Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Plug Heater

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics


  • *Total Posts: 508967
  • *Total Topics: 15176
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 4
  • *Guests: 8
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED  (Read 403872 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #480 on: March 05, 2014, 05:21:50 AM »
Bill, I have had to learn that to some over unity means magical free energy - and that is not what we have.
You do not have what you claim.  Shall we review the list yet again?
Quote

If you read all my posts on the other thread - you will only need to read a few - and you will see where I shared the struggles our early engineers had with seperating that distinction.
The walls of blather showed nothing material.  They did demonstrate your behavior.
Quote

TK ALWAYS OMITS THE CONTENT _ IF IT DOES NOT FIT HIS LIES>
Kindly provide an example of a lie you claim that TK has told.
Quote

Bill,

We have mechanical amplification.
Mechanical amplification of force or power are trivial.  They do not produce energy ex nihilo as you falsely claim to do.
Quote

I am sorry you accept TKs tactics of creating scenrio's to call people liars - do you know hown many times he - not having a clue - and still does not - how our system operates insisted that a single ZED must be over unity - because - in his assumption - that two under unity systems  can not be combined to produce excess energy?
The efficiency of each constituent sub process in a composite process multiply.  Losses cannot be made up in volume.  If one ZED is underunity:  And it unquestionably is, then any number N ZEDs placed in series or parallel are similarly underunity.
Quote

I am sorry Smart guys like Mark E - fall for his crap.

And Many jumped in total ignorance agreeing....

The part of my answer that TK left ommited to share - was this - Yes you can have an excess with a single ZED - much more complicated and slower - you will have to configure a way to capture and reuse the exhuast - and re insert it at the next stroke.
Any single ZED is unquestionably under unity.  Were any ZED in any form OU, you could point to the specific subprocess that is OU.  You cannot do so, because there is no such OU subprocess.  All of the processes are under unity as is the composite contraption.
Quote

You still can altered heights for proper speed with a dual system- but is stupid.

Over unity or free energy or net energy of a "little" is pointless - our first single layer pod system was PE certified on the upstroke at 105% and that did not include reusing the exhuast. That engineer repeated, and repeated, called in others, repeated, and then prayed and then started over (white sheeted) three times again - and then accepted just 105%
If any PE has written a report that supports your false claims to an over unity / free energy device I would like to see a copy of the signed report.  I'm sure the certifying authority and his E&O insurer would like to see it as well.
Quote

Which is a total waste of time - since my goal was Net energy - I could care less about the covet claim - I am ashamed that men treat each other like TK and MH, it is sad that they are trash talkers.
Whereas you just emit a steady effluent stream of lies to investors.  That video TinselKoala got his hands on is quite enlightening.
Quote

p.s. After the PE's finished - I and independent engineering firm verify - prior to any investment form any of my family Except one.  Mark Dansie Came a year later when we were testing three layer system - much much better.
Yet, Mark Dansie never saw a working system:  Never.  You are free to attempt to extract a more favorable statement from him.  He has never witnessed the initial proof of concept demonstration that he has insisted would be a first step towards further consideration of your false claims.
Quote

He asked for a self runner to show/ help people like TK - maybe not him personally - but people who refused to understand the process.
Those people must include Mr. Dansie himself.  Feel free to avail yourself to the public comments he has placed on the record.
Quote

I did - not for me - not for our company - and not for fame or money.

MH, ME and Kanshi and all screamed foul - "adding to a system can not make it more efficient" --- really - they did not think that one out.
Ms. Kanshi is a university professor.  What are you?
Quote

Posted crap and doctored photos - called water hoses - extension cords - claimed we put hidden pumps.

TK called Mark a shill - he calls anyone a shill - I have the posts saved - where he worked tirelessly to defraud him. Pure shame.
You need a different dictionary.
Quote

I invited TK, I had him checked out, but before I could reply - he flipped out claiming he would steal it if he could???
Really?  Are you going to go with that story?  I'd sure like to see evidence that backs such a claim.
Quote

I have those notes as well.

Can you reduce losses by adding more layers - yes
Nope, each time you add layers you compound your losses.  Feel free to publish any analysis you rely upon to find differently.
Quote

It does if you are increasing the output at a proportional rate faster than the increases of losses.

