ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
John Larkin--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
On 28/12/2025 12:11 am, E.Laureti wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
Actually, Special Relativity says that inertial mass appears to increase
as relative velocity approaches the speed of light.
Granting Laureti's experimental acumen, he presumably managed to measure something different.
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:11:45 GMT, E.Laureti <user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and
can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On a 4-day trip to Mars, presumably you'd accelerate for two days and decelerate for two.
What would be the g-forces?
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:11:45 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and >>>>> can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On a 4-day trip to Mars, presumably you'd accelerate for two days and
decelerate for two.
What would be the g-forces?
G-forces donAt apply when your spaceship is powered by unicorn farts.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 17:50:35 -0000 (UTC), Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 13:11:45 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and >>>>>> can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
On a 4-day trip to Mars, presumably you'd accelerate for two days and
decelerate for two.
What would be the g-forces?
G-forces don-At apply when your spaceship is powered by unicorn farts.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Yuk. That sounds stinky.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 28/12/2025 12:11 am, E.Laureti wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
Actually, Special Relativity says that inertial mass appears to increase
as relative velocity approaches the speed of light.
Granting Laureti's experimental acumen, he presumably managed to measure
something different.
rotfl
relativity is from newtonian physics BASED
(no action reaction violation)
On 28/12/2025 2:22 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 28/12/2025 12:11 am, E.Laureti wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
Actually, Special Relativity says that inertial mass appears to increase >> as relative velocity approaches the speed of light.
Granting Laureti's experimental acumen, he presumably managed to measure >> something different.
rotfl
relativity is from newtonian physics BASED
(no action reaction violation)
But it makes testable predictions which conform to real measurements.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 28/12/2025 2:22 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 28/12/2025 12:11 am, E.Laureti wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
Actually, Special Relativity says that inertial mass appears to increase >> as relative velocity approaches the speed of light.
Granting Laureti's experimental acumen, he presumably managed to measure >> something different.
rotfl
relativity is from newtonian physics BASED
(no action reaction violation)
But it makes testable predictions which conform to real measurements.
I don't talk about relativity when I talk about PNN. You do it to avoid any experimental verification of PNN. See the elementary pendulum test in...
for action reaction PNN violation.--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
Alternatively,
to do nothing as usual since PNN violates conservation of momentum, you immediately state the
preemptive thing that conservation of momentum cannot be violated. That is, always no
experimental verification.
It seems you are terrified that your Newtonian and relativistic wall might be circumvented.
Another way to avoid any experimental action is to say: extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence,
but you don't want to do or see it. Or you say take the PNN to the peer reviewers knowing full well that
peer reviewers censor everything that is outside the paradigms, and worse, peer reviewers
don't do experimental verifications of what is outside the paradigms.
A comical example of avoiding any momentum-conserving censorship is the tactic used by Genergo
https://genergo.space/ who don't claim to violate momentum... but that their propulsion
without reaction mass ejection is zero propellant :-)
But Genergo, unlike us, found the money to conduct reactionless tests in orbit.
I predict the usual: that you will tell us anything to avoid having to do any tests on the PNN yourself :-)
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti ><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:47:27 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti ><user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
An important announcement like this really should have been held back
until the beginning of April.
Astronauts who've handled Martian
soil samples report it smells like spent gunpowder or hot metal, but
the pervasive smell on the planet would be dominated by sulfur.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 28/12/2025 2:22 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 28/12/2025 12:11 am, E.Laureti wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
Actually, Special Relativity says that inertial mass appears to increase >>>> as relative velocity approaches the speed of light.
Granting Laureti's experimental acumen, he presumably managed to measure >>>> something different.
rotfl
relativity is from newtonian physics BASED
(no action reaction violation)
But it makes testable predictions which conform to real measurements.
I don't talk about relativity when I talk about PNN. You do it to avoid any experimental verification of PNN. See the elementary pendulum test in... for action reaction violation.
Alternatively,
to do nothing as usual since PNN violates conservation of momentum, you immediately state the
preemptive thing that conservation of momentum cannot be violated. That is, always no
experimental verification.
It seems you are terrified that your Newtonian and relativistic wall might be circumvented.
