Topic: rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;) - page 42. (Read 907212 times)

Gravity is a part of the corrupt legacy physics system. Throw off the shackles of banksters and sciencers nao!

Laws of physics be damned, we're innovating over here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_as_a_feather,_stiff_as_a_board

have you attempted this?

The report is detailed enough to replicate it at home. The main source for instructions in this case.

Youtube is also full of videos under "party levitation".

The quest is to increase the antigravity field strength by a factor of 3, so that the object becomes weightless.

I would like to see that experiment performed, (along with a real photo of a satellite in space)

Okay,

Interesting

Anti-gravity field induced levitation of a kettlebell

Experiment report


Conclusion: Two people were able to cause an apparent 33% temporary weight (gravity) reduction on an iron kettlebell.

Background: Earlier experiments with a ~20 kg girl had ended inconclusive whether gravity reduction had been achieved. Further experiments were conducted in earth surface level with objects of known weight.

Setting:
Two iron kettlebells, 16 kg and 24 kg were tested if two people can lift them by extending the arm and placing two extended fingers below the handle from opposite sides and then lifting vertically. It was possible to lift the 16 kg using considerable effort, the 24 kg was too heavy to be moved.

Experiment:
The 24 kg kettlebell (henceforth called "object") was put on a stand about 70 cm high and confirmed that it cannot be moved with the technique described.

Two males constructed an antigravity field by positioning themselves to the NE and SW directions from the object. No special preparations were made except the positioning. There were metal items on the levitators and around the room. The room was earth surface level, with a basement floor beneath.

The antigravity field was vested on the object by person "A" putting his left hand upon the handle, then person "B" left hand, then "A" right hand, then "B" right hand. The hands of the same person did not touch each other. The object was pressed down with moderate force while the levitators counted to 10 in Finnish.

After "10" sounded, the levitators removed the hands from the object and put two fingers each through the handle of the object. They then proceeded to lift it about 40 cm from the stand, using considerable effort, and then returned it into the stand with ease.

Then they danced around for about 30 seconds touching each other, the object and other objects randomly and tried to lift it up again. It was not possible.

Result:
The method described had caused the 24 kg kettlebell to temporarily lose so much weight that it was possible to lift it, as had been possible for the 16 kg kettlebell. The effort required felt approximately equal to that of lifting the 16 kg kettlebell, so the object had apparently lost 33% of its weight.

Discussion:
The result is significant as it was a product of pure experiment. We did not have any guide on how to construct the antigravity field with only 2 people. There are possibly loads of things in the preparations that could have been done, and when done properly, can increase the strength of the field and the gravity reduction.

Also the goal to achieve zero or negative gravity when the circumstances are correct seems achievable.

Further tests:
To efficiently measure the antigravity, the next experiment will include a scale.

This affords an opportunity to distill my investment strategy more:

- Regard every investment such that you assume your understanding concerning it is totally incorrect. (Typically a total loss is a good approximation, though in some you increase your chances of going to jail as well.)
- Find out the greatest intercorrelation of total loss (which event would cause you to be totally incorrect in the largest number of investments at the same time)
- Make sure you are OK even in the case when you have been as incorrect as logically is possible.
- Invest all the remainder as profitably as possible (Expected Value analysis) with no regard to conventional guidance. You are free to do whatever you want as you are covered against the highest theoretical negative scenario already. Here it helps to be correct in your analysis of course, because that determines the upside

The way I would put it is that confidence based on subjectivity and objectivity are two different matters, but ironically in investing it is statistically true for the herd objective or not. I would not draw confidence from a universal definition of adequate in principle.

The deceptive are far fewer than the easily deceived. Its no good blaming Hitler and his pals for WWII, you have to blame the human race. You have to blame the middle east not religion.

Do not invest in a way that assumes that your worldview is correct.

The more confident you are on that your worldview is correct, (statistically) the less likely you are indeed correct, and the more likely you are to invest disproportionately in assets whose performance depends on you being correct, and the less their performance turns out to be, if/when you are not actually correct, and the less the good performance in the other assets can help you as you did not buy them in the first place.

If your worldview is paranoid, including concerning your perception of yourself being correct, the more likely you actually are reasonably correct, and the conservative investment strategy also yields good results to you, as it has done to me.

Digging into the nature of the powers that shouldn't be: I think malice is the primary driver.

entails but...the second bit.... not sure what you mean. I wouldn't bet on such a thing. Some people are sure to disagree with me. If you disagree with me that the vast majority of problems may be adequately attributed to stupidity and fallacy then its none of my business.

... or do you mean not to place my bets that my definition of 'adequate' is adequate?

The old 51 percent attack.

Once you are in the hash majority, seignorage is trivial to arrange.

Whatever is not adequately explained by stupidity must be attributed to malice.

(And: Don't be stupid enough to place all your bets on the premise that your definition of "adequate" is universal.)

Yeah so which government? all the governments? will they share personal data of their citizens? and how will these governments stop extreme deflation of clean coins.... the 'clean coin currency' will be even less stable than bitcoin as the clean coins will all get put through the same tumble machine. There will be incentive to take clean coins in exchange for 'dirty' coins as a service at a premium because to enforce such a regulation over the whole world would be impossible to do and dirty coins will continue to have value. One government will take advantage over the other to collect their cheap dirty coins and then magically clean them. The world is so much bigger than that.


just to add to that..... If you imagine the sheer amount of data there is to process if every transaction, every micro transaction, had to be officially tied to an identity and that information be validated and proof checked, it would quickly get out of hand. Bad transactions would make it through and deflate the clean coins. Its still vulnerable to false information.

Mining pools can be decentralised, its already being done. I cant imagine a situation where any single government or even many in unison can block all transactions.

A major impediment to government mining, is the fact that there is no seigniorage. Thy could try anyway out of stupidity, just like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who hoped to profit from reopening old gold mines. There is no extra profit, they can not monopolize it, so mining will be left alone.

I think this boils down to the set of scenarios where the government quasi-embraces Bitcoin but tries to control it to various degrees, wherein depending on how much control they exert, there are various possible results ranging from a fork to a spin-off. When and if it becomes compelling enough to make Bitcoin as default-anonymous as Monero appears to be, that will happen. So far no real attacks have been lobbed from the state, so there is no need yet. The market punishes premature action.