Layering does that.
Nope.  Adding layers just exacerbates the losses of your less efficient than a brick scheme.
Quote

I am sorry if you do not get that - not my intent to confuse you.

Here is what I see you doing - you chiming in on three thugs - that do not know the Travis effect from Archimedes......
Oh, so now you claim that there is a 'Travis effect'.  That's terrific.  Kindly state directly and succinctly what you claim the "Travis effect" to be.  Kindly distinguish it from previously known fluid mechanics.
Quote

Archimedes is not wrong - when used in the context he presented it - our system alters that.
You system alters nothing to do with Archimedes' Principle.  But since you now personally claim that there is a 'Travis effect' do be so kind as to describe it.
Quote

The simple proof - 10,000 pounds buoyant force in the space that displaces 2000 pounds of water - I hope you do not miss that....and we only move less than one 2 cubic feet of water to go from sink to 10,000 pounds buoyancy.
I can buy a 5 ton jack at the auto parts store that can produce the same forces in a much more compact space for under $20.  Force is not energy.  Force is not conserved.  Energy is conserved.
Quote

P.s. look at the spread sheets - even Mark E - what is the actual space versus the total Buoyancy? He missed that one to.
I also missed the CIE index of flaming purple stratospheric flamingos.  Nested pistons are not news.
Quote

Just shows that Buoyancy can be used in a different arrangement than Archimedes ...
That is a completely meaningless statement.  Archimedes' Principle describes the behavior of buoyancy.  It's only requirement is a fluid and something to displace fluid.
Quote

Not that I have not tried to explain the diffirence twenty times - shown it and had four engineers post comparisons - now that was hard - every time I tried to explain - TK ME MH and other dud's demanded attention on anything from pink unicorns to psyco logical claims of superior understanding of a system they still can not explain -
It's funny how you keep claiming you have explained something when the only thing rational folks seem to observe is a lot of hand waving.
Quote

Any person trying to understand was spammed -

Bill - it has one simple part.................

No one Can disprove it - You stand behind the guys that won't actually analyze the process and against the ones that have learned something new.
If only could actually show something new.  But you haven't.  Every objective evaluation of the meager actual information you have produced shows no new behavior, and no conformance to your false claims.
Quote

You helped them - that is your right - but don't sit there and tell us that you did your own thinking and own homework - I know the fact about that - or else you would be defending us.
Why would anyone defend false claims unless they stood to personally benefit? I do not know of any vested interest that Bill has.
Quote

All they do is bash make lies up about me = twist and shout down,

A gang of thugs and you picked up your stick and helped.
We know the lies that you keep telling Wayne.  They all concern your false claims to machines that generate energy for free.
Quote

That is the mistake you are making.

You want to take a stand - I do not care about me here - but they do it to everyone that wont bow to them. I never will, and I will not help them.
That's great!  Take a stand for every red blooded, Bible thumping con artist who has the guts to reach for a brass ring paid for by cash traded for empty dreams.  "America the beautiful, land that I love ..."
Quote

To be clear - they are ignorant - or doing it on purpose - and a few good people get sucked into their lies - like you.

I am sorry to write this at all, the man is sick. I put him on ignore - to leave him be.
Yet you are unable to refute him.  What could anyone who objects to your false claims do were you to actually prove your false claims?  Oh, there's that sticky problem again:  You don't prove your claims because you can't prove your claims, because they are false.
Quote

I am more sorry that you think that our hard work and effort and good people deserves that crap.

I invite you to ask one of the men that do understand our system -
Yes, let's ask someone who 'understands'.  A registered PE would be best, because they have their professional livelihood at stake.
Quote

That bully - whose "lies about me" that you quoted as facts..... of course he likes other people to do his fight for him.

But he is just a punk, with puppets.

Wayne
But, you of course say that with love and respect, don't you Wayne?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #480 on: March 05, 2014, 05:21:50 AM »

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #481 on: March 05, 2014, 05:24:43 AM »
Mark - you missed it again,

Net Energy - do you know the difference?

I did not know the difference two years ago.