Another way to avoid any experimental action is to say: extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence,
but you don't want to do or see it. Or you say take the PNN to the peer reviewers knowing full well that
peer reviewers censor everything that is outside the paradigms, and worse, peer reviewers
don't do experimental verifications of what is outside the paradigms.
A comical example of avoiding any momentum-conserving censorship is the tactic used by Genergo
https://genergo.space/ who don't claim to violate momentum... but that their propulsion
without reaction mass ejection is zero propellant :-)
But Genergo, unlike us, found the money to conduct reactionless tests in orbit.
I predict the usual: that you will tell us anything to avoid having to do any tests on the PNN yourself :-)
In message <gka0lkpcck8cj3gcp0k5omtkufh5isbsb9@4ax.com>, john larkin ><jl@glen--canyon.com> writes
Astronauts who've handled Martian
soil samples report it smells like spent gunpowder or hot metal, but
the pervasive smell on the planet would be dominated by sulfur.
Why does it need astronauts to do that ?
Brian
On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 13:24:47 +0000, brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <gka0lkpcck8cj3gcp0k5omtkufh5isbsb9@4ax.com>, john larkin
<jl@glen--canyon.com> writes
Astronauts who've handled Martian
soil samples report it smells like spent gunpowder or hot metal, but
the pervasive smell on the planet would be dominated by sulfur.
Why does it need astronauts to do that ?
That's obviously google AI stupidity. Nobody has been to Mars and no
samples have been returned.
But it's probably stinky. And deadly.
On 29/12/2025 2:56 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 13:24:47 +0000, brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <gka0lkpcck8cj3gcp0k5omtkufh5isbsb9@4ax.com>, john larkin
<jl@glen--canyon.com> writes
Astronauts who've handled Martian
soil samples report it smells like spent gunpowder or hot metal, but
the pervasive smell on the planet would be dominated by sulfur.
Why does it need astronauts to do that ?
That's obviously google AI stupidity. Nobody has been to Mars and no
samples have been returned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission
But it's probably stinky. And deadly.
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to
earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
On 28/12/2025 6:27 pm, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 28/12/2025 2:22 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 28/12/2025 12:11 am, E.Laureti wrote:
john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
no
mass decrease when PNN velocity increase
Actually, Special Relativity says that inertial mass appears to increase >>>> as relative velocity approaches the speed of light.
Granting Laureti's experimental acumen, he presumably managed to measure >>>> something different.
rotfl
relativity is from newtonian physics BASED
(no action reaction violation)
But it makes testable predictions which conform to real measurements.
I don't talk about relativity when I talk about PNN. You do it to avoid any experimental verification of PNN. See the elementary pendulum test in... for action reaction violation.
Which you do in air, rather than under vacuum.
Alternatively,
to do nothing as usual since PNN violates conservation of momentum, you immediately state the
preemptive thing that conservation of momentum cannot be violated. That is, always no
experimental verification.
I haven't said anything of the sort. What I have said is that your experiments have potential confounds, and your responses don't address them.
It seems you are terrified that your Newtonian and relativistic wall might be circumvented.
I'd be delighted if it were, but what you have told us doesn't encourage
me to throw out a bunch of theories which have been being tested since
the scientific method was formalised a few hundred years ago.
Another way to avoid any experimental action is to say: extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence,
but you don't want to do or see it. Or you say take the PNN to the peer reviewers knowing full well that
peer reviewers censor everything that is outside the paradigms, and worse, peer reviewers
don't do experimental verifications of what is outside the paradigms.
I've done a little peer reviewing for journals and got a handful of my
own papers through the process. Referees make all kinds of mistakes, but slavish devotion to orthodoxy isn't one I've run into.
A comical example of avoiding any momentum-conserving censorship is the tactic used by Genergo
https://genergo.space/ who don't claim to violate momentum... but that their propulsion
without reaction mass ejection is zero propellant :-)
Their tactic is much the same as yours - they make an implausible claim
and don't support with anything that looks like credible evidence.
But Genergo, unlike us, found the money to conduct reactionless tests in orbit.
I predict the usual: that you will tell us anything to avoid having to do any tests on the PNN yourself :-)
You can test your gear under vacuum on the ground. I've worked on
electron microscopes which had quite large vacuum chambers to hold the objects being looked at. The lubrication required by the moving parts in
the imaging chamber limited the vacuum to chemical vacuum levels -
about 10^-4 torr. The electron emitter space had to be pumped down to a physical vacuum - about 10^-7 torr.
