Perhaps believing that no one will notice.

If you have two masses of the same material the bigger mass usually has the greater energy but the lower ratio of energy per unit of mass, while the smaller mass generally has less energy but the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.

So your material with the high ratio of energy per unit of mass has the lower ratio of resistance, while the material with the lower ratio of energy per unit of mass has the higher ratio of resistance.

It gets a little bit more complicated when we start smashing things together and breaking things apart, but the best we can do with this nulcear issue is employ a high level of resistance to heat water, which is not really very clever.

I would say with confidence that the nuclear agenda was a huge mistake right from the start, as we have not gotten to the bottom of the jar to find out exactly what energy is. When we do that we will see that it was sitting there staring us in the face the whole time.

All we need is a differential in energ to produce a potential of resistance, which is the basis of physical structure. If we develop a modular system based on this simple frame we can produce all the power we want without ever consuming any fuel. So of course there is no pollution or danger involved.

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

David,

When you have a moment I would like to open a discussion on this statement that you made. I wondered if you could expand on it for me.


They were on to the inside/outside concept and were thinking outside the box, but it was their concept of energy which really threw them off the scent......left them with fists full of air. But they did consider the aether and had a suspicion that there was an underlying force. In the end it was conventional thinking which left them high and dry.

and then this:

"It would also surprise many to discover that modern science is not exactly sure what energy is.......as it still remains a very big mystery of sorts.

Energy in its truest sense is a creative force and is non-destructive, but we have chosen to insert an element of resistance into the energy equation. Perhaps believing that no one will notice. "

And how much have you considered the possibility that " creative energy force is ........ able to communicate its intelligence? You mention Kozyrev on your forum I believe. Has he had any influence on your thoughts in this direction? No rush on this at all. Its sort of an out of the way question.

But your phrase " a creative force and is non-destructive" sort of jumps out at me. Elizabeth

[wdavidb]

I've noticed in some of the threads that there is a repeated reference to time travel..........

Time travel is not only possible but essential, as the control of gravity involves the manipulation of time.

It's simply the nature of the beast......for example; we perceive the universe existing relative to us and assume that everything we see exists within the same time frame that we do, which is partly correct.

But do we consider that time is different for every system of universe?

This in itself puts a bit of a damper on our space program in terms of rocket driven space craft, as we are led to believe that the colonization of space is possible using rockets. I'm afraid not.

So, what is a secret bigger than the H bomb.........in 1950, whoa!

The only thing I can think of is interstellar transport, which is nothing less than time travel........now that is big.........huge.

And it's still huge.

I assume none of you know what happened in the early 70's in respect to the testing of the lunar samples returned from the moon. Both the Russians and the Americans retrieved material from the surface of the moon. Few would know that the original test results have since been sanitized and literally deleted from history. What exists now is a rewrite of history to fit the rocket technology we are asked to believe will allow us to colonize space. I saw all this so I know what happened.

Even the suggestion of developing anything beyond better rockets is a no no, as the real answer is gravity control or anti-gravity, nothing less.

I would suspect, without knowing one way or the other myself, that Dr. Brown was deeply involved in the search for gravity control and instantaneous transformation. The two go hand in hand. You do not get anymore secret than that, as the resulting technology is the whole ten yards, its everything.

What was discovered from the lunar samples was that there is a very well defined non-uniform differential in the dynamics of the earth and the moon, which in turn affects the cellular structure of plants and animals in a most radical manner. The two conditions of field are not compatable, nor would any two conditions of field be compatable in respect to planetary bodies in space.

This differential affected the rate or growth and ageing, genetic uniformity and disease in the form of cancer. Not a pleasant picture.

The lunar samples produced accelerated growth, genetic deformities and cancerous growths............but it is now claimed no structural alterations occurred or ill effects of any kind. But it is still claimed that accelerated growth occurred in plants, which we are asked to believe would affect a uniform increase in the rate of growth. In fact they go on to suggest that lunar materials might be beneficial to terrestrial farmers.

Good grief batman..............that would kill the farm.

So without knowing the whole story one might conclude that we can indeed build a base on the moon and utilize the resources of space.

Without gravity control we are not going to do much other than send robotics in our place.

It is interesting to note that the condition of the moon presently accessible to us is a historical lunar condition, so in effect time travel is already a part of our lives. It's the only condition of the moon we can access, as we are confined to the condition of field remaining relative to our planet earth.

[wdavidb]

Elizabeth, certainly....[quote][/quote]

[grinder]

Everybody,

Boy, oh boy am I glad I am not going to be tested on this material! You guys have spent a lot of time thinking about all of this, its really obvious. And I think that you have a much stronger understanding of all of this than I probably ever will. So I am content to stand back in admiration with this conversation, learn as much as I can, whistle and say ........ damn.