If you do - stop spreading lies about me.
I know the highlighted passages that grace your mission statement are bald-faced lies.  Your claims are false.  If you want to see where this can end up call up Dr. Dr. John Rohner Ph.D.  Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of his special visit.

Offline orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #482 on: March 05, 2014, 05:39:01 AM »
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #482 on: March 05, 2014, 05:39:01 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #483 on: March 05, 2014, 05:54:03 AM »
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.
The first highlight:  "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.

The second highlight is false because the Russian Dolls of Ignorance do nor present any new physics or insights on existing physics.

The third highlight contains multiple statements, all of which are false.

Offline Pirate88179

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8364
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #484 on: March 05, 2014, 05:57:40 AM »



"One last thing.  I am not against the research for free, or efficient energy sources.  Not at all.  If someone had an idea for something that looked promising, and wanted to do a kickstarter type program to raise money to "look into it", that would be fine.  But, if they claim they have a working device, and a single zed is overunity by itself, and that is not true, then that is fraud.  Do you understand what I am saying here?"

Something that 'looked' like something promising, and you may have wanted to risk peoples kickstarter money to see if it works? ??? ??   

Mags

Wow, you really missed the point here.  IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.

This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF.  Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.

Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy.  The innocent need no defense.  Remember that.

Bill

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #484 on: March 05, 2014, 05:57:40 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline orbut 3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 247
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #485 on: March 05, 2014, 05:58:36 AM »
The first highlight:  "First Mechanical Amplifying System" is false because either it claims that HER/Zydro are the first to ever come up with a mechanical amplifier, when such things go back at least as far as the ancient Egyptians, or it is false because it claims to amplify energy without drawing the output and more from a power supply.

The second highlight is false because the Russian Dolls of Ignorance do nor present any new physics or insights on existing physics.

The third highlight contains multiple statements, all of which are false.


No, the first paragraph only outlines their 'visions'.




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #486 on: March 05, 2014, 06:14:02 AM »
OK so it is only their vision to do something that they have no reason to believe they ever could do and every reason to know that they cannot do.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #486 on: March 05, 2014, 06:14:02 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13824
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #487 on: March 05, 2014, 06:20:07 AM »
The new site is considerably toned down in its rhetoric. For a truer picture of what Travis is actually claiming, look at the old site.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120411232750/http://mrwaynesbrain.com/   (April 11, 2012)

Interesting quote from Mark Dansie, and yes, it was at that time that I complained about Mark, asked him where his funding for the trip to see Travis was coming from, and when he told me that he had accepted money from Travis I called him a paid shill. We (Mark D. and I) have since become friends. I have a lot of respect for what Mark is doing and the only objection I have ever had towards him is that sometimes he does not disclose who is paying him to visit, even if it is "just" expenses, as in the Travis case.

And note that Kevan Riley puts his engineering reputation on the line as well.

Quote
Hello and Welcome,   My name is Wayne Travis, I am the inventor of the Hydro Energy Technology.
My invention is an apparatus utilizing buoyant forces and a method for doing the same.
Hydro Energy Revolution was originally formed by family, and merged into a community effort, 81 persons with a wide range of skills and support.
We are currently evolving into an international team of diverse and successful experts in the development, marketing distribution, manufacturing and maintenance, of new technology.  Mark Dansie has been key in vetting and inviting the new team members.
It is clearly a quest for a better and clean energy technology that is bringing these groups together for the common goal.
In 2008, I discovered how to turn Buoyancy "off and on" very quickly, very cheaply, regardless of the force required.
In 2009 I invented a way to utilize that discovery in the form of a self contained and fuel-less system to supply net excess energy to consumers.
We developed 7 prototypes, developing and improving the system, we have just finished our Data collection model, and have our Beta modeled.
Our Machine will be used to supply electricity, both commercially and through leases.
It has many applications, we look forward to supplying many needs.
Several generations of output will be scaled, 25, 50, and 100 kilo watts are planned to be Beta tested.
We are currently securing the team and then will secure the funding for those three models.
Five representatives from States in the USA have requested licenses early - and nine countries have requested meetings through Mark Dansie.
You may submit questions to me, Wayne Travis at mr.wayne@hydroenergyrevolution.com
I will be glad to answer.
Sincerely Grateful
Wayne Travis

 

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13824
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #488 on: March 05, 2014, 06:29:28 AM »
November 15, 2013:

Quote
Hello and Welcome,   Ladies and Gentlemen,
 
It has been my joy and purpose working together with so many of you.
 
