>
>  From: "Mark Harrison" <m3harri@...>
>
>  > Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! I was laughing out loud while rolling on the floor
>  LOLWROTF!
>  >  It really is funny these Orthodox educated types that proclaim nothing
>  > except light itself can travel faster then 186,000 miles per/sec when
>  their
>  > are other particle which have been reported to travel faster then light
>  > itself.
>  ****** That is very interesting, what ( proven and verified {the tuff
part})
>  particles are you referring?.*****
>
> "TSM"  Well Mark, I am so glad you decided to talk to me, It was so
> thoughtful of you to take the time and take me off your "IGNORE" list,
after
> I had posted 4 to 5 letters in privet email intended towards enlightening
and
> communicating with you, when you made the statement that you were
interested
> in learning something new I took you as a man of your word and I began to
ask
> you questions in order to determine where to begin with your edification,
> unfortunately and due to my mistake of attempting to fish or do your work
for
> you, in other words, Well, I discovered that you just were`nt ready for
the
> enlightenment because you could`nt answer not even one of my questions
which
> BTW was designed to guide you into an Unabridged enlightenment of O/U and
> Antigravity!  Therefore the only response I can offer for your question is
> that you should go to the library and look it up for yourself that way you
> won`t doubt or be skeptical of the answer should you find it that is.
>
%%%%% MH: Please do not flatter your self by assuming that I would go out
of my way or expend any energy to ignore you. I have not ignored you it is
just
that I have more to do than address your problems and if this has caused you
grief
then I suggest you seek help. I also do not make a habit of addressing list
topics or replies
privately unless it has moved off topic and needs to be addressed. From what
I can remember
of your post they were simply claims claims and more claims with a
invitation to use some
questionable references to verify your claims. I also remember that you time
after time deflected
questions with questions. Are you capable of answering a question with
information?
You have taken the position time and again that not taking your word for
your claims implies
that we should do OUR work and check it out. Well that lets you off the hook
and
allows you to make your claims time and again with no accountability. I hate
to tell you
that in science ( try it some time) the claimant has the burden of proof and
you will never
make it in science with this unproductive practice.
On the point of reports of particles traveling faster than light I will do
YOUR work for
you this time. I had no need to go to the library to check out your
statement.
I used the latest copy of The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference
and
the only mention I could find is on page 298
Tachyons: Hypothetical particles that move faster than the speed of light.
This is what I had expected and what I remembered. You should note
the word hypothetical. Not even theoretical but hypothetical.I also checked
several other university resources and found the same thing.
Particle Physics
Martin, Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Quantum Physics  Of Atoms, Molecules, Solids, Nuclei, and Particles
Eisberg & Resnick, Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
Nonclassical Physics: Beyond Newton's View
Harris, Publisher: Addison Wesley Longman
Modern Physics
Serway, Harcourt Brace & Co.
  What I did not find was REPORTS of FTL particles.
  I could not find any plans to try. I did my work.
The claim of reported FTL particles is false. I also doubt the claimant even
understands
why FTL mass is prohibited.
If someone can prove me wrong with proven and testable evidence please feel
free.
I would be happy to learn something new and not disappointed to be wrong.
Please answer a question with information and not a cop out question.
%%%%%%%%%%%


>  Who really cares we have`nt even reached the speed of light yet
>  > dos`nt mean that others hav`nt?  Anyway the speed of light is just
another
>  > barrier in line with man will never walk on the moon, man will never
fly,
>  in
>  > fact if man were meant to fly he would have been born with wings, man
>  cannot
>  > fly faster then the speed of sound, yes the world is still flat,  there
is
>  no
>  > proof of extraterrestrial life forms, funny we have all sorts of
monuments
>  on
>  > this planet that cannot be explained likewise I have decoded an ancient
ET
>  > language that depicts an energy and antigravity device, no their is no
>  proof
>  > I have dun this, its all in my head?
>  ****** That's just great, when will you bring it out of your HEAD so we
can
>  see it?*****
>
> "TSM" My dear Mark I have already dun this in a 140 paged illustrated
> inventors portfolio that I have mailed to "ZPower" Corp. I will be going
to
> the propulsion lab around the 15 th of this month 2000 I would be
interested
> to know what you have ever dun in the energy or propulsion  industry other
> then to disbelieve like Mike Carpenter and so many others that don`t
conduct
> any experiments or attempt to design any energy transference devices
Should
> you be waiting for the they to invent theses devices then all I can say is
> you have been talking to a they.
>
> AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"
> Robert A. Patterson
> "Reverse Engineering Consultant"
> The Inventor of Antigravity on this planet!

%%%%%% Mark: I see a inventors/investors publication and not a peer review
science/engineering publication.
Why was this? Do you really think it would be a good idea to take this
ZPower Corps information
at its word with out verifying it, after all they have a vested interest in
the publics willingness to buy their product? %%%%%%%%%%

I am in agreement with Mr. Melendez.  I too am new to this list and do not care
for the one upsmanship that goes on here.  State the facts.  That aside, I know
I have read in some book on Einstein's theorys that travel AT the speed of light
is not possible due to the increase in mass of a moving particle.  This does not
preclude matter from moving faster than the speed of light if the particle can
somehow 'jump' from going slower to going faster than the speed of light.
Bruce Kralovec

Emailed to me.  Posted here without permission (but anonymized).

>Hi dHowe

Note to all: please keep your responses in the open forum.  I've found that free
energy discussions in email are a total waste of time.

>The first two thirds of your post is absolutely correct.  Newmans and Lees
>are complete scams. Stay away.

>However not all development is based on the past.   There are exceptions and
>this is where the future lies.

My point is that you must not dismiss everything that came before with the swipe
of a hand.  Newman and Lee start off with the premise that all scientists are
idiots.  They only go downhill from there.

>How do you explain Mills Black Light.  ? 

Bad science, wishful thinking, and slick talk.  But really, only time will tell.
I'd bet
$100 he's full of crap.

>I dont buy the theory but the
>experimental evidence is overwhelming from top labs with top flight people
>running the show.

The only experimental evidence I know of (Niedra, et al.) showing any excess
heat has been explained by more mundane phenomena.  The rest of that
"overwhelming" experimental evidence seems a bit elusive.  There's lots of
allusion to experimental data.  Lots of bafflegab.  Lots of hot air.  But,
where's
the beef?

If you know of any experimental evidence that hasn't already been shot down,
please post citations.

>DOD even has a cooperative R&D agreemnt with Mills.

Please elaborate.

I admit, BLP does seem to have more credibility than most scams.  Still, I'd bet
$100 it's a scam.  I would like for Mills to prove me wrong, but I'm not holding
my
breath.

>Morgan Stanley didnt become investment banker for Black Light because they
>are starry eyed fanatics..

Morgan Stanley is in the business of making money.   Besides, they aren't
putting any of their own money into it.  They have little to lose.  Crackpots
have
made millions over the years with various scams.  Perhaps some people at MS
want a piece of the pie?

>More like Black Light are coming down the road.
>We have tracked this for 10 years.  If you want a sample copy of FTIR send
>you mailing address Ill see you get one.

Don't bother.

My guess is that 10 years from now the "Mills Hydrino" will be squirrelled away
in
a secret storage room on a shelf right next to the "working cold fusion water
heater" that Stanley Pons was pictured beside.

And the nutters will still be chanting, "You just wait..."

First I would like to thank everyone for their constructive criticism, Second
that this started over Joe Newman and to defined my point of view first by
stating that referencing the Orthodox educated person was not meant as an
insult I was just pointing out that as far back in history it has always been
the Upper Orthodox Class that makes big grandiose statements which state just
how something is impossible only to be proven wrong.  The Scientific America
quoted along with the Upper Orthodox Class that man would never fly, heaver
then air flight was utterly impossible.  I sight the Wright Brothers
historical flight as proof.

The world is flat, Columbus as proof that it is round.  Man will never fly
faster then the speed of sound, Chuck Yeager as the proof.  Man will never go
to the moon, the Apollo missions as proof.  Faster then light speed Tachyons
as proof.  Man will never transmit electrical signals Tesla and Marconi as
the proof of Radio.

Anyway the list go`s on and on and on to a point of redundancies and the
Orthodox Class continually being proved "WRONG" time and time again.  So
should you be an Educated Orthodox Upper Clansman their is no need to be
offended by my statements take heart keep your chin up and above all always
remember the Non-Orthodox has always bested the Orthodox Class besides the
proof is in the history lesson.