One of my acquaintances builds cube-sats, which can be put into low
earth orbit relatively cheaply.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CubeSat
Wikipedia says about $100.000 which sounds about right.
That's a lot less than your $24 million.
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 03:08:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 2:56 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 13:24:47 +0000, brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <gka0lkpcck8cj3gcp0k5omtkufh5isbsb9@4ax.com>, john larkin
<jl@glen--canyon.com> writes
Astronauts who've handled Martian
soil samples report it smells like spent gunpowder or hot metal, but >>>>> the pervasive smell on the planet would be dominated by sulfur.
Why does it need astronauts to do that ?
That's obviously google AI stupidity. Nobody has been to Mars and no
samples have been returned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission
But it's probably stinky. And deadly.
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to
earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
"Seem to" !
The theory is good for selling museum tickets.
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:47:27 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
An important announcement like this really should have been held back
until the beginning of April.
You're terrified of repeating any PNN experiment that might violate
the Newtonian dogmas of the religion you believe in.
The result is that with your missile dogmas you will never colonize anything as has been the case for over half a century :-)
On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 13:24:47 +0000, brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <gka0lkpcck8cj3gcp0k5omtkufh5isbsb9@4ax.com>, john larkin
<jl@glen--canyon.com> writes
Astronauts who've handled Martian
soil samples report it smells like spent gunpowder or hot metal, but
the pervasive smell on the planet would be dominated by sulfur.
Why does it need astronauts to do that ?
Brian
That's obviously google AI stupidity. Nobody has been to Mars and no
samples have been returned.
But it's probably stinky. And deadly.
On 29/12/2025 3:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 03:08:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 2:56 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 13:24:47 +0000, brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <gka0lkpcck8cj3gcp0k5omtkufh5isbsb9@4ax.com>, john larkin >>>>> <jl@glen--canyon.com> writes
Astronauts who've handled Martian
soil samples report it smells like spent gunpowder or hot metal, but >>>>>> the pervasive smell on the planet would be dominated by sulfur.
Why does it need astronauts to do that ?
That's obviously google AI stupidity. Nobody has been to Mars and no
samples have been returned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission
But it's probably stinky. And deadly.
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to
earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
"Seem to" !
The theory is good for selling museum tickets.
As the wikipedia page points out, the trace element profiles match those >seen by the Mars rover.
It's be better founded theory than you want to acknowledge, probably
because you haven't got a clue about the science that backs it up.
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:43:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 3:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 03:08:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 2:56 am, john larkin wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2025 13:24:47 +0000, brian <nospam@b-howie.co.uk>
wrote:
In message <gka0lkpcck8cj3gcp0k5omtkufh5isbsb9@4ax.com>, john larkin >>>>>> <jl@glen--canyon.com> writes
Astronauts who've handled Martian
soil samples report it smells like spent gunpowder or hot metal, but >>>>>>> the pervasive smell on the planet would be dominated by sulfur.
Why does it need astronauts to do that ?
That's obviously google AI stupidity. Nobody has been to Mars and no >>>>> samples have been returned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_sample-return_mission
But it's probably stinky. And deadly.
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to
earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
"Seem to" !
The theory is good for selling museum tickets.
As the wikipedia page points out, the trace element profiles match those
seen by the Mars rover.
It's be better founded theory than you want to acknowledge, probably
because you haven't got a clue about the science that backs it up.
Oh, I've worked with TOF atom probe spectroscopy and backscatter
analysis and analytical NMR and all sorts of exotic physics.
Physicists need help with circuits.
But a lot of the solar system has rocks with similar isotopic content.
Declaring a meteorite to be a chunk knocked off Mars is a real
hand-waver.
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:43:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 3:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 03:08:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to
earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
"Seem to" !
The theory is good for selling museum tickets.
As the wikipedia page points out, the trace element profiles match those
seen by the Mars rover.
It's be better founded theory than you want to acknowledge, probably
because you haven't got a clue about the science that backs it up.
Oh, I've worked with TOF atom probe spectroscopy and backscatter
analysis and analytical NMR and all sorts of exotic physics.
