Electrogravitics: the REAL Reason It Went Into Black Ops

reply to post by Amaterasu


I can't argue with that

It just seemed clear to me all those years ago reading Asimov's books, that although his laws were primarily in place to stop robots from harming humans (the Frankenstein complex), they could just as easily be applied to humans to stop them harming each other.

He envisioned this & so much more (try reading his 'foundation' trilogy).
He obviously saw all the problems we are discussing now, back in 1940, and he made some very insightful remarks on future politics, social issues etc, based on a high tech resource based society.
He even wrote a few crime novels on the only 2 types of crime you will get in the 24th century;
Crimes of passion, and copyright claims.
If all info was open sourced, you may use it as you wish, but would have to credit the author, so that leaves only crimes of passion
Sounds good to me

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by RogerT
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I agree with everything you are saying so far in this thread.
Are you saying you could build a FE machine if you had the funds?
How much do you need, I might be able to help?

I would need space (lab), materials, something to live on while I work... And some machining. I suspect that just obtaining materials will get Me (more) noticed by TPTB.

The exact amount that I need, starting from zero, may be $100,000, but Others, who have lab space and a job might be as little as $1,000 if They also have machining capabilities. (I haven't priced the materials lately...)

Being mostly an economist, writer/editor, and graphic/multimedia designer/artist (unemployed, homeless), I would be a less obvious choice to do this, but I would do My best. (Have You seen My thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com... ?)

Thanks for being so candid.
I could arrange the funds, but for the larger sum, I'd need some guarantees and a lot more understanding of how, what, when and where ;0)

reply to post by RogerT


Perhaps We should take this U2U... I will U2U You.

I would start by reading the book I linked to in the OP, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. I suspect there is enough information there to work with.

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I can't argue with that

It just seemed clear to me all those years ago reading Asimov's books, that although his laws were primarily in place to stop robots from harming humans (the Frankenstein complex), they could just as easily be applied to humans to stop them harming each other.

He envisioned this & so much more (try reading his 'foundation' trilogy).
He obviously saw all the problems we are discussing now, back in 1940, and he made some very insightful remarks on future politics, social issues etc, based on a high tech resource based society.
He even wrote a few crime novels on the only 2 types of crime you will get in the 24th century;
Crimes of passion, and copyright claims.
If all info was open sourced, you may use it as you wish, but would have to credit the author, so that leaves only crimes of passion

Sounds good to me

[smile] Yes, and, statistically, crimes of passion don't exist - and many now revolve around money. Copyright will not be an issue... What would be the motive to "steal" another's work when documentation of who and when will be substantial. All it will do is serve the One "stealing" to become pariah. (I have read the Foundation Trilogy...and most other fiction of Asimov. [smile])

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by RogerT

 

Perhaps We should take this U2U... I will U2U You.

I would start by reading the book I linked to in the OP, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. I suspect there is enough information there to work with.

No one is going to give you money. But should you find a sucker to do it, at least you can be happy knowing you've moved up in the ranks of the free energy scam.

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by RogerT

 

Perhaps We should take this U2U... I will U2U You.

I would start by reading the book I linked to in the OP, Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion. I suspect there is enough information there to work with.

No one is going to give you money. But should you find a sucker to do it, at least you can be happy knowing you've moved up in the ranks of the free energy scam.

You're right.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Good, so you have heard of 'phsychohistory'
The man had vision, that's for sure.

@Boncho; It's the one reason that i fund all my research myself (and that's not easy).
No-one can claim i am running a scam if i am putting my own money into it, and no-one gets to take the credit for it if it works

Off-topic; My next investment will be a Colchester 2000 lathe, probably the best machine ever built by mankind
Far more valuable than the 2000-4000 bucks it will cost.

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Good, so you have heard of 'phsychohistory'

The man had vision, that's for sure.

@Boncho; It's the one reason that i fund all my research myself (and that's not easy).
No-one can claim i am running a scam if i am putting my own money into it, and no-one gets to take the credit for it if it works

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And quite a fulfilling hobby I imagine, whether or not you find your holy grail.

reply to post by boncho


Yes, but the moment i start asking for funds, it will be labelled as a scam

Besides, we've been over this in the 'water as fuel' threads.
The 'how & why' have more or less been dealt with, it's possible.
Amaterasu has a point because of the impact of free energy, our whole social structure will have to change.
This ties in perfectly with the Zeitgeist, Anonymous, & other developing issues.
We don't have time to argue aesthetics, morals, religion or politics.
We should busy ourselves with the "why & how" of sustainable living, and by doing so, we will change ourselves.
It won't be pretty, but it has to happen IMO.

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by boncho

 

Yes, but the moment i start asking for funds, it will be labelled as a scam

Not if you can provide some evidence of a practical model. Because any investor (who actually knows what he is doing) would not invest unless you can provide that.

Then you are not a scam.

People do not invest in ideas, they invest in working prototypes that will come to market after commercialization.

If you are looking for investment on an idea, then you are asking for R&D money, provided usually by Academic Institutions, Governments or large Corporations. But those ideas are usually backed with the best credentials around. There are thousands upon thousands that have earned those positions.

Regardless, anyone can come up with a profitable idea from their basement, what separates the frauds from the real inventors are the ones that are asking for money before they have come up with anything useful.

so basically we're just talking about a mashup of asimov's 3 laws with some aleister crowley (do what thou will but hurt no one)

I detect quite a bit of bucky fuller in the philosiphy soup as well... well minus things that are useful like tensegrity and etc....

Honestly I tire of being told to read your "book" constantly and your smug self satisfaction in the face of what have been some pretty devastating points made by others in this thread.