AKA the Temporal Subliminal Man"

PS: Above all remember that every thing is impossible because the Upper
Orthodox Class told you it was so.

>P.S. Can you please tell me which particles or what travels faster than the
speed
>of light?  Thanks.....Fernando

The deal with things that happen near the speed of light is this: Around the
time Einstein was born, a couple of guys named Michelson and Morley made one
of the most elegant and amazing measurements ever done in physics -- they
tried to demonstrate the existence of the "aether", the medium in which it
was believed that light waves oscillate, by measuring the effects of the
earth's "true motion" through space with a fancy interferometer.

They were greatly consternated when their extremely sensitive apparatus
showed that the earth wasn't moving at all.

Einstein reconciled their observations with theory by coming up with a new
theory.  Meanwhile, a fellow named Lorentz worked out a kind of interim
explanation of what was going on; Einstein's theory both built on, and ended
up predicting, Lorentz's equations.  These theories and observations have
been verified innumerable times over the last 100 years.

The important factor that pops up over and over in Lorentz's equations is
this:

	 SquareRoot(1 - V*V/(C*C))

As you go faster -- that's V -- your length decreases by that amount; your
mass increases by the inverse of that factor.  You'll notice that as V
approaches C (C is the speed of light, the same as in E = M * C*C) that
value gets smaller and smaller.  Which means that your mass gets bigger and
bigger.

When V is equal to C, you'll note that the value goes to zero.

Physically, this makes zero sense.  Your length goes to zero, your mass
becomes your rest mass divided by zero. (Sounds uncomfortable to me.)
Because we don't know what infinite mass means, and because it would take
infinite energy to get a finite mass close to the speed of light, we say
that it is impossible.  Known mathematics can handle some kinds of
infinities, but not infinite mass.

Okay, but does that equation mean that nothing can go faster than light?
Well, when V is bigger than C, V*V/(C*C) is bigger than one, and so you end
up taking the square root of a negative number. Mathematicians and engineers
can do all kinds of neat tricks with the square roots of negative numbers.
They are called imaginary numbers, and are extremely useful.

But I, for one, have no idea how an object with an imaginary mass would
behave.  I can write down that the square root of negative 4 is 2i ("i"
being the square root of minus 1), but I have no sense at all if the words,
"The mass of the rock is 2i kilograms" means anything more sensible than
"The mass of the rock is infinite."

But, since imaginary numbers aren't as absurd as infinite ones, speculation
has risen about the possibility of "tachyons", particles with imaginary mass
that can only exist while they are moving faster than light, and which can't
travel as *slow* as light does. But to my knowledge such speculation is pure
science-fiction amusement.

****Mark Harrison*****

> From: TUHeist@...
>
>
>
> First I would like to thank everyone for their constructive criticism,
Second
> that this started over Joe Newman and to defined my point of view first by
> stating that referencing the Orthodox educated person was not meant as an
> insult I was just pointing out that as far back in history it has always
been
> the Upper Orthodox Class that makes big grandiose statements which state
just
> how something is impossible only to be proven wrong.

**** It is also cast you in a better light to say Orthodox instead of saying
critical
thinkers. You are right there have been many times that the main stream
opinion
was in error. You are also on target when you use "upper class" to
categorize the
  famous Nay-sayers. These are classic examples the "Authority" phenomena in
which
science (medicine mostly) need to guard against. The Authority phenomena is
due
to people and groups not wishing to against the grain of authority for
understandable
reasons. Simply put lets turn a blind eye to this issue so Dr. X who has
much impact
on our situation will not become angry with us. It is not much of an issue
today as
it was in the past when men of renown held power that is hard to comprehend
today.
In the past it was easier to fall prey to Authority Science when academic
options and
communications where limited. Now schools have little to fear from and much
to gain
by pushing the accepted as long as scientific results will result. Now BFEU
could only benefit
from Publicity of making grounded challenges to the Status Quo. In this age
a student
can always go elsewhere if they anger their professors and deans. In
Newton's time it took a lifetime
for information to filter down to the rank and file thinkers maybe longer to
accepted world wide.
It is clear how this would impact innovation.
The bottom line is innovation was made by men/women who put their nose to
the
grind stone and did the science and PROVED their points. They never BLAMED
the establishment for anything because they knew THEY had the burden of
proof and
gladly accepted it and expected others to strictly adhere to it.
*******


  The Scientific America
> quoted along with the Upper Orthodox Class that man would never fly,
heaver
> then air flight was utterly impossible.  I sight the Wright Brothers
> historical flight as proof.
>
> The world is flat, Columbus as proof that it is round.  Man will never fly
> faster then the speed of sound, Chuck Yeager as the proof.  Man will never
go
> to the moon, the Apollo missions as proof.  Faster then light speed
Tachyons
> as proof.  Man will never transmit electrical signals Tesla and Marconi as
> the proof of Radio.

****** What issue of Scientific America made that statement? I have looked
in
the archives and can not find it. I am not saying it is not the truth but I
can not
find it. You are also perpetuating the myth that Columbus was trying to
prove the
word was round. This is not true, most educated people had known the world
was
round for over a thousand years.Columbus was trying to go AROUND the world
and the Queen of Spain and her educated advisors thought it possible to go
AROUND the world.
See ould
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/LIBRARY/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
The Myth of the Flat Earth
Summary by Jeffrey Burton Russell
for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference
August 4, 1997 at Westmont College
See
Skeptic Volume 3, Number 1 (1994)
Psudo-History
See
INVENTING THE FLAT EARTH: COLUMBUS AND MODERN HISTORIANS. New York: Praeger,
1991.
See
Inventing the flat earth: History Today 41 (1991): 13-19.

You also state that Upper Class Orthodox rallied against Man on the Moon,
Faster than sound, radio transmissions, etc, Who, where and when were the
people who made these statements. Is it possible that the THEY/THEM
people were just members of a vocal minority who were just given
time to sell papers to the unwashed masses?  In the end these myths
were dispelled using ORTHODOX science and not by a person
crying so loudly about being treated unfairly that the information
was JUST accepted by the public at large. You also seem to
forget that for every one of these incidents millions of accurate
statements were made.
Tachyons????? Where are the Tachyons? You have yet to back up this claim.
Where are the Tachyons? Where are the collisions? Where is the scatter?
Where is any data on Tachyons? The Hypothesis stated that they were
POSSIBLE.
Did the work even state they were likely? Why do you claim Tachyons as
proof when we do not even know if they are real?
**********




>
> Anyway the list go`s on and on and on to a point of redundancies and the
> Orthodox Class continually being proved "WRONG" time and time again.  So
> should you be an Educated Orthodox Upper Clansman their is no need to be
> offended by my statements take heart keep your chin up and above all
always
> remember the Non-Orthodox has always bested the Orthodox Class besides the
> proof is in the history lesson.
>
*******
Yes YES at time Scientist have let us down and they will do so again.
Yes at times cliques of people in academic power have held back
knowledge to save their egos and fortunes.
Yes THEY laughed at the Wright Brothers but they also laugh at Adam Sandler.
Is Adam a genius because he is laughed at or is it because people find him
funny?
THEY scoffed at Newton.
I scoff at the guy with the "End is Near" sign downtown.
Is the bum a genius?
Who is THEY?
Science has not let us down. It was the tool of science that allow the
truth to be known. Science stopped the scoffs and the jokes.
Science is Science. It may have many styles ( orthodox, etc)
but in the end it IS measurable, testable, and verifiable SCIENCE. Claiming
is not nor will ever be science. It IS sad. It is also a tool used by low
brow hucksters
from the beginning of time.*****

> AKA the Temporal Subliminal Man"
>
> PS: Above all remember that every thing is impossible because the Upper
> Orthodox Class told you it was so.

****** If you believe something is possible make sure it is because you
have a good reason and not because you NEED it to be true. Above all
test, measure, redo, rethink why and why not, prove, try to disprove,
ask others to do the same, address their questions and data, and beware of
falsification .
Remember claiming will never make it so no matter how loudly or often done.
Note: D-O-N-E not D-U-N

People,

I'm talking to a fellow who says he has a self starter motor.  If it
works, I don't know if it does (or is even possible) to run by
"wearing down" the field energy in the high strength rare earth
magnets he uses.  More on this as it unfolds.