Physiscists need help with circuits.
But a lot of the solar system has rocks with similar isotopic content. Declaring a meteorite to be a chunk knocked of Mars is a real
hand-waver.
On 29/12/2025 16:04, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:43:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 3:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 03:08:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to >>>>> earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
"Seem to" !
The theory is good for selling museum tickets.
As the wikipedia page points out, the trace element profiles match those >>> seen by the Mars rover.
It's be better founded theory than you want to acknowledge, probably
because you haven't got a clue about the science that backs it up.
Oh, I've worked with TOF atom probe spectroscopy and backscatter
analysis and analytical NMR and all sorts of exotic physics.
Physiscists need help with circuits.
But a lot of the solar system has rocks with similar isotopic content.
Declaring a meteorite to be a chunk knocked of Mars is a real
hand-waver.
Not really. The oxygen isotopic signature on Mars is different enough to recognise Mars rocks. Although that doesn't stop charlatans on eBay
selling Mars meteorites that are just similar looking Earth rocks.
Anyone with a stable isotope MS or a noble gas MS would be able to test
the gasses in inclusions and see old Martian atmosphere if it is real.
On 12/31/25 12:01, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/12/2025 16:04, john larkin wrote:
Oh, I've worked with TOF atom probe spectroscopy and backscatter
analysis and analytical NMR and all sorts of exotic physics.
Physiscists need help with circuits.
But a lot of the solar system has rocks with similar isotopic content.
Declaring a meteorite to be a chunk knocked of Mars is a real
hand-waver.
Not really. The oxygen isotopic signature on Mars is different enough
to recognise Mars rocks. Although that doesn't stop charlatans on eBay
selling Mars meteorites that are just similar looking Earth rocks.
Anyone with a stable isotope MS or a noble gas MS would be able to
test the gasses in inclusions and see old Martian atmosphere if it is
real.
I suppose analysis methods are more refined these days, but in 1974 I simulated a meteorite hit in a class mate's garden as a hoax. What I
did not anticipate is that everyone took this seriously. It was just a
piece of steel furnace slag, but even the Max Planck institute in
Germany refused to admit they'd been fooled.
On 29/12/2025 16:04, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:43:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 3:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 03:08:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to >>>>> earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
"Seem to" !
The theory is good for selling museum tickets.
As the wikipedia page points out, the trace element profiles match those >>> seen by the Mars rover.
It's be better founded theory than you want to acknowledge, probably
because you haven't got a clue about the science that backs it up.
Oh, I've worked with TOF atom probe spectroscopy and backscatter
analysis and analytical NMR and all sorts of exotic physics.
Physiscists need help with circuits.
But a lot of the solar system has rocks with similar isotopic content.
Declaring a meteorite to be a chunk knocked of Mars is a real
hand-waver.
Not really. The oxygen isotopic signature on Mars is different enough to >recognise Mars rocks. Although that doesn't stop charlatans on eBay
selling Mars meteorites that are just similar looking Earth rocks.
Anyone with a stable isotope MS or a noble gas MS would be able to test
the gasses in inclusions and see old Martian atmosphere if it is real.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:01:50 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 16:04, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:43:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 3:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 03:08:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to >>>>>> earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
"Seem to" !
The theory is good for selling museum tickets.
As the wikipedia page points out, the trace element profiles match those >>>> seen by the Mars rover.
It's be better founded theory than you want to acknowledge, probably
because you haven't got a clue about the science that backs it up.
Oh, I've worked with TOF atom probe spectroscopy and backscatter
analysis and analytical NMR and all sorts of exotic physics.
Physiscists need help with circuits.
But a lot of the solar system has rocks with similar isotopic content.
Declaring a meteorite to be a chunk knocked of Mars is a real
hand-waver.
Not really. The oxygen isotopic signature on Mars is different enough to
recognise Mars rocks. Although that doesn't stop charlatans on eBay
selling Mars meteorites that are just similar looking Earth rocks.
Anyone with a stable isotope MS or a noble gas MS would be able to test
the gasses in inclusions and see old Martian atmosphere if it is real.
Wouldn't therre be a lot of diffusion in billions of years?
Same for ice cores.
