Re: is the magnetic field really moving?

"Don Kelly" <dhky@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:IiMuk.138522$nD.3978@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
'm doubting you have little more than a basic understading of A/C
systems. 
where i have an extensive history and have been working on such systems 
home, industrial and automotive for 28 years.


> Do you have the supercooling with permanent magnetic fields? NO. Are you

> compressing the fields- again NO. Do you have an excess of BS and a lack

> of actual understanding of the physics involved? YES

Your assuming on all three counts. Your assumptions are wrong on all three

accounts.

I am no less than a mechanical genius. you will fare well to understand 
that. If I publish that i have discovered a simplified process to
supercool 
a permanent magnet than that's what we have. Again If i publish i have in 
effect discovered the process to compress or manipulate the permanent 
magnetic field in such a way that it essentially is compressed than
allowed 
to expand that is what we have. If I go furthur and state that the 
mechanical process actually mirrors the refridgeration and airconditioning

process than it should be considered as absolute.

In case you don't understand don and it is apparent that you don't 
understand. the physics that you cherish and hold dearly is mearly mans 
interpretation of a mechanical or series of mechanical events observed to 
date. in short your understanding of physics is limited to others 
observations of a mechanical process. My understanding on the other hand
is 
based on the observations of the mechanism as a whole. My level of 
understanding in the field of physics is at the core level. I fully 
understand what is going on in the universe and how these things come
about. 
can you make that claim don? If not? Why not?

Don your the one doing the hand waving. You say I'm full of bs with this
and 
that but you don't ask questions, try to understand or explain why this 
cannot happen according to your understanding. then when i do present a 
viable explination for this process or that process. you avoid the issue
by 
snip or say i'm hand waving. No real arguement or contribution is
presented 
by you.

Really don what makes you think that i would publish so adamantly a bunch
of 
unverifiable bs? Are my claims easily dismissed given reasonable 
consideration? Would my claims in terms of *seeming as a violation* cover
a 
small band of overall physics or a broad band of overall physics? Are the 
violations few or many? In the event that i am 100% correct in my claims 
would it effect physics as it is understood mildly or radically? Could 
academia benifit from a higher level of understanding of overall physics? 
Would key laws be involved such as conservation of energy? Are just a few 
known principles conflicting with my claims or many?  I'm just saying that

there are many pieces to the puzzle of natural physics. In terms of 
understanding or a commonwealth of knowledge we are as infants. we only
have 
the borders defined. the bulk of the puzzle is vastly unknown. We lack the

key to the puzzle.

Here i represent that very key and don kelly dismisses it as BS and hand 
waving; BAH!