The funny and sad thing is, I'd love to believe in and drink the kool aid of an abundance based society, but what you're selling is nothing but the vision of others craftily changed just enough to make it seem like "your own ideas"

The reality is nothing you have said is at all revolutionary or new in any way, and in all actuality Robert Buckminster Fuller beat you to the punch by a good thirty plus years in trying to get people to see their way out of the scarcity paradigm. The only difference is Bucky provided concrete ways and means to do so while you....

Well you came up with "your" three laws....

Now don't get me wrong I am a big fan of bucky fuller and the vision's he had for society, but to see someone else take his ideas and mash them up in a pop culture blender with some other stuff and calling it their own infuriates me.

Originally posted by roguetechie
Honestly I tire of being told to read your "book" constantly and your smug self satisfaction in the face of what have been some pretty devastating points made by others in this thread.

Then You haven't really followed the fact that all My questions go unanswered, that I answer points over and over ad nauseum, that straw men are built with the hopes I will tackle them, and You don't know the history of these selfsame things from at least one of these posters in many other threads.

I am hardly smug, My dear. I just have no interest in playing games.

EDIT to add: MY book? I didn't write Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion if that is the book You're referring to. I am not the author (though You can read a book I DID write linked in My sig.). That was written by a man (I'm a woman) named Paul A. LaViolette.

The funny and sad thing is, I'd love to believe in and drink the kool aid of an abundance based society, but what you're selling is nothing but the vision of others craftily changed just enough to make it seem like "your own ideas"

The funny, though not necessarily sad, thing is, I haven't read ANY of what You referenced My work as being. Except for Asimov, and I didn't apply His work to Mine (never mentioned Laws for robots...), all I present is by My own calculation. Though I guess I am flattered to be compared to these. If YOU think I used Their work, I don't care.

Still, seems a cut-off-Your-nose-to-spite-Your-face approach. Gee. It looks like it would be marvelous but it looks like the work was "stolen" so I won't support it. How silly is that?

The reality is nothing you have said is at all revolutionary or new in any way, and in all actuality Robert Buckminster Fuller beat you to the punch by a good thirty plus years in trying to get people to see their way out of the scarcity paradigm. The only difference is Bucky provided concrete ways and means to do so while you....

Ah. He considered what the addition of abundant free energy would create in society. Cool.

Well you came up with "your" three laws....

No. I never call them "MY" Laws. They are THE three Laws. If You look at My work more closely, You will see where I point out that there are only three Laws, all else being edict, mandate, act, code, declaration, constitution, etc. These Laws preceded Me, and I see great value in them, so I incorporated them, realizing they are the only Laws required when money is removed from the scene. Do You suggest there is a problem here? That ancient Laws should not be used (or others' work, for that matter) in contemplating the results of abundant energy?

Geez.

Now don't get me wrong I am a big fan of bucky fuller and the vision's he had for society, but to see someone else take his ideas and mash them up in a pop culture blender with some other stuff and calling it their own infuriates me.

I'll have to read Fuller. I'd be interested in seeing how closely Our ideas parallel. But if You are seeing the consideration of the consequences of adding abundant free energy to society as "pop culture," You may be unreachable. (Did Bucky address adding abundant free energy? Ooo. I hope so. Would love to see a brilliant mind work that.)

reply to post by boncho


This device is not going to be marketed or commercialised in any way, once i have the bigger units running, i will open source it
And it uses off-the-shelf technology, nothing you can't get at Radio Shack.

reply to post by Amaterasu


I see there are still people around who can't give credence to the fact that 2 or more people can have the same idea.......
It was me who mentioned Asimov, since i saw the similarity to yours, and Asimov beat everybody to it in 1950 when he wrote 'the evitable conflict'
IMO the energy scarcity problem once used to fool us into paying more for oil, is now fast becoming real.
Peak oil has arrived! let's party

Originally posted by playswithmachines
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

I see there are still people around who can't give credence to the fact that 2 or more people can have the same idea.......
It was me who mentioned Asimov, since i saw the similarity to yours, and Asimov beat everybody to it in 1950 when he wrote 'the evitable conflict'
IMO the energy scarcity problem once used to fool us into paying more for oil, is now fast becoming real.
Peak oil has arrived! let's party

Well... I don't believe in "peak oil," given that pumps restarted after a decade or so in fields that were "played out" began pumping oil at full capacity again...

But I find it odd that, since ALL work is based on foundational work of Others, the poster had issues with the idea that My work seemed to have foundations in Others' work. Rather weird, n'est pas?

reply to post by Amaterasu


Precisely
I had ideas that someone later (or earlier) have had, it's not uncommon.
I really don't see what all the fuss is about.
I am a cynic at heart, so i often see the bad side of everything.
But that doesn't mean i don't see the good side.
Somebody once told me that whatever emotion you project, gets reflected back to you, and that's very true.
So i try to subdue my negative side & concentrate on the positive things, and it works.
Being positive to other people often creates more positive feedback, everybody happy.
Well, nearly everybody....

reply to post by boncho


To expand on that, i would count a 'practical model' as something useful.
What i am making is just that, but 3 watts is not very useful, 30Kw is.
I have enough components to build stuff up to 100Kw, so first i am scaling up the whole process, so it's undeniable proof of overunity and can be accessed by anyone.
Vive la techno revolution

reply to post by playswithmachines


I try to maintain positiveness... It becomes rough when My questions are not answered though I address the whole They put up, over and over, and when straw men are built. But then... I positively tell Them They're right. (Well, ok, with a roll of the eyes, I admit. [grin])

Overall, in real life, I am a quite positive person.

I expect to get this information out there. Despite some few. Quite positive, I think. [smile]