Here's a good parody of another wild eyed Y2K-calamity preacher:
http://members.tripod.com/~garysouth/

From what I've heard, that Dr Swimmer no longer (if ever) supports
Newman.
The following is an email I was given permission to pass on:

Hi Eric,
              Happy 2000.  Perhaps a comment or two on the following
would be in order. I'll ignore the hyperbole:

> >MATHEMATICAL FACTS OF JOSEPH W. NEWMAN'S LIFE WORK:
> >
> >With the mechanical laws of gyroscopic particles, all of the following are
> >explained:
> >
> >1) Why mechanically do magnets mechanically attract and repel?

Yes?  I'm waiting.

> >2) Why, when a conductor is moved at different motions five times to the
> >lines of force of a magnet, the results concerning electric current does
> >five different results:

Bad query formation. What constitutes five different motions?

> >3) Conductor moves down and current goes in one direction.
> >
> >4) Conductor moves up and current goes in opposite direction.

Both explained by conventional theory. Apply Ockham's Razor.

> >5) Conductor moves down to opposite polarity of the magnet and moved down
> >again and current goes in opposite direction as in (3) above.
> >
> >6) Conductor moves up and current goes in opposite direction of (4) above.

As for the previous two. Up and down require frames of reference.

> >7) Now most shocking to a young mind of the subject, is that when the
> >conductor is moved parallel up or down to the lines of force of a magnet -
> >no matter how fast one move the conductor - NO current or EMF is produced.

Conventional theory requires a component to be present at right
angles to the mag field for current generation.

> >8) Why can one move a conductor a virtually a snail's pace at right angles
> >to the lines of force of a magnet and the current goes down the conductor
> >at the speed of light?

It has a propagation delay associated with it sorry. A closed circuit
is also required.

> >9) Why does light sometimes mechanically act like a PARTICLE and at other
> >times like a WAVE?  Throughout scientific history, that has dumbfounded the
> >scientific community.

Simply because someone has tried to explain what something we
can't actually see is in terms of something we can see. New situation
requires new terminology I would have thought.

> >10) Why mechanically is the earth positioned - as quoted by Science at a
> >"peculiar angle of its axis to the plane of its orbit around the sun?"

How long is a piece of string?

> >11) Why mechanically does the earth's true axis trace out two circles every
> >25,800 years?  [Note: all of the earth's motion and degrees are given as
> >approx.]

Are we talking about precession relative to the orbit?

> >12) Why mechanically does the earth's magnetic axis sit at 11" 45' angle to
> >earth's true axis?

It might be at present but it is changing.

> >13) Why mechanically has the scientific community since 1820 believed that
> >the magnetic field of a conductor to originate strictly from the current
> >and that the conductor was "dormant like a water pipe carrying water" and
> >yet Joseph Newman has proven exactly the opposite?

Well, mass produced machines will tell us where the answer is to
that horrendous conundrum.

> >14) Why has not anyone prior to Joseph Newman ever given even one
> >mechanical explanation of what INERTIA is? . . . yet Joseph Newman has
> >provided such an explanation.

I thought Ernst Mach did?

> >15) Why did the scientific community prior to the 1990s believe the
> >universe to be expanding out from a central explosion and yet Joseph Newman
> >since the 1970s was predicting and explaining why that wasn't true and that
> >he was proven correct in the 1990s by observations out in space that orbits
> >of entities observed were CURVING?

Not everyone agrees with such a picture. The jury is still out as far
as I'm concerned. Where is the frame of reference to provide a
pinpoint for such an origin?

> >Now consider that Joseph Westley Newman has MECHANICALLY EXPLAINED ALL OF
> >THE ABOVE BY ONE SIMPLE MECHANICAL EXPLANATION OF A GYROSCOPIC PARTICLE and
> >also explained much more as documented in his book, THE ENERGY MACHINE OF
> >JOSEPH NEWMAN.
> >
> >Now consider Schrodinger's prediction:  "A SIMPLE MECHANICAL EXPLANATION
> >WILL COME FORWARD THAT WILL REPLACE ALL THE MUMBO JUMBO MATHEMATICS THAT
> >PREVAILS OUR INDUSTRY."
> >
> >Now consider the mathematical laws of PROBABILITY of only the 15 prior new
> >mechanical explained events being explained mechanically by ONE simple
> >mechanical laws of a GYROSCOPE.
> >
> >Ponder the mathematical odds against the accidental occurrence of the 15
> >above different events:
> >
> >1 x 2 x 3 x 4 x 5 x 6 x 7 x 8 x 9 x 10 x 11 x 12 x 13 x 14 x 15 =
> >1,207,674,368,000 or MORE THAN ONE TRILLION to one against it being an
> >ACCIDENTAL OCCURRENCE!  Behold the truth.  Joseph W. Newman has FULFILLED
> >THE SINCERE AND CARING PREDICTION OF SCHRODINGER.
> >
> >The undersigned SO AGREES.
> >
> >[Signed]
> >A. Swimmer, Ph.D.
> >27 December, 1999
> >
> --

I look forward to buying a machine that is capable of running itself
with no external power source.

Regards,
Malcolm


--


    Eric Krieg      eric@...

http://www.phact.org/e/more.htm

To: m3harri@... and list subscribers

Mark,

Well, I certainly stand corrected on some issues and thank you for
communicating with me instead of assuming I was just blowing smoke or
attempting to be insultive, seriously a lot of the issues just strike me as
funny, no odd, and so my sense of hummer just get`s the best of me. The d-u-n
was don`t you know.  I`ll have to look up the Scientific America quote on the
Wright Brothers and the major university I think the professors name was
Joseph, something Well, seams kind of non-important although I believe I
looked it up on the net under Wright Brothers and the webpage discussed the
facts of the quotes made by the establishment as well as the university
professors quote.  The dates eluded me as well however it was just prior to
the Wright Brothers Historical Flight Anyway I think both of us as well as
everyone else have made some very good points no one was really wrong just
differing perspectives.

I would like to leave you with this quote from Bruce Lee he said "So, we
acquire a sense of worth either by realizing our talents, or by keeping busy
or by identifying ourselves with something apart from us--be it a cause, a
leader, a group, possessions or whatnot.  The path of self-realization is the
mast difficult.  It is taken only when other avenues to a sense of worth are
more or less blocked.  Men of talent have to be encouraged and goaded to
engage in creative work.  Their groans and laments echo through the ages"

Page 206 4 th stanza the Tao of Jeet Kune Do by Bruce Lee

AKA "TSM"


PS: What was BFEU supposed to mean?

In a message dated 1/12/00 2:28:29 AM Central Standard Time,
m3harri@... writes:

  To:    free_energy@onelist.com

  From: "Mark Harrison" <m3harri@...>

  ****Mark Harrison*****

  > From: TUHeist@...
  >
  >
  >
  > First I would like to thank everyone for their constructive criticism,
  Second
  > that this started over Joe Newman and to defined my point of view first by
  > stating that referencing the Orthodox educated person was not meant as an
  > insult I was just pointing out that as far back in history it has always
  been
  > the Upper Orthodox Class that makes big grandiose statements which state
  just
  > how something is impossible only to be proven wrong.

  **** It is also cast you in a better light to say Orthodox instead of saying
  critical
  thinkers. You are right there have been many times that the main stream
  opinion
  was in error. You are also on target when you use "upper class" to
  categorize the
   famous Nay-sayers. These are classic examples the "Authority" phenomena in
  which
  science (medicine mostly) need to guard against. The Authority phenomena is
  due
  to people and groups not wishing to against the grain of authority for
  understandable
  reasons. Simply put lets turn a blind eye to this issue so Dr. X who has
  much impact
  on our situation will not become angry with us. It is not much of an issue
  today as
  it was in the past when men of renown held power that is hard to comprehend
  today.
  In the past it was easier to fall prey to Authority Science when academic
  options and
  communications where limited. Now schools have little to fear from and much
  to gain
  by pushing the accepted as long as scientific results will result. Now BFEU
  could only benefit
  from Publicity of making grounded challenges to the Status Quo. In this age
  a student
  can always go elsewhere if they anger their professors and deans. In
  Newton's time it took a lifetime
  for information to filter down to the rank and file thinkers maybe longer to
  accepted world wide.
  It is clear how this would impact innovation.
  The bottom line is innovation was made by men/women who put their nose to
  the
  grind stone and did the science and PROVED their points. They never BLAMED
  the establishment for anything because they knew THEY had the burden of
  proof and
  gladly accepted it and expected others to strictly adhere to it.
  *******


   The Scientific America
  > quoted along with the Upper Orthodox Class that man would never fly,
  heaver
  > then air flight was utterly impossible.  I sight the Wright Brothers
  > historical flight as proof.
  >
  > The world is flat, Columbus as proof that it is round.  Man will never fly
  > faster then the speed of sound, Chuck Yeager as the proof.  Man will never
  go
  > to the moon, the Apollo missions as proof.  Faster then light speed
  Tachyons
  > as proof.  Man will never transmit electrical signals Tesla and Marconi as
  > the proof of Radio.