We as a company currently have the cooperation of 160 members, and many people following our work who prefer to stay out of the light for now.
 
When I named the Company - HydroEnergy Revolution llc - I picked the "Hydro" to reflect the Buoyancy break through, "Energy" reflects the product, and "Revolution" reflects the change we are having on both understanding of Physics and Energy production.
 
Our System uses a special "Hydraulic, Pneumatic, Solid interaction - that is so complex and yet so simple - the design is summarily characterized as "Simply Brilliant".
 
Our system does not use fuel - instead we utilize the separate range of reactions that occur when Gravity effects the interaction within our Hydraulic, Pneumatic, and Solid system.
 
I was asked this week by a Brilliant Engineer - who had just reviewed our interactive system - he said “I have been reviewing your system......and I have to wonder ...... with the vast intelligence and educational resources ..... In this day and age.... All trying to solve the energy problem - did we overlook something so simple and yet so wonderfully complex?"
 
My answer - "Most of the "Education" that we esteem, fund and support - limits the students minds to the simple realm of conservative energy systems - how can you expect to find a non-conservative energy source when the parameters are already set to exclude them...
 
Our discovery is a paradigm shift in the understanding of mechanical energy production, we do not defy the Laws of Energy conversion, we do not contradict the Laws of Thermal dynamics - we leave those where they belong - very appropriately describing conservative energy systems.
 
To be clear - we have a non-conservative.... energy producing... evolution in technology:
 
One day soon, our education system will educate our engineers on "when and where to apply the limitations" understand the difference and reality of both conservative systems and non-conservative.
There is a great value to the old understanding - it is tried, true, and tested - the awakening comes when it is understood that the "Old Laws” did not encompass, test and try all future discovery.
 
I am thankful that our volunteers, engineers, scientists and support group have evolved beyond that self-inflicted and limited thinking of the conservation of energy.
 
Thank you all - you are on the leading and powerful edge of the future.
 
For those of you who are new to our work, I know and am sorry that our work upsets a lot of people - so did the earth being round and not the center of the universe - if it matters greatly to you - get involved.
 
We have a Revolution of Technology on our hands - like the Light bulb, the Airplane, the Microchip, and mapping DNA - we have "new tools" under our control - to move forward in our future.
 
We welcome those who would like to solve for them self and "see" what we are saying; it is the due diligence of people who "question" - that build our teams and group.
 
To all:
 
Billions have been spent on search for the a new energy source: the Super (atom) Collider, Cleaner Coal, Better fuel cells, better batteries, better Solar cells, better drilling methods, sustained Cold fusion, and much much more.
 
Billions in Taxes and limitations have been set on entropy energy production...of course passed onto the consumer - you and me.
 
The World is in desperation for energy - do you think they wanted to build the nuclear power plants around the ring of fire ... around earthquakes? Nuclear power is a band aid - to a wound - we have the technology to heal the wounds around the world.
 
We all know Energy "costs" have limited energy "availability" in most parts of the world, the band aid has caused countless loss of life, health and loss of freedom and cultural advancement........
 
We are on a mission of "change", expect resistance, expect challenges, expect ignorance.
 
What we have is a gift to mankind, one mankind desperately needs, We will Never give up, never surrender, until the responsibility that is our is met, our work fulfilled.
 
To say we have a special "Market Nitch" or that "we have an abundant fuel source" - As Steven advertised - "Gravity, Always ON!"
Gravity is a simple way to communicate with the academia with limited thinking - Gravity and its different effects on Gas - liquids, and solids - and is the reason our system works - it is key to our design - but we do not consume the gravity, saying it is a fuel source - is incorrect.
 
Gravity and Mechanics working together - to create the special conditions required for a non-conservative and "New" Energy source, for our future and our children’s children’s future.
 
We can say we have the most reliable and cleanest energy system ever invented by man - yet it is much more than that - it is a discovery that can usher in peace and prosperity.
 