On 31/12/2025 11:32, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 12/31/25 12:01, Martin Brown wrote:
On 29/12/2025 16:04, john larkin wrote:
Oh, I've worked with TOF atom probe spectroscopy and backscatter
analysis and analytical NMR and all sorts of exotic physics.
Physiscists need help with circuits.
But a lot of the solar system has rocks with similar isotopic content. >>>> Declaring a meteorite to be a chunk knocked of Mars is a real
hand-waver.
Not really. The oxygen isotopic signature on Mars is different enough
to recognise Mars rocks. Although that doesn't stop charlatans on
eBay selling Mars meteorites that are just similar looking Earth rocks.
Anyone with a stable isotope MS or a noble gas MS would be able to
test the gasses in inclusions and see old Martian atmosphere if it is
real.
I suppose analysis methods are more refined these days, but in 1974 I
simulated a meteorite hit in a class mate's garden as a hoax. What I
did not anticipate is that everyone took this seriously. It was just a
piece of steel furnace slag, but even the Max Planck institute in
Germany refused to admit they'd been fooled.
Back then they wouldn't have any easy way of testing it. That all
changed in about 1990 when TOF ion probes and laser ablation mass spectrometry came of age. Before that you had to pound it to dust and dissolve in HF (not nice) then do some very fancy wet chemistry.
I worked on software for the mass spectrometric rare earth element
analysis of meteorites at one time (and on dating ancient rocks).
The geologists get very excited about the Europium anomaly in them. That--
one species is a marker that varies enormously with the type of rock and
the chemical environment when and where it was formed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europium_anomaly
I understand that it occurs when Europium is in an unusual oxidation
state and is commonly seen in stony chondrites and moon rocks. I have
seen a few close up in a glove box. I never had the chance to smell any. Keeping them clean under an inert dry atmosphere was a priority.
Cute demo with a modern Nd magnet you can collect micrometeorites from
the black gunge that accumulates in PVC gutters. Too small for the naked
eye to see but obvious with even a basic toy microscope.
https://www.quekett.org/resources/article-archive/bsw-2017/bsw17-micrometeorites
Some nice almost safe for modern H&S rules science demos on that site.
On 29/12/2025 12:17 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:47:27 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
An important announcement like this really should have been held back
until the beginning of April.
You're terrified of repeating any PNN experiment that might violate
the Newtonian dogmas of the religion you believe in.
Science isn't a religion. Everybody was happy to junk Newtonian physics
when special and general relativity showed up, and the experimental
evidence showed the Einstein was more nearly correct.
The result is that with your missile dogmas you will never colonize anything
as has been the case for over half a century :-)
Missiles are just things that get thrown. Even if your reactionless
drive works, the thing it moves around will still be a missile.
Rockets have got us to the moon, and they've got exploring robots to
Mars. Their economics are horrible, but there are cheaper schemes that
could do the same job that might become technologically feasible.
You do seem to think that you have discovered a new technology, but the "evidence" that you have presented so far isn't all that convincing.
In fact it looks terrifying like earlier schemes that turned out to be
scams.
On 29/12/2025 12:17 am, E.Laureti wrote:
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:47:27 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
An important announcement like this really should have been held back
until the beginning of April.
You're terrified of repeating any PNN experiment that might violate
the Newtonian dogmas of the religion you believe in.
Science isn't a religion. Everybody was happy to junk Newtonian physics
when special and general relativity showed up, and the experimental
evidence showed the Einstein was more nearly correct.
The result is that with your missile dogmas you will never colonize anything
as has been the case for over half a century :-)
Missiles are just things that get thrown. Even if your reactionless
drive works, the thing it moves around will still be a missile.
Rockets have got us to the moon, and they've got exploring robots to
Mars. Their economics are horrible, but there are cheaper schemes that
could do the same job that might become technologically feasible.
You do seem to think that you have discovered a new technology, but the "evidence" that you have presented so far isn't all that convincing.
In fact it looks terrifying like earlier schemes that turned out to be
scams.
On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 11:01:50 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 29/12/2025 16:04, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 18:43:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 29/12/2025 3:17 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 29 Dec 2025 03:08:19 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>> wrote:
John's not entirely correct. There are meteorites that have fallen to >>>>>> earth that seem to have been kicked off Mars.
"