  ****** What issue of Scientific America made that statement? I have looked
  in
  the archives and can not find it. I am not saying it is not the truth but I
  can not
  find it. You are also perpetuating the myth that Columbus was trying to
  prove the
  word was round. This is not true, most educated people had known the world
  was
  round for over a thousand years.Columbus was trying to go AROUND the world
  and the Queen of Spain and her educated advisors thought it possible to go
  AROUND the world.
  See ould
  http://www.id.ucsb.edu/fscf/LIBRARY/RUSSELL/FlatEarth.html
  The Myth of the Flat Earth
  Summary by Jeffrey Burton Russell
  for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference
  August 4, 1997 at Westmont College
  See
  Skeptic Volume 3, Number 1 (1994)
  Psudo-History
  See
  INVENTING THE FLAT EARTH: COLUMBUS AND MODERN HISTORIANS. New York: Praeger,
  1991.
  See
  Inventing the flat earth: History Today 41 (1991): 13-19.

  You also state that Upper Class Orthodox rallied against Man on the Moon,
  Faster than sound, radio transmissions, etc, Who, where and when were the
  people who made these statements. Is it possible that the THEY/THEM
  people were just members of a vocal minority who were just given
  time to sell papers to the unwashed masses?  In the end these myths
  were dispelled using ORTHODOX science and not by a person
  crying so loudly about being treated unfairly that the information
  was JUST accepted by the public at large. You also seem to
  forget that for every one of these incidents millions of accurate
  statements were made.
  Tachyons????? Where are the Tachyons? You have yet to back up this claim.
  Where are the Tachyons? Where are the collisions? Where is the scatter?
  Where is any data on Tachyons? The Hypothesis stated that they were
  POSSIBLE.
  Did the work even state they were likely? Why do you claim Tachyons as
  proof when we do not even know if they are real?
  **********

   > Anyway the list go`s on and on and on to a point of redundancies and the
  > Orthodox Class continually being proved "WRONG" time and time again.  So
  > should you be an Educated Orthodox Upper Clansman their is no need to be
  > offended by my statements take heart keep your chin up and above all
  always
  > remember the Non-Orthodox has always bested the Orthodox Class besides the
  > proof is in the history lesson.
  >
  *******
  Yes YES at time Scientist have let us down and they will do so again.
  Yes at times cliques of people in academic power have held back
  knowledge to save their egos and fortunes.
  Yes THEY laughed at the Wright Brothers but they also laugh at Adam Sandler.
  Is Adam a genius because he is laughed at or is it because people find him
  funny?
  THEY scoffed at Newton.
  I scoff at the guy with the "End is Near" sign downtown.
  Is the bum a genius?
  Who is THEY?
  Science has not let us down. It was the tool of science that allow the
  truth to be known. Science stopped the scoffs and the jokes.
  Science is Science. It may have many styles ( orthodox, etc)
  but in the end it IS measurable, testable, and verifiable SCIENCE. Claiming
  is not nor will ever be science. It IS sad. It is also a tool used by low
  brow hucksters
  from the beginning of time.*****

  > AKA the Temporal Subliminal Man"
  >
  > PS: Above all remember that every thing is impossible because the Upper
  > Orthodox Class told you it was so.

  ****** If you believe something is possible make sure it is because you
  have a good reason and not because you NEED it to be true. Above all
  test, measure, redo, rethink why and why not, prove, try to disprove,
  ask others to do the same, address their questions and data, and beware of
  falsification .
  Remember claiming will never make it so no matter how loudly or often done.
  Note: D-O-N-E not D-U-N

Hi, everyone.

Doesn't light have mass, if only an extremely small amount?
Because it seems to me that since light travels through a vacuum, there is a
problem: Either light is composed of self-contained entities (particles), or
there is a basic medium that it can propagate through, even in a vacuum
(ether). If it is composed of particles, then they must have zero mass in
order not to have infinite mass at their speed. But my mind rejects the
notion of massless entities. How can such a thing exist--an object that is
massless, but still an object. Look at the photon rocket and those
"perpetual fans"--the little fan-like objects in the evacuated bulbs that
spin in the sun. Those seem to point quite clearly to a momentum transfer to
me. Can anyone clear up this for me?

-Nik
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Encyclopedia.com defines a photon as
      "the particle composing light and other forms of
      electromagnetic radiation. ... light energy is transferred in
      discrete packets, or photons, and that the energy of
      each photon is equal to the frequency of the light
      multiplied by Planck's constant h. Light imparts energy
      to a charged particle when one of its photons collides
      with the particle."
To me this means a photon is just energy without mass.  There is no problem
with a massless particle moving at the speed of light.  It also explains
momentum in a radiometer (the sun spinner).  Depending on the way you look at
a photon it can be either a particle or a wave of energy.  You can design a
light source which emits light a single photon at at time.  If you shoot a lot
of photons at a screen with a slit in it the particles which get through and hit
a detector will eventually build up showing vertical light and dark areas. 
These
are interference patterns which usually only show up for things which travel in
waves (e.g. ripples in a pond caused by two rocks thrown in).  This is one of
the truely confounding things about light and I don't think anyone has come up
with a good explination - other than to refer to them as particles or waves
depending on the type of experiment or the outcome required.
Bruce

In a message dated 1/12/00 1:22:55 PM Central Standard Time,
ernwa@... writes:
  To:    free_energy@onelist.com

  From: "Nik Waite" <ernwa@...>

  Hi, everyone.

  Doesn't light have mass, if only an extremely small amount?
  Because it seems to me that since light travels through a vacuum, there is a
  problem: Either light is composed of self-contained entities (particles), or
  there is a basic medium that it can propagate through, even in a vacuum
  (ether). If it is composed of particles, then they must have zero mass in
  order not to have infinite mass at their speed. But my mind rejects the
  notion of massless entities. How can such a thing exist--an object that is
  massless, but still an object? Look at the photon rocket and those
  "perpetual fans"--the little fan-like objects in the evacuated bulbs that
  spin in the sun. Those seem to point quite clearly to a momentum transfer to
  me. Can anyone clear up this for me?

  -Nik
  ______________________________________________________
  The little fan objects you are referring to were invented by Sir William
Crooks coined as light mill`s by our Victorian elders the radiometer.  Sir
William crooks the inventor created this marvelous motor in order to prove
that light pressure could move matter.  The greater surprise came when the
double-coated black and white veins moved in the opposite direction!  Praised
as the most beautiful invention ever made by Nikola Tesla.  Sir William
crooks the celebrated inventor of the high vacuum cathode ray globes.

Radiometer, a device for detecting in measuring the strength of radiant
energy.  One form consists of a set of veins blackened on one side and
mounted on pit its in an evacuated glass ball.  Sunlight causes the vain
assembly to rotate, the speed being proportional to the intensity of light to.

Definition from the fifth edition of the illustrated dictionary of
electronics Rufus P. Turner and Stan Gibilisco TAB professional and reference
books.

AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"

At 08:32 PM 1/11/00 , you wrote:
>But I, for one, have no idea how an object with an imaginary mass would
>behave.  I can write down that the square root of negative 4 is 2i ("i"
>being the square root of minus 1), but I have no sense at all if the words,
>"The mass of the rock is 2i kilograms" means anything more sensible than
>"The mass of the rock is infinite."
>
>But, since imaginary numbers aren't as absurd as infinite ones, speculation
>has risen about the possibility of "tachyons", particles with imaginary mass
>that can only exist while they are moving faster than light, and which can't
>travel as *slow* as light does. But to my knowledge such speculation is pure
>science-fiction amusement.

Tachyons have imaginary REST MASS. But hey are never at rest! They move
faster than light, and therefore their "effective relativistic" mass is real.


