If your a scientist you want to see the data and how they arrived at those conclusions. They are using tax payer dollars to do what they are doing. There is a double reason to hand over the data and the methods...

It already has been shown that the models are broken, there has never been an accurate climate change prediction, and yes, NOAA has filled in data where it is missing. Their methods can be shown to make the over all trend greater in amplitude without know exactly what they did. Show us what you did if you are so confident in your results.

Dont be a fkn sissy when it comes to defending your thesis...

Maybe Congress is a little harsh but this all could have been avoided if they had just produced their data and methods...

and they would have done so for debate if they are doing good science instead of political science....

The earth is an open system... Mans CO2 energy contribution(.0012%) is in the noise of the rest of the energy flows of the system....

They still have not addressed in any papers that I have read that “Cold comes from space above the poles down the magnetospgheric footprint to the polar vortex”.

The oceans are heated by geologic heat and that all the sun does is heat the surface.

You are implying that I am not using logic?? And I have provided sources from scientists much greater than I.

E=mc2 obviously is broken...

And kinetic energy/motion/momentum is part of everything whereas charge is not(neutrino?)... Pure logic...

Wave synthesis particle construction. Not my idea but it has won out over all of the ideas that I have read about. Logic.

All particle interactions are "field interactions" no matter what you want to name them. Logic.

Mass cant go faster than light. So remove the mass or inertia leaving behind the matter. 

But EU says it cant be done. I am trying to provide a method to fit observations. Logic? 

</tinfoil hat>If even one of the UFO videos out of the thousands is real(the military and FAA ones) and objects actually move like that, then we got some splainin to do Lucy, they have no inertia!</tinfoil hat>

Its a shame that EU does not see that charge and kinetic energy are what make up electricity. 

It is the basis for electricity, not my idea but James Clerk Maxwell's. Maxwell's charge momentum field.. 

And there is a "mechanical" component to electricity if by that you mean motion...

I've just taken it a step further and tried to show how kinetic energy/motion/momentum is primary based on ancient knowledge taking a clue from EU mythology studies....

You guys accuse me of using modern physics when I am showing you clearly that is not the case...

Electricity is not this mysterious thing. Its can be fleshed out using common physical principals(waves, particles and momentum/(electric) "fields").... As well as observations of non accepted physical experiments...

I have watched all the EU videos and I have watched very carefully.... I respect his ideas a lot and have provided a lot of papers to back up EU over the years. I am not badgering him. 

That why I feel I can have a pointed discussion with people on their ideas.... I guess thats not the case, at least in public.

Sorry,

Brant

The thruster does what? It moves.
How does it move? By microwaves imparting momentum to the thrusters internal walls…
The microwaves in this experiment carry the greatest amount of momentum to the walls of the chamber when the frequency of the microwaves are at the chamber resonance...… That is their purpose…

Wal says "dipole electric force".

What is that made of?? How is that transmitted...
If it uses massive matter to transmit energy - do work...it still goes slower than light. Inertialess matter can go faster than light...

Theres a difference between saying I agree with E= Mc^2, and saying that the experimental evidence indicates that we wont be able to put enough energy into this particle to accelerate it past the speed of light.
I dont agree with the equation E=Mc^2. Why? Because historically the kinetic energy component got thrown away…
I am pretty old school when it comes to science and drawing conclusions from observations.
The tossing of the kinetic energy component of E = Mc^2 in 1909?
The Origin of the Equation E = mc2
“As for the origin of the formula, it wasn’t until five years before his death (1955) that Einstein publicly attributed the basis of E = mc2 to the 1862 charge-momentum field equations of James Clerk Maxwell[2] “
<snip>
“A curious twist in this saga occurs in 1881 with J. J. Thomson in his work with charged spherical conductors in motion, since he derived a slightly higher coefficient, E = 4/3mc2 [8] The same E = 4/3mc2 was found by F. Hasenöhrl in 1904 when he published the first explicit statement that the heat energy of a body increases its “mechanical” mass[9] The 1905 Nobel Prize winner, Philipp Lenard, a staunch opponent of Einstein, was one of the first to reveal this fact in his 1921 book Ether and Para-ether.[10] “
<snip>
Max Von Laue demonstrated that to obtain the final formula E = mc2 “one type of energy…the new physics must eliminate from its list…is kinetic energy.”[13] The reason is that if mass is based on energy, as E = mc2 shows, then there cannot be a kinetic energy, K = ½mv2, which, in turn, depends on the mass.
In other words, to obtain E = mc2 one must abandon the most obvious and primary form of energy, kinetic energy.[14]
http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/23/the-origin-of-the-equation-e-mc2/