To date, we have had the right people discover us and become involved, at the right time, at the right need -Such a blessing as to be beyond understanding.
 
Our Company is a "New" direction, bringing a "New" Energy source.... join us - pray for us, follow us - we will be true to our purpose.
 
Sincerely Grateful
 
Wayne Travis
 
405-574-2157


If you look carefully over the years, Travis has gone from claiming a working free energy machine that will save the world, and a patent, in the early days, all the way "forward" to claiming a business plan, objectives to be met, and patent applications, today.
 
Now _that's_ progress !

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #488 on: March 05, 2014, 06:29:28 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13824
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #489 on: March 05, 2014, 06:35:39 AM »

More "expectations not met?" Hard doors closing? Awww.... my heart bleeds purple peanut butter for you.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #490 on: March 05, 2014, 06:38:06 AM »
Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off.  Someone read "Slapstick".

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #490 on: March 05, 2014, 06:38:06 AM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #491 on: March 05, 2014, 06:46:29 AM »
IMO the first two highlighted bits are misleading, but the third is an obvious lie and a false claim.

Now - Orbo - "an obvious lie and a false claim"

What do you base that off?

Wayne


Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #492 on: March 05, 2014, 06:48:08 AM »
Wow, you really missed the point here.  IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.

This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF.  Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.

Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy.  The innocent need no defense.  Remember that.

Bill


"IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something."

Ok. But what if it doesnt work??  What if some people were to complain? What if some say they think you took the money???  Not possible?????  Would you work to pay them back to please them??? Or just say that they did it at their own risk??? its in the contract??????lol  Does that make you a better man that you used the words 'Might work'  or  Might be on to something??? ;) If some of those Kick investors were not so nicey nicey, and applied pressure, if they could, would you feel no remorse??? Screw them, they knew the risks??? ::)   Im not missing any points. Im just being real. ;) Just like this is all real. Maybe Wayne has proven things to his investors. Can you dispute that with any factual evidence 'at this time'???? No you cant. But you all 'act' as if you can.  ;)



"The innocent need no defense.  Remember that" 

Oh. Innocent until 'proven' guilty is just some fairytale rubbish. ;)   I see no valid proof of guilt so far. Yet the stones continue to be thrown.  Thats what I will always remember. :( Yee without sin cast the first stone.  Bunch of saints I suppose. ::) Hypocrisy at its best. ;) ;) ;)



I dont want a fight with you Bill. Never had any issues with you and I hope you feel the same. We are just talking here, ok?  ;) What I wrote is not so far fetched.

Mags

Offline mrwayne

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 909
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #493 on: March 05, 2014, 06:53:58 AM »
Wow, you really missed the point here.  IF you have full disclosure that you have an IDEA that MIGHT work and need research money and all of this is DISCLOSED then a kickstarter program is no problem IF you can convince others that you MIGHT be on to something.

This is totally different from claiming OVERUNITY and having devices ready to be INSTALLED IN A CHURCH, and that a single zed unit is OVERUNITY BY ITSELF.  Taking money from anyone under these conditions when you can demonstrate nothing, nor prove nothing is wrong in my opinion.

Surely you saw the difference in the above situations and just wanted to post something in an effort to defend this guy.  The innocent need no defense.  Remember that.

Bill

The innocent need no defense - really.

You have quoted lies that TK has spread at least twice now - please do your own research.

It was very clearly explained, by me to TK, and the rest of the forum, that The grant committee sent me to a third party - and did not give me the grant - and that plan was not funded.

But he suckered you into calling me a liar.

I am sorry for that.

You are backing the wrong guy.

Wayne

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
Re: Mathematical Analysis of an Ideal ZED
« Reply #494 on: March 05, 2014, 06:55:54 AM »
Wayne Travis admits that "gravity is always on".  Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off.  Someone read "Slapstick".

"Yet he claims to be able to switch it on and off. "

Now, you REALLY need to show me that quote from Wayne. Show me and everyone here that Wayne said that. Ill be here eagerly waiting on that one. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) I really hope you can produce that piece of evidence.  :o ;) But I bet Ill just get some whole page runaround instead. Bet on it. ;)

Mags

 

OneLink