Ben "Flying" Saucer
e-mail: bsaucer@...
web page: www.zebra.net/~bsaucer
ICQ: 20610314

I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source, several years
ago reading a national magazine that had a story about measuring the
speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed was 1.5
lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what I remember.
Someone else may be able to track it down once they know what to look for.

>From: "alan j stepney" <alan@...>
>
>Just to throw a spanner in the works.....
>
>my understanding was that although it is theoretically impossible to travel
>AT the speed of light, the same theory does not preclude travel at OVER the
>speed of light.
>
>
>And , to lighten the discussion, this, if it did nothing else, would screw
>up the police speed traps!
>
>
>alan@...
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>    GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
>Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
>forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
>  <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


George Wiseman <wiseman@...>
President, CEO of Eagle-Research
http://www.eagle-research.com

George;
It was a 1994 article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. The speed of matter ejection
was over the speed of light, however if the source is travelling away from
you,(red or blue shift, I'm not sure which)the APPARENT speed can be greater
than that of light, but the actual speed is still the same as light.

-----Original Message-----
From: George Wiseman [mailto:wiseman@...]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 10:55 AM
To: free_energy@onelist.com
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Excess Light speed


From: George Wiseman <wiseman@...>

I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source, several years
ago reading a national magazine that had a story about measuring the
speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed was 1.5
lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what I remember.
Someone else may be able to track it down once they know what to look for.

>From: "alan j stepney" <alan@...>
>
>Just to throw a spanner in the works.....
>
>my understanding was that although it is theoretically impossible to travel
>AT the speed of light, the same theory does not preclude travel at OVER the
>speed of light.
>
>
>And , to lighten the discussion, this, if it did nothing else, would screw
>up the police speed traps!
>
>
>alan@...
>
>
>--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
>    GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
>Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
>forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
>  <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>


George Wiseman <wiseman@...>
President, CEO of Eagle-Research
http://www.eagle-research.com



--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
Sign up for eLerts at:
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, George.

The deal on that is actually pretty simple, and starting to become commonly
observed, now that astronomers know what to look for.  It's called
"superluminal motion", although nothing is actually moving faster than
light.

If a jet of matter from a supernova, or from a black hole or neutron star
that is accreting matter from some other nearby source, is moving at a
significant fraction of the speed of light and is headed almost directly
towards us, the wavefronts of light from the earliest ejected matter and the
most recent arrive here at the earth in such a way that it looks like the
material is moving sideways faster than the speed of light.

It's hard to visualize -- I finally worked it out by imagining somebody
sitting on a fast moving spaceship heading almost directly towards us.
Every few days he turns a flashlight on for a second.

Each blip of light is closely pursued by the ship, so all the blips arrive
at the Earth at almost the same time.  So, what we see is
blip-blip-blip-blip-blip, moving very rapidly sideways.  But nothing is
actually going faster than light; it's an illusion.

>From: George Wiseman <wiseman@...>

>I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source, several years
>ago reading a national magazine that had a story about measuring the
>speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed was 1.5
>lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what I remember.
>Someone else may be able to track it down once they know what to look for.

For some time I've read some of the discussion here on 'the speed of light'.
It is all based on the concept of 'time' is it not?  There is much information
supporting the idea that thought has substance and it does travel faster than
'the speed of light'.
Interesting, isn't it?
Janet Lee: Meisinger

George Wiseman wrote:

> From: George Wiseman <wiseman@...>
>
> I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source, several years
> ago reading a national magazine that had a story about measuring the
> speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed was 1.5
> lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what I remember.
> Someone else may be able to track it down once they know what to look for.
>
> >From: "alan j stepney" <alan@...>
> >
> >Just to throw a spanner in the works.....
> >
> >my understanding was that although it is theoretically impossible to travel
> >AT the speed of light, the same theory does not preclude travel at OVER the
> >speed of light.
> >
> >
> >And , to lighten the discussion, this, if it did nothing else, would screw
> >up the police speed traps!
> >
> >
> >alan@...
> >
> >
> >--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
> >
> >    GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
> >Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
> >forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
> >  <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
>
> George Wiseman <wiseman@...>
> President, CEO of Eagle-Research
> http://www.eagle-research.com
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
> Sign up for eLerts at:
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
MZ�

Jim,

Very intrusting post you do realize you have hit upon n-space as in,
inversion. I would be interested to know who has measured the speed of
thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?

AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"

In a message dated 1/13/00 10:11:50 PM Central Standard Time,
mejim@... writes:

   To:   wiseman@... (George Wiseman)
  CC:    free_energy@onelist.com

  From: JIM MEISINGER <mejim@...>

  For some time I've read some of the discussion here on 'the speed of light'.
  It is all based on the concept of 'time' is it not?  There is much
information
  supporting the idea that thought has substance and it does travel faster than
  'the speed of light'.
  Interesting, isn't it?
  Janet Lee: Meisinger

  George Wiseman wrote:

  > From: George Wiseman <wiseman@...>
  >
  > I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source, several years
  > ago reading a national magazine that had a story about measuring the
  > speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed was 1.5
  > lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what I remember.
  > Someone else may be able to track it down once they know what to look for.
  >
  > >From: "alan j stepney" <alan@...>
  > >
  > >Just to throw a spanner in the works.....
  > >
  > >my understanding was that although it is theoretically impossible to
travel
  > >AT the speed of light, the same theory does not preclude travel at OVER
the
  > >speed of light.
  > >
  > >
  > >And , to lighten the discussion, this, if it did nothing else, would screw
  > >up the police speed traps!
  > >
  > >
  > >alan@...

Hi TU,
     First of all, if you notice, it was not Jim who sent this comment.  My
husband
Jim rarely uses the internet - does not have time.   He's just the one that
happened to open the account, 'cause he thought we might need it.  :)
     My studies have taken me far beyond what is taught at government controlled
universities.  And a part of my studies have been my own experience of learning
my
own capabilities.  At least scientists are beginning to acknowledge there are
other dimensions, not necessarily physical.  Thought, although being a 'thing
having substance' is subtle enough to tranverse those dimensions.  E-motions,
although fueled by energy, are not limited in their effect to 'the physical'.
Thought and emotion together are very powerful and do create, yet are not
limited
by space or time!
         I have, using thought and desire, discovered many things which add to my
knowingness but often cannot be 'physically proven'.  However, I find that when
I
'discover' something which I then consider as possibly the truth, often, there
will be a synchronistic event, shortly after I make the discoveries which
reinforce my discoveries and convinces me that, Yes - I am on the right track!
Yea!!!

Someday, I want to write a book about my experiences, but I'm not done
researching
yet.  For that reason, the above statements are copyrighted, but can be freely
quoted as long I am identified as the author.

Many Thanks,
Janet Lee: Meisinger

TUHeist@... wrote:

> From: TUHeist@...
>
> Jim,
>
> Very intrusting post you do realize you have hit upon n-space as in,
> inversion. I would be interested to know who has measured the speed of
> thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?
>
> AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"
>
> In a message dated 1/13/00 10:11:50 PM Central Standard Time,
> mejim@... writes:
>
>   To:   wiseman@... (George Wiseman)
>  CC:    free_energy@onelist.com
>
>  From: JIM MEISINGER <mejim@...>
>
>  For some time I've read some of the discussion here on 'the speed of light'.
>  It is all based on the concept of 'time' is it not?  There is much
> information
>  supporting the idea that thought has substance and it does travel faster than
>  'the speed of light'.
>  Interesting, isn't it?
>  Janet Lee: Meisinger
>
>  George Wiseman wrote:
>
>  > From: George Wiseman <wiseman@...>
>  >
>  > I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source, several years
>  > ago reading a national magazine that had a story about measuring the
>  > speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed was 1.5
>  > lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what I remember.
>  > Someone else may be able to track it down once they know what to look for.
>  >
>  > >From: "alan j stepney" <alan@...>
>  > >
>  > >Just to throw a spanner in the works.....
>  > >
>  > >my understanding was that although it is theoretically impossible to
> travel
>  > >AT the speed of light, the same theory does not preclude travel at OVER
> the
>  > >speed of light.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >And , to lighten the discussion, this, if it did nothing else, would screw
>  > >up the police speed traps!
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >alan@...
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
> Sign up for eLerts at:
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
MZ�

Oh, TU,
         Sorry, I didn't answer your question - "who has measured the speed of
thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?"
         I haven't found such a measurement and I believe it is because there are
some 'things' which are difficult to, or cannot be physically measured, being
non-physical.  However, just because those 'things' are not physical and have
not
been physically measured, does not mean they do not exist!!!  I have experienced
these 'things' and 'beings' definitely exist and have a profound impact on
people's every-day lives as well as the evolution of mankind and indeed the
entire
universe.