At the end of the day its all motion. The “subtrons” inside the particle are made of planck length waves which make up the particle itself… I’m pretty sure neutrinos are bigger than subtrons…And they move based on the movement of the gross particle, from beta decay, pp fusion etc., the atom.
I believe that makes them an unlikely candidate for an aether.. Motion comes from the aether. There is no way to interact with neutrinos but there is a way to interact with an aether lattice that makes up everything…

Particles (inside an electron, proton) are not heavier, they just have a greater binding energy, right?
Particles; their properties are a function of the state of the aether that makes them up.
If you change the aether in such away that now the particle express that change as reduced mass, then is it a property of the particle or the aether?
Motion is a property of the aether because particles get everything they are from the aether… Particles dont carry their accelerated energy when they are at rest, motion comes from outside the particle, the accelerated energy comes from outside the particle.
There is no solid shell. Particles have a radius beyond which you can't penetrate because the (electric) force is so strong.  Particles interact by fields, electric and magnetic. Photons emanate from electrons but are packets of kinetic energy. They do not rest outside an electron. Rest mass is a mathematical tool when photons are concerned....
Motion is imparted to mass. Mass gains energy when it is in motion from its rest state. To get charge separation you need to add momentum/kinetic energy to a system of charges.
Mass is built from wave resonances in the aether. There are no lossless processes. There is only energy flow, energy transfer, work done whatever the carrier.
Its not magic.
If mass is made of waves in the aether then mass is made out of energy(motion) . Not only that, Tesla thought the same thing. That motion is primary.
Motion is life.
The East Indians did as well.

EU never talks about the kinetic energy component of electricity. Like I said before, what happens when you remove all motion from electricity or the universe? You just have charges. You cannot do any work.
Experiments indicate that you cant accelerate a particle past light speed.
Nobody has been able to do it at this point. Based on that information I would have to say that massive objects cant go FTL..
If I was to do a hierarchy I would say Aether, Matter, mass, inertia.
You would have to discover some new principle right now to make faster than light possible, like suppressing inertia or energy loss…

Podkletnov made a beam that is best explained by propagating kinetic energy....

Brant


"Returning to the more ‘comfortable’ arena of physical matter, Kozyrev’s work showed that torsion fields can be absorbed, shielded or sometimes reflected. For example, sugar can absorb, polyethylene film and aluminum can shield, and other forms of aluminum or mirrors can reflect.

Kozyrev found that in the presence of this energy flow, objects that are rigid and inelastic will show weight changes, whereas flexible, elastic objects will show changes in their elasticity and / or viscosity.

Kozyrev also showed that the weight of a spinning top will change if it is vibrated, heated or cooled or if it has an electric current passed through it. As we can see, all of the above behaviors fit in quite nicely with our analogy of the “sponge” of matter absorbing or releasing small amounts of energetic “water”.

Hidden momentum, field momentum, and electromagnetic impulse.
http://gr.physics.ncsu.edu/files/babson_ajp_77_826_09.pdf

When I was working at Burst Labs one of the projects involved ultrasonics and changing the viscosity of fluids because its cheaper to ship low viscosity fluids by “pipeline” hint, hint.
We had barrels of the stuff...
I saw a number of interesting things that I cant find a standard explanation for, that fit with some of the things mentioned in the above paragraphs...