Physics Experts, can you help out here?

[AssTelescope]

http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

 

[Eric]

very hard to read,
Do I get the prize?



"AssTelescope" <fiveskin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fb4e26@duster.adelaide.on.net...
http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162&postdays=0&postorde
r=asc&start=0

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

 

[John G]

"AssTelescope" <fiveskin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fb4e26@duster.adelaide.on.net...

http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

So hard to read!

Wot are you on about?
--
John G

Wot's Your Real Problem?

 

[Ed Earl Ross]

AssTelescope wrote:

http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

Aether is part of an obsolete model of the universe, and is taught
for its historical significance. It was first invented by the
philosopher Aristotle, at the time fire, earth, air and water were
considered elements that composed the universe. Aether become
obsolete, with the discovery that the universe is made of mass and
energy.

I didn't understand the first few paragraphs, and didn't read
further. However, there are only two "equations" with no
mathematical proof, as far as I can tell.

Humbly--Ed

 

[Eric]

"AssTelescope" <fiveskin@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41fb4e26@duster.adelaide.on.net...
http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162&postdays=0&postorde
r=asc&start=0

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

 

[Pooh Bear]

AssTelescope wrote:

http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

The Hutchison Effect
Canadian inventor John Hutchison is credited with the discovery of a highly-anomalous
electromagnetic effect which causes the jellification of metals, spontaneous levitation of
common substances, and other effects resulting from what is believed to be a very complex
scalar-wave interaction between electromagnetic fields and matter.



Maybe you need the kind of help offered by psychiatrists ?


Graham

 

[Pooh Bear]

AssTelescope wrote:

http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=162&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

Video Clip Notes
I've received a number of messages about the above video-links pointing out that a string is
clearly visibly holding up the toy-UFO that Hutchison is experimenting with. I asked John for
more information on the purpose of the string, and received the following reply:

"The string is not string but #32-gauge double polythermalized wire on a takeup up reel with
20 to 50000 volts DC. Then the main apparatus was turned on, causing the toy plastic ufo to
fly all about in amazing gyrations. This was a pretest to gryphon films airing this fall for
fox TV. I did not need the extra high voltage 2000 time period so the toy levitated without a
high voltage hook up during the filming for gryphon there was a string on the toy no
high-voltage dc but interesting movements." - John Hutchison


http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html

Thanks for the laugh !


Graham

 

[colin beeforth]

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:50:33 +1100, AssTelescope wrote:

http://www.hutchisoneffect.com/

I would appreciate some feedback on this.

Yeah, sure!

It's incomprehensible nonsense - meaningless gobbledegook.

It is intended to impress someone with no knowledge of physics. Perhaps
that gives you some insight into the person behind it. Not sane, or a con
artist - take your pick.

Cheers, Colin

 

[Davorak]

Wrong statement or at least explained horribly:
"Light is angular momentum per second."
This is not a fundamental expression for light. Everything that has
momentum can be said to have angular momentum with respect to a point
in space.
Wrong statement or at least explained horribly:
"An electron, proton, or neutron that spins produces a strong nuclear
charge around its mass. That's the meaning of the equation:"
Incorrect terminology. Spin does not "produce a strong nuclear
charge." Nor is spin fundamental in the strong force.
Wrong statement or at least explained horribly:
"There is a strong nuclear charge around an electron's mass, too. But
it is only 5.452e. Electrons only stick together in plasmas or under
very strict resonance conditions."
Using common terminology, electrons don't stick together period, they
repel each other.

I stopped here. Every paragraph so far has some fundamentaly wrong
idea in it.

Hope this helps It is not worth the time to tear apart this guys
arguments piece by piece.