         Now - that's "The Universe As I Sense It".  :)  Copyright 2000
Thanks to all of you for 'sparking me' to put it in words.

Blessings,
Janet Lee: Meisinger


TUHeist@... wrote:

> From: TUHeist@...
>
> Jim,
>
> Very intrusting post you do realize you have hit upon n-space as in,
> inversion. I would be interested to know who has measured the speed of
> thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?
>
> AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"
>
> In a message dated 1/13/00 10:11:50 PM Central Standard Time,
> mejim@... writes:
>
>   To:   wiseman@... (George Wiseman)
>  CC:    free_energy@onelist.com
>
>  From: JIM MEISINGER <mejim@...>
>
>  For some time I've read some of the discussion here on 'the speed of light'.
>  It is all based on the concept of 'time' is it not?  There is much
> information
>  supporting the idea that thought has substance and it does travel faster than
>  'the speed of light'.
>  Interesting, isn't it?
>  Janet Lee: Meisinger
>
>  George Wiseman wrote:
>
>  > From: George Wiseman <wiseman@...>
>  >
>  > I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source, several years
>  > ago reading a national magazine that had a story about measuring the
>  > speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed was 1.5
>  > lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what I remember.
>  > Someone else may be able to track it down once they know what to look for.
>  >
>  > >From: "alan j stepney" <alan@...>
>  > >
>  > >Just to throw a spanner in the works.....
>  > >
>  > >my understanding was that although it is theoretically impossible to
> travel
>  > >AT the speed of light, the same theory does not preclude travel at OVER
> the
>  > >speed of light.
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >And , to lighten the discussion, this, if it did nothing else, would screw
>  > >up the police speed traps!
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >alan@...
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
> Sign up for eLerts at:
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
MZ�

From: JIM MEISINGER <mejim@...>


For some time I've read some of the discussion here on 'the speed of light'.
It is all based on the concept of 'time' is it not?  There is much
information supporting the idea that thought has substance and it does
travel faster than 'the speed of light'.
Interesting, isn't it?
Janet Lee: Meisinger




******* Interesting, Where can I find this information that support this
"idea".


Yes you are correct speed is about time as in the distance travel in a
measure of time,,

+180k miles per sec, 55 meters a second, 55 mile and hour, etc

I like Like TSM ( arrrrggg) would like to have more information on this. How
was this determined and measured.

It is an interesting thought but is their a good reason to think it other
than wishful thinking?

Janet,

So sorry my computer is gender blind it assumed by association of the name on
the email that the sender was male.  I respectfully stand corrected.  Also by
posting in or on an email in public forum you have or are guaranteed
copyright I do not recall all the particulars as my reference material has
all been packed. I am departing Oklahoma for San Diego I will be entering the
propulsion lab of "ZPower" Corp. Where I will be prototyping an antigravity
motor as well as other devices which we believe to be superconductive or
possess O/U resulting from their function.

Likewise I believe you are on point referencing the government controlled
learning environment of the universities. I have received multi emailing
regarding the DOE and DOD and the concessus is that they do not wont to learn
or discover any thing new due to the fact that it would up set the Status Que
requiring the rewriting of the established knowledge.  When the mathematical
establishment decided it was time to change from our standard math increments
such as Gallons to Liters I was thrust into the dark ages and completely lost
to math forever.

I applaud you self learning as I myself have learned so much more by
deviating from the established method of education I have a unique concept
however each time I attempt to reference in the text of our time I fail to
find any in-depth information it was not until I ventured in to Adventures
Unlimited book store as well as Border Lands of Science that I began to
discover the truth where I began to put two and two together.  It was really
funny because I discovered Antigravity from my abstract point of view in
about 6 months in 1997 although I had been contemplating vertical take off
and landing for a number of years prior to my discovery I had not applied
myself in an in-depth study and I was racking my brains in order to discover
a means of marketing a product.

I agree with the Synchronicity of events leading to the discovery of
Knowledge convincing us that we are indeed on the right track.  I sincerely
hope that you will reconsider waiting to start writing your book and instead
write about how you went about your discoveries and encompassing the scope of
your knowledge while it is still fresh and vibrant I believe this will guide
you into a better understanding as well as a living testament.

AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"






In a message dated 1/14/00 9:27:34 AM Central Standard Time,
mejim@... writes:

  CC:    free_energy@onelist.com

  Hi TU,
      First of all, if you notice, it was not Jim who sent this comment.  My
husband
  Jim rarely uses the internet - does not have time.   He's just the one that
  happened to open the account, 'cause he thought we might need it.  :)
      My studies have taken me far beyond what is taught at government
controlled
  universities.  And a part of my studies have been my own experience of
learning my
  own capabilities.  At least scientists are beginning to acknowledge there are
  other dimensions, not necessarily physical.  Thought, although being a 'thing
  having substance' is subtle enough to tranverse those dimensions.  E-motions,
  although fueled by energy, are not limited in their effect to 'the physical'.
  Thought and emotion together are very powerful and do create, yet are not
limited
  by space or time!
          I have, using thought and desire, discovered many things which add
to my
  knowingness but often cannot be 'physically proven'.  However, I find that
when I
  'discover' something which I then consider as possibly the truth, often,
there
  will be a synchronistic event, shortly after I make the discoveries which
  reinforce my discoveries and convinces me that, Yes - I am on the right
track!
  Yea!!!

  Someday, I want to write a book about my experiences, but I'm not done
researching
  yet.  For that reason, the above statements are copyrighted, but can be
freely
  quoted as long I am identified as the author.

  Many Thanks,
  Janet Lee: Meisinger

  TUHeist@... wrote:

  > From: TUHeist@...
  >
  > Jim,
  >
  > Very intrusting post you do realize you have hit upon n-space as in,
  > inversion. I would be interested to know who has measured the speed of
  > thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?
  >
  > AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"
  >
  > In a message dated 1/13/00 10:11:50 PM Central Standard Time,
  > mejim@... writes:
  >
  >   To:   wiseman@... (George Wiseman)
  >  CC:    free_energy@onelist.com
  >
  >  From: JIM MEISINGER <mejim@...>
  >
  >  For some time I've read some of the discussion here on 'the speed of
light'.
  >  It is all based on the concept of 'time' is it not?  There is much
  > information
  >  supporting the idea that thought has substance and it does travel faster
than
  >  'the speed of light'.
  >  Interesting, isn't it?
  >  Janet Lee: Meisinger
  >
  >  George Wiseman wrote:
  >
  >  > From: George Wiseman <wiseman@...>
  >  >
  >  > I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source, several years
  >  > ago reading a national magazine that had a story about measuring the
  >  > speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed was 1.5
  >  > lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what I remember.
  >  > Someone else may be able to track it down once they know what to look
for.
  >  >
  >  > >From: "alan j stepney" <alan@...>
  >  > >
  >  > >Just to throw a spanner in the works.....
  >  > >
  >  > >my understanding was that although it is theoretically impossible to
  > travel
  >  > >AT the speed of light, the same theory does not preclude travel at OVER
  > the
  >  > >speed of light.
  >  > >
  >  > >
  >  > >And , to lighten the discussion, this, if it did nothing else, would
screw
  >  > >up the police speed traps!
  >  > >
  >  > >
  >  > >alan@...

*****Excuse me,
In a previous post you stated " There is much information supporting the
idea that thought has substance and it does travel faster than 'the speed of
light'. " and now you are declaring you have not found such measurements.
What is the story do you have a reference to your statement or not? Where is
this "MUCH INFORMATION"? The point is not that "you have not found such
measurements" but you declared that it existed. Where is it? Where can we
review this body of knowledge that not only has such an insight to thought (
still a much debated topic among other scientist) that not only defines it
but has measured its speed. If someone made the statement thought is faster
than light I would assume they had good reason to believe that. How much
faster? .00000000001%, 01%, 1%, 10%, 100%, 1000%? I agree this would be hard
to measure but evidently you think someone did at least an estimate. How
much substance is in a thought? Do profound thoughts have more mass than a
passing a thought?