Meanwhile, back to simpler subjects. (You guys handle the tough scientific and philosophical problems , I’ll go for the stuff that I understand. Sort of.)

Here is a question that a few of us might have thought of and I thought I could ask. .

Elizabeth! You are always so good at welcoming each serious newcomer to the forum. As you just did, you usually asks them what it was that brought them to the forum and their interest in the story of Townsend Brown. And like you just mentioned in this last post you have uncovered some really cool responses. Now I want to ask you!. What drew you into this? How did you become Pauls research assistant? grinder

[Elizabeth Helen Drake]

grinder,

How did I get to be Pauls assistant?
He asked me! In fact I remember the exact quote, which I committed to memory because someday when he is a world famous writer I will be able to look back on his statement with a great fondness. He said to me “ Rest assured, that I don’t think I can mount this project without youâ€

[wdavidb]

Elizabeth, certainly...

It appears to me that they realized there were internal and external dynamics, which is a huge step forward, because the internal and external dynamics are inversely proportional to one another.

In other words, the inside and outside conditions must be balanced in order to maintain a stable field structure.

They were attempting to think outside the box and to some degree they were, but then they concluded that they already understood what energy was in the true sense of the word, but they did not. They got so far and then attempted to apply more conventional physics to finish it off, which of course does not work and as a consequence they were stuck.

Energy.......interesting stuff energy......but it is very exclusive stuff.

Energy is an underlying force which many refer to as the aether, but the underllying force is also a non-resistant force, which means an increase in energy affects a decrease in resistance to a further increase in energy.

On top of this the underlying force is increasing continuously in an accelerative manner..........and if this were not the case, water would not flow and our hearts would not beat, it would all simply slow and stop.

So the accelerative flow of energy which is always focused to the core of any system is critical in maintaining conditions suitable to our continued existence.

So when you start messing with energy, true energy, you better know what you are doing. And so far we don't know very much.

We have some crazy idea that we get energy from burning coal or gas, but no energy is forth coming. If we actually got energy from coal it would burn for a very long time and we would not need to keep filling the furnace.
We put gas in our cars, but we get no energy, otherwise we would not need to keep filling the tank and spending money on repairs. The car does not gain energy from the gas otherwise it would not wear out. And of course this needs a lot more explaining which we will get to eventually, but it is on my blog.

The same thing with nuclear power, no energy...........just a lot of resistance. Our existing concept of energy is self defeating as we never have enough.

If we could employ a clear understanding of energy we would not need to use anymore fuel.............end of the fuel problem. It is impossible to deplete the underlying energy of universe. Its a perfect system based on perfect principles.

But we have this crazy idea that the sun is nuclear powered and represents a huge fusion reactor..........good grief charlie brown.

The sun is not consuming mass and converting it to energy. The sun is an electrically charged structure which is the central core of our solar field and as such the underlying energy of the sun is continuously increasing.

The sun is creating mass as we speak, not consuming it. So the sun is not running down, but is in fact gearing up. This of course is not good news, but our planet has been through this many times before.

In terms of energy, true energy, the hydrogen atom has the highest ratio of energy per unit of mass of any known element. Which is why water is the fuel of life, it actually provides real energy. So it is the inherent energy of hydrogen that allows for life in all its various forms.

Also, while we're on the subject of solving mysteries.................

More secret than the Hbomb? Hydrogen............whoa! I think I have the riddle figured out.

It is the hydrogen in the hydrogen bomb which makes the bang and boom and not the nuclear fuel, which takes a bit of explaining, but we will get to that in due time.

So what would be more secret than the Hbomb? Could it be that we had it all backwards? That hydrogen has the energy? It would seem so.

So what was Smith telling us? He was a clever man and did not talk to hear himself speak, so I suspect he had a very clear idea as to what he was saying other than the obvious.

Hydrogen is the key to all this..........it sets us on the right path.

[Trickfox]

Hydrogen Hey..... One proton, one neutron, and one electron...... yup looks pretty simple.

I like it

it has beauty and truth

Trickfox

[Paul S.]

Hydrogen Hey..... One proton, one neutron, and one electron...... yup looks pretty simple.

That would actually be deuterium, an isotope of hydrogen, which comprises about one out of ever 6,500 hydrogen atoms. The other 6,499 atoms have no neutrons.

FYI, that deuterium nucleus -- aka a "deuteron" -- is the fuel that my friends over at fusor.net are using to fire up their basement fusors.

That and $3.50 gets you a latte at Starbucks...

--PS