Re: Gravity....Push vs. Pull / Geostationary

Gerald O'Docharty ( (no email) )
Fri, 31 Jul 1998 00:50:50 -0400

Edward Kauffmann wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gerald O'Docharty <geraldod@bellsouth.net>
> To: KeelyNet Discussion List <KeelyNet@DallasTexas.net>
> Date: Thursday, July 30, 1998 9:19 PM
> Subject: Re: Gravity....Push vs. Pull / Geostationary
>
> >Here we go again.
> Hey, you might not even be sarcastic here... that could also be my
> perception. <g>
>
Yes it is a little sarcastic but hopefully understood to be in a
friendly sort of way as among buddies. We've been going back and forth
on this since the old BBS days and I always take the unique viewpoint
that its not exclusively PUSH or PULL since those are insufficent
dead-end concepts.

> >Things I want to discuss:
> >Matter particles; what are they and where do they come from?
> >Force; what is it?
> >Motion; why and how.
>
> I thought you knew everything? <g>

Of course I do! Didn't you notice my initials? G.O'D. HA!

You wrote:
> And I would like to discuss the subject Jerry mentioned back in March about
> flipping magnetic fields, but I didn't see you or anyone else jump in on
> that when I've been trying to bring it up again for discussion.
>
> Ed

Sorry Ed, I hadn't joined the mail-list yet in March. I'll have to see
if I can obtain the archives on your postings for then. Did you have
questions about flipping magnetic fields or were you sharing something
about it that required answers? I have extensive engineering background
in magnetics so maybe I can help. Actually, now I do recall making a
posting related to that. See my response: "Re: Magnetocaloric &
Pyromagnetic Effects" dated Fri, 17 Apr 1998.

The three topics I listed above are going to be necessary to be
understood in a different way than popularly conceived before we can
make real progress in anti-gravity, teleportation, time travel, etc. I
don't intend to address them in a mathematical manner, but rather an
enlightened philosophical approach is necessary.
Much in the manner that Newton's or Copernicus's philosophical
viewpoints gave new directions to science, so too I suggest that now we
need to discuss these things again in a new light.

To everyone:
I hope no-one is offended by my to-the-point directeness and matter of
fact way of commenting on things. I know most all of us scientists have
big egos that love to get stroked and we get defensive when someone else
shoves their big ego in front of us. I'd love for you all to know me and
love me but lets skip that and just dig into the matter and take what is
said at face value and critique if necessary on an objective level. I
have no axe to grind against anyone or any established group and I'm not
selling anything. I'll share anything I discover or observe freely with
all as I always have done. Who knows maybe you'll be the one to find the
hole or flaw in my theories that enable me to perfect it. I likewise
might do the same for you. Now isn't that what this board is all about.
of course there are many topics discussed here but my subset is
certainly mainline on-topic for the list.

Regards,
Gerald O'