Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:46:04 - 0500 (CDT)
From: George Cornelius CORNELIUS@Encompasserve.org
Subject: Credibility and your globalwarming.html
To: DONALD@DIALUP4LESS.COM
Organization: Encompasserve - Consulting for Peanuts

Hi,

Have enjoyed reading your site at http://www.dialup4less.com/~donald/globalwarming.html and I certainly appreciate reading your opposing views on the current alarmism.

But I want to caution you that the credibility of your site among those with a scientific background is seriously undermined by the presence of your section advocating the use of machines which violate the action/reaction principle.

Since everything from the space program to atomic physics would be nearly impossible if there were a discrepancy as enormous as what you claim to have found in the underpinnings of both (1) classical and (2) relativistic machanics, it is very hard to take anything else you say seriously.

Just the facts.
--
George Cornelius cornelius@eisner.decus.org

P.S. If you want me to examine your machine and come up with a critique of your arguments, I would be willing to spend some time on it. Looks as if you are a talented designer but perhaps a bit lacking in your ability to measure subtle differences in force, or its integral, momentum. [Of course, if all you are claiming is 10 lbs of force for 1 second is balanced by 1 lb of force for 10 seconds, then we have no disagreement, just an issue of what the law you claim to be invalidating really means].

P.P.S. I assume you are aware that Newton's law of equal action and reaction forces is just a variant of conservation of momentum? And that this still applies in the relativistic world, where F = m a is replaced by F = dp / dt ? [This form makes a crucial difference in the relativistic case, but in the Newtonian world is actually just a slightly different way of writing the original equation]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Reply:

Greetings George Comelius,
Monday March 17, 2008

At 04:46 PM 3/16/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Have enjoyed reading your site at
>
>http://www.dialup4less.com/~donald/globalwarming.html
>
>and I certainly appreciate reading your opposing views on the current
>alarmism.

Donald Eric Davison here: Thank you for your supporting words.

>
>But I want to caution you that the credibility of your site among
>those with a scientific background is seriously undermined by the
>presence of your section advocating the use of machines which
>violate the action/reaction principle.

Donald: Thank you for the caution, but the issue works both ways. Once
those with a scientific background realize what I am saying about the
action/reaction principle is the reality, then the credibility of my
global warming stand will be increased. If you appreciate my stand on
global warming, then maybe, just maybe, my position on action/reaction
is also to be appreciated, to be considered to be correct even if new.

Besides, about those persons with a scientific background, are some of them the
same persons who have embraced Al Gore and his man made global warming
myth? If so, they are the ones with the credibility problem - they should
be ashamed of themselves.

>Since everything from the space program to atomic physics would be
>nearly impossible if there were a discrepancy as enormous as what
>you claim to have found in the underpinnings of both (1) classical
>and (2) relativistic machanics, it is very hard to take anything
>else you say seriously.

Donald: Well, the space program does need a means of pushing space vehicles
between planets. I have that means. They say that it will take seven months
to get to Mars, my invention may be able to cut one or two months off that time
each way.

As for atomic physics and the universe in general, my thinking is that if I am
able to create a force without a counter force then nature already contains
forces without counter forces, it's just a question of finding them. I wrote
Stephen Hawkins about this very point. I wanted to keep him updated as to what
is new in the field of classical physics, but I have not received any reply from his
office, most likely they also question my credibility - I get the silent
treatment for every submission I write - so what's new.

>
>Just the facts.

Donald: Are you quoting Joe Friday of Dragnet? Who always said in every program:
"Just the facts Mam" If so, BOY! are you old. When I was a wee lad, my father would say to me that children and old people should never see anything until it was finished - maybe you should just wait until this issue of action/reaction plays out before you make any more comments.

>--
>George Cornelius, cornelius@eisner.decus.org
>
> P.S. If you want me to examine your machine and come up with a critique
> of your arguments, I would be willing to spend some time on it.

Donald: I accept. I would like someone to examine my machine. Last summer I
tried to contact the engineering dept of Lawrence Tech, the nearest tech school
to me, but no reply (more silent treatment). I've been waiting for winter to be
over with before I attempt to arrange a presentation at another school.

Where are you located? If not too far, I would be willing to transport my
machine for your exmination. I live in the southeast part of Michigan, USA.

>More of P.S. Looks as if you are a talented designer but perhaps a bit lacking in
>your ability to measure subtle differences in force, or its integral, momentum.

Donald: Thank you - I think. Looks as if you learned your lessons well in school
but perhaps a bit lacking in your ability to look outside the box you constructed
for yourself. You built it too high, waist high would have allowed you to see
outside and even get out and welcome the Brave New World - you're old enough to have read this book.

The YY forces cancel each other out, the minus X forces are reduced to less
than ten percent of the plus X forces, the machine moves along a flat surface
without pushing on anything, not the surface, not the air, like I said: without
pushing on anything." The momentum is forward in the +X direction. There
are no subtle differences that need to be measured. The invention works -
it moves. "Seeing is believing"

> P.P.S. I assume you are aware that Newton's law of equal action and
> reaction forces is just a variant of conservation of momentum?

Donald: I have not changed the law of conservation of momentum, I merely take
the energy out of rotating weights and return it in the opposite direction. While
this is happening, the weights are only able to produce a small amount of reaction.

Anyway, I thank you for your letter, and I also thank you for the offer to
examine my machine, see you on The Grinder, feel free to invite the news media.

Donald Eric Davison, donald@dialup4less.com

September 24, 2007 - Photo of the first working Action Without Reaction Machine:

Photo taken on September 24, 2007 in Michigan, United States

What you are looking at is the first working machine that produces a force in a controlled direction and reduces the counter force in the opposite direction to less than ten percent. The result is forward motion with very little backward motion, which means that the machine is able to move along without pushing backwards on anything, not the ground nor the air. Believe that this machine works, I have had this machine moving along my driveway without pushing on the driveway.

'Motion Without Pushing Backwards' - A New Branch of Science
An Apparent Law of Physics: Archimedes said: "Give me a place to stand and I will move the Earth". He knew that in order to push the Earth he would need to push backwards against something else. In order to push anything we need to be able to push backwards against something else in return. This has been an apparent law of physics. The absolute obedience to this law has prevented space science from developing a mechanical means of pushing space vehicles, that is, until now. Since I have developed this new and useful process by which an electrically powered mechanical machine can deliver a force that will push a vehicle forwards without the need to push backwards against something else in return. Mankind can now bypass this apparent law of physics when it is useful to do so. Mankind will find it useful to do so in order to gain the ability to push space vehicles long distances.

Letter to Archimedes
Good news Archimedes, today you would not need a place to stand in order to move the Earth. I have invented the necessary machine for you to move the Earth while standing on the Earth. January 12, 2008