Andrew Hennessey

A couple of questions for our two leading edge free energy physicists.

1. A question for Dr Paul La Violette, why 7 not 8 ?

Paul is a true pioneer in electrogravity and antigravity physics and knows Tesla machines and technologies inside out.
His investigation into a new particle physics cosmology that hopes to industrially deliver where Einstein had to leave it is based in the idea that matter and the aether are full of chaos and transactions and power laws.
This is very encouraging for myself – who had worked out similar issues in 1991 but not in such a scholastic way as Dr La Violette who has written many commendable papers and research contributions in the interests and cause of free energy for mankind.
I was greatly pleased to see my own ideas mostly corroborated in such a highly gifted and educated way utilising the full extent of the Scientific American glossary.
Paul had identified three driving variables underpinning everything and those begot seven outcomes.
It might be that 7 real outcomes are observed fact, (see fig.1 below), but from three variables can only come 8 [time1] - no more no less.

fig.1 Boolean logic.
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

Why is Paul logically wrong about 7 ??

Although Paul sees 7 rational events there are in logical truth 8 events, one of them being an official and rational non-event.

If Paul misses this out then he is not accounting for chaos.
Chaos is at the heart of the missing half of human physics.
e.g. the law of emergence [order emerges from chaos]

basically everything is in flux – so at time 1 things might be unseen
but because of the chaos law of emergence, at time 2 things could be any one of these 8 again.
0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1
0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1

If our free energy accounting paradigm cannot or does not logically account for/facilitate chaos then it cannot be accurately predictive or dependable.
It also suggests to me that Paul’s paradigm is a linear one - not a non-linear one, as it draws lines between the seen - whilst omitting the performance of the unseen.

Speaking of the performance of the unseen, I was somewhat disturbed to hear that John Hutchison the famous ex missile and Tesla scientist who uses Tesla’s apparatus actually picks up his own new made jellies fresh from their EM blender.
How human is this guy that has spent his life being thwarted by government after government ?
When I conceptualised Tesla physics it became apparent to me that matter was only the tip of an iceberg that was built up of myriad small weather systems emerging bigger weather system, emerging a sea of even bigger ones – emerging to the nth degree a telic chain of additive events that would cumulate in a visible light matter particle. Everything in that deep ocean of sub atomic aether was in and built on turbulence and from these various sized fragments or harmonic wave parcels or nodes continuously emerged the matter that we could see.
For me – what we saw of matter was only a fraction of the story.

The famous Hutchison Effect cooks up unrelated atomic materials into a hybrid atomic stew and they merge together forming all sorts of inclusions.
Unlike the stable field noted by Ralph Ring when he passed his fingers into an EM field between 2 plates, and they went invisible but harmlessly returned on extraction, the Hutchison jelly would be a contorted mess not only of the physical atoms but also of their supplying and attendant etheric support icebergs which would be twisted and enmeshed in a stormy and antagonistic weather system to varying degrees for varying periods of time - maybe from about two days up to a couple of weeks depending on the size and exposure to EM of the sample.
I suspect that there may be raging aetheric tongues of fire around Some of these jellies and though they may look cool and respond as solid - their attendant aetheric supply might be effervescent or flaming. i.e. dangerous to Human components however shielded by human industrial fabrics over a short distance..
If John was producing 10 jellies per week over 10 years - chances are that if he was picking up only one or two straight out of the EM blender every month his fingers and their materials should be, in my opinion, biologically compromised by now and consequently in my opinion should have severe issues with metabolic radicals.
Unlike radioactivity and its shielding and gloves for isotope radiation ... the flaming substrate and subatomic stream of these materials would merge with the stuff in his fingers straight through any gloves or any matter of this time-space.

I could be very wrong of course - but either John has access to some detection equipment that can tell when the temporary aether disturbance in his fresh jellies is low risk or his hands cannot be human hands ...
He ought to have had big metabolic or is it metatarsal issues by now in my opinion.

I have no PhD or professional scientific education to argue these issues with and I happily quote a previous academically qualified assessment of my ideas .. ‘stream of consciousness writing, high on dope and techno raving music …’
Presented here however were a couple of thoughts arising on Dr Paul La Violette’s omission of logic and John Hutchison’s alleged omission of safe distance.

My own thoughts on these physics issues are enscribed at:

The following is logic and modal logic programming that incorporates transfers between power laws and gradients in a unified framework of relativity that operates with 8 logically real events not 7 – basically like PROLOG with meta-electrical ideologies.
If you don’t like version 1 logic programming manuals – best leave this one out.


Popular Posts