You may be willing to accept that some things can not be verified but still
be real and you maybe right but it is not science. That is an act of faith
and there is no room in the scientific method for faith. If you are building
a body of work around an act of faith I hope you have no intention of
calling it science. Religion, metaphysics, or pseudo-science would better
word to use for your "research" that has grown beyond empirically grounded
teaching. If in your "research" you see the Easter Bunny or a Unicorn (
assuming they are not the 'BEINGS' you refer to) take a picture.

What is the purpose of your research? Being you posting here I assume it has
something to do with FREE ENERGY. Do you need somebody to send you money so
the BEINGS can help you build a FREE ENERGY  machine? What information can
you offer an investor other than an appeal for them to have faith? Are you
promoting a cult? $cientoligy?

You should also review the TOS you agreed to when you signed up with ONELIST
in regards to copyrights.


Existence is a measurement. If something IS then we have one measurement"it
is". This is a point many hucksters want you to forget. Some things can be
difficult and nigh impossible to measure but we can always determine if it
REAL or NOT. Many free energy hucksters claim this and claim that some claim
to have a working model but for some reason do not want anyone to verify
even the existence of the claim. If nothing else "it is" or "is not' real.


From: JIM MEISINGER < mejim@... <mailto:mejim@...> >


Oh, TU,
         Sorry, I didn't answer your question - "who has measured the speed
of thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?"
         I haven't found such a measurement and I believe it is because there
are some 'things' which are difficult to, or cannot be physically measured,
being non-physical.  However, just because those 'things' are not physical
and have not been physically measured, does not mean they do not exist!!!  I
have experienced these 'things' and 'beings' definitely exist and have a
profound impact on people's every-day lives as well as the evolution of
mankind and indeed the entire universe.

         Now - that's "The Universe As I Sense It".  :)  Copyright 2000
Thanks to all of you for 'sparking me' to put it in words.


Blessings,
Janet Lee: Meisinger



TUHeist@... <mailto:TUHeist@...>  wrote:


From: TUHeist@...

Jim,


Very intrusting post you do realize you have hit upon n-space as in,
inversion. I would be interested to know who has measured the speed of
thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?


AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"


In a message dated 1/13/00 10:11:50 PM Central Standard Time,
mejim@... <mailto:mejim@...>  writes:


   To:   wiseman@... (George Wiseman)


   _____

Mark,

Just one question you state that faith has no place in science? Then why are
you looking for O/U if in fact you have no faith that you will ever find it?
Maybe you should just give up now while you are still young :^)  You know
it`s not to late to rethink your position in this life or the next.

AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"

In a message dated 1/14/00 5:35:09 PM Central Standard Time,
MHarrison@... writes:
   *****Excuse me,
  In a previous post you stated " There is much information supporting the
  idea that thought has substance and it does travel faster than 'the speed of
  light'. " and now you are declaring you have not found such measurements.
  What is the story do you have a reference to your statement or not? Where is
  this "MUCH INFORMATION"? The point is not that "you have not found such
  measurements" but you declared that it existed. Where is it? Where can we
  review this body of knowledge that not only has such an insight to thought (
  still a much debated topic among other scientist) that not only defines it
  but has measured its speed. If someone made the statement thought is faster
  than light I would assume they had good reason to believe that. How much
  faster? .00000000001%, 01%, 1%, 10%, 100%, 1000%? I agree this would be hard
  to measure but evidently you think someone did at least an estimate. How
  much substance is in a thought? Do profound thoughts have more mass than a
  passing a thought?

  You may be willing to accept that some things can not be verified but still
  be real and you maybe right but it is not science. That is an act of faith
  and there is no room in the scientific method for faith. If you are building
  a body of work around an act of faith I hope you have no intention of
  calling it science. Religion, metaphysics, or pseudo-science would better
  word to use for your "research" that has grown beyond empirically grounded
  teaching. If in your "research" you see the Easter Bunny or a Unicorn (
  assuming they are not the 'BEINGS' you refer to) take a picture.

  What is the purpose of your research? Being you posting here I assume it has
  something to do with FREE ENERGY. Do you need somebody to send you money so
  the BEINGS can help you build a FREE ENERGY  machine? What information can
  you offer an investor other than an appeal for them to have faith? Are you
  promoting a cult? $cientoligy?

  You should also review the TOS you agreed to when you signed up with ONELIST
  in regards to copyrights.

    Existence is a measurement. If something IS then we have one measurement"it
  is". This is a point many hucksters want you to forget. Some things can be
  difficult and nigh impossible to measure but we can always determine if it
  REAL or NOT. Many free energy hucksters claim this and claim that some claim
  to have a working model but for some reason do not want anyone to verify
  even the existence of the claim. If nothing else "it is" or "is not' real.

  From: JIM MEISINGER < mejim@... <mailto:mejim@...> >

  Oh, TU,
          Sorry, I didn't answer your question - "who has measured the speed
  of thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?"
          I haven't found such a measurement and I believe it is because there
  are some 'things' which are difficult to, or cannot be physically measured,
  being non-physical.  However, just because those 'things' are not physical
  and have not been physically measured, does not mean they do not exist!!!  I
  have experienced these 'things' and 'beings' definitely exist and have a
  profound impact on people's every-day lives as well as the evolution of
  mankind and indeed the entire universe.

          Now - that's "The Universe As I Sense It".  :)  Copyright 2000
  Thanks to all of you for 'sparking me' to put it in words.


  Blessings,
  Janet Lee: Meisinger

  TUHeist@... <mailto:TUHeist@...>  wrote:
   From: TUHeist@...
  Jim,
   Very intrusting post you do realize you have hit upon n-space as in,
  inversion. I would be interested to know who has measured the speed of
  thought and how they were able to accomplish the measurements?

  AKA the "Temporal Subliminal Man"

Hi

Here are some references about excess light speed
experiments/measurements:

Enders/Nimtz: Photonic-tunneling experiments, Physical review B, Vol.
47, No. 15(1993), pp. 9605-9609

Enders/Nimtz: Evanescent-mode propagation and quantum tunneling,
Physical review E, Vol. 48, No. 1(1993), pp. 632-633

Reported are experimets with microwaves, reaching overlight speed (2.5
.. 5 times c) when sent through a wave-guide with partly narrowed
diameter which forces them to "tunnel".
The effect cannot be explained by classical physics.

But be aware of the choice of words: This is not moving of particles
faster then light, but moving of an electromagnetic wave faster the the
assumed CONSTANT speed of light. Maybe this very assumtion has to be
revised ...

Andreas

HI all,   I would have to agree with TU &  Janet    that O/U  & THOUGHT
faster than light are        all possible and do exits!  They do belong
on     this list and are interesting!   But I what I  would  like to
know is Why people who don't believe      in O/U  or other topics  are
doing on this LIST!!   Seems like their only  purpose  for being  on
this list is to just put others down  for  believeing in something new &
different.  The     whole purpose of this list is to share new
information & viewpoints on free-energy and       related areas if
people who don'T agree with     this proably should not be on this
List!!                                                      Thanks
Phil

Thanks Andreas,
I doubt that you had to work very hard to bring this information to us. If
every one was a conscientious as you discussion would certainly be more
productive. I do not have easy access to those publication but will try to
find them. Are they online?
Do you not think it odd that this information is +7 years old and no new
information has been made? I THINK that this may be a similar to an error
made by astronomer who mistakenly declared that some super nova ejecta was
traveling at FTL speeds. It turned out to be the result of some sort of
"relativity" illusion. Something to do with energy emitted from a near light
speed source. I do not understand it well enough myself to explain it. This
could be why no new information has been made available. If anyone wishes I
will did up the source.
I do find this to be very interesting.
Do I understand correctly? The speeds where attained by forcing a light
stream down a tunnel whose size shrank.
Hmmmm,
I still wish the speed of thought was available.


		 : free_energy@onelist.com
		 Subject: Re: [free_energy] Excess Light speed

		 From: andreas dittrich <adittrich@...>

		 Hi

		 Here are some references about excess light speed
		 experiments/measurements:

		 Enders/Nimtz: Photonic-tunneling experiments, Physical
review B, Vol.
		 47, No. 15(1993), pp. 9605-9609

		 Enders/Nimtz: Evanescent-mode propagation and quantum
tunneling,
		 Physical review E, Vol. 48, No. 1(1993), pp. 632-633

		 Reported are experimets with microwaves, reaching overlight
speed (2.5
		 . 5 times c) when sent through a wave-guide with partly
narrowed
		 diameter which forces them to "tunnel".
		 The effect cannot be explained by classical physics.

		 But be aware of the choice of words: This is not moving of
particles
		 faster then light, but moving of an electromagnetic wave
faster the the
		 assumed CONSTANT speed of light. Maybe this very assumtion
has to be
		 revised ...

		 Andreas

Duuu,
See the post below made on THIS LIST by Bon Dubner 1/13 on the super nova
ejecta illusion.
Bob I only have a vague recollection on this. Do you remember where you saw
this? I think it was in either America Scientist or Sky and Telescope 98-98.
If remember correctly the team who made the claim agreed with the discovery.
Please email me or the list.

		 -----Original Message-----
		 From: Bob Dubner [mailto:rdubner@...]
		 Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2000 8:09 PM
		 To: free_energy@onelist.com
		 Subject: RE: [free_energy] Excess Light speed

		 From: "Bob Dubner" <rdubner@...>

		 Hi, George.

		 The deal on that is actually pretty simple, and starting to
become commonly
		 observed, now that astronomers know what to look for.  It's
called
		 "superluminal motion", although nothing is actually moving
faster than
		 light.

		 If a jet of matter from a supernova, or from a black hole or
neutron star
		 that is accreting matter from some other nearby source, is
moving at a
		 significant fraction of the speed of light and is headed
almost directly
		 towards us, the wavefronts of light from the earliest
ejected matter and the
		 most recent arrive here at the earth in such a way that it
looks like the
		 material is moving sideways faster than the speed of light.

		 It's hard to visualize -- I finally worked it out by
imagining somebody
		 sitting on a fast moving spaceship heading almost directly
towards us.
		 Every few days he turns a flashlight on for a second.

		 Each blip of light is closely pursued by the ship, so all
the blips arrive
		 at the Earth at almost the same time.  So, what we see is
		 blip-blip-blip-blip-blip, moving very rapidly sideways.  But
nothing is
		 actually going faster than light; it's an illusion.

		 >From: George Wiseman <wiseman@...>

		 >I remember, but unfortunately don't remember the source,
several years
		 >ago reading a national magazine that had a story about
measuring the
		 >speed of matter being ejected from a supernova.  The speed
was 1.5
		 >lightspeed.  I'm not saying yea or nay, just reporting what
I remember.
		 >Someone else may be able to track it down once they know
what to look for.


		 --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor
----------------------------

		 Get great offers on top-notch products that match your
interests!
		 Sign up for eLerts at:
		 <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click
Here</a>


------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 11:37 AM 1/15/00 , you wrote:
>From: andreas dittrich <adittrich@...>
>
>
>Hi
>
>Here are some references about excess light speed
>experiments/measurements:
>
>Enders/Nimtz: Photonic-tunneling experiments, Physical review B, Vol.
>47, No. 15(1993), pp. 9605-9609
>
>Enders/Nimtz: Evanescent-mode propagation and quantum tunneling,
>Physical review E, Vol. 48, No. 1(1993), pp. 632-633
>
>Reported are experimets with microwaves, reaching overlight speed (2.5
>. 5 times c) when sent through a wave-guide with partly narrowed
>diameter which forces them to "tunnel".
>The effect cannot be explained by classical physics.
>
>But be aware of the choice of words: This is not moving of particles
>faster then light, but moving of an electromagnetic wave faster the the
>assumed CONSTANT speed of light. Maybe this very assumtion has to be
>revised ...

I don't think the constant needs to be revised. What happens is that the
wave pulse changes shape, so that the maximum energy shifts from the front
to the back of the wave pulse. So the energy content does NOT travel faster
than light. Only the phase does.


Ben "Flying" Saucer
e-mail: bsaucer@...
web page: www.zebra.net/~bsaucer
ICQ: 20610314

Dear Mark -- This is still a rather controversial topic in the physics
community.  Well respected people sit on both sides of the fence.  From
my point of view, it's as much a semantic argument as anything.  But I
can't help thinking that the bias toward an absolute velocity limit is
too much influenced by habit:  we've been saying that c is a fundamental
physical limit for so long that the idea (unthinkable when it was first
suggested!) has a momentum of its own.     David

Harrison, Mark wrote:
>
> From: "Harrison, Mark" <MHarrison@...>
>
> Thanks Andreas,
> I doubt that you had to work very hard to bring this information to us. If
> every one was a conscientious as you discussion would certainly be more
> productive. I do not have easy access to those publication but will try to
> find them. Are they online?
> Do you not think it odd that this information is +7 years old and no new
> information has been made? I THINK that this may be a similar to an error
> made by astronomer who mistakenly declared that some super nova ejecta was
> traveling at FTL speeds. It turned out to be the result of some sort of
> "relativity" illusion. Something to do with energy emitted from a near light
> speed source. I do not understand it well enough myself to explain it. This
> could be why no new information has been made available. If anyone wishes I
> will did up the source.
> I do find this to be very interesting.
> Do I understand correctly? The speeds where attained by forcing a light
> stream down a tunnel whose size shrank.
> Hmmmm,
> I still wish the speed of thought was available.
>
>                 :       free_energy@onelist.com
>                 Subject:        Re: [free_energy] Excess Light speed
>
>                 From: andreas dittrich <adittrich@...>
>
>                 Hi
>
>                 Here are some references about excess light speed
>                 experiments/measurements:
>
>                 Enders/Nimtz: Photonic-tunneling experiments, Physical
> review B, Vol.
>                 47, No. 15(1993), pp. 9605-9609
>
>                 Enders/Nimtz: Evanescent-mode propagation and quantum
> tunneling,
>                 Physical review E, Vol. 48, No. 1(1993), pp. 632-633
>
>                 Reported are experimets with microwaves, reaching overlight
> speed (2.5
>                 . 5 times c) when sent through a wave-guide with partly
> narrowed
>                 diameter which forces them to "tunnel".
>                 The effect cannot be explained by classical physics.
>
>                 But be aware of the choice of words: This is not moving of
> particles
>                 faster then light, but moving of an electromagnetic wave
> faster the the
>                 assumed CONSTANT speed of light. Maybe this very assumtion
> has to be
>                 revised ...
>
>                 Andreas
>
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get great offers on top-notch products that match your interests!
> Sign up for eLerts at:
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/elerts1 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Janet LEEs off list response posted and my reply.

-----Original Message-----
From: JIM MEISINGER [mailto:mejim@...]
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 11:38 PM
To: Harrison, Mark; Janet Lee Meisinger
Subject: Re: [free_energy] Excess Light speed


You missed the point altogether.  I have no need to 'convince anyone of
anything', but I'm glad I've learned what I have and I know what I know.  It
has been through my personal experience, and that which I've learned which
is the most 'profound' cannot be 'measured' by 'your science' - which is too
narrow.  That's the point!
Janet Lee





******** Mark replies*****
You have missed the point. Was it deliberate?
Where is the information you claimed existed in abundance?
What is the speed of thought? Who said? How do they know? Where can we find
this information?
You are the one who done the "research" please give us some clue you are
doing more than making a baseless extraordinary claim.
If you have no need to CONVINCE why did you make your statement of the "most
profound" nature? Do you want to recruit some Jim Jones & Marshall Apple
White type of followers who will just take simply assume you know it all? Is
it your goal to travel the world with a bunch of blindly accepting idiots
trying to sell free energy words for these un-provable "beings"? It appears
that you are Preaching and not trying convince. If it is not off topic give
us some details here. You state it is not provable give us some details and
I am sure something can be done to prove your claim. It is not "my" science
it is just science. The same science that pulled humanity from the dark
ages, improved the quality of life for most, proved that we are subjected to
natural laws not superstitions, and will prove or disprove free energy. What
have you learn so profound? Lets have it end the vague marketing like
references to it so we can measure it and discuss it.
Science is narrow. It is narrow like a sieve and serves the same purpose,
filtering crap from the worthwhile. A process that willingly encourages crap
to mix with the worthwhile is not science. It is something ugly and
dishonest. I have ask several question and given room for a weasel to squirm
by but above all you owe it to us to answer these questions:
What is the speed of thought? Who said? How do they know? Where can we find
this information?  Is Lee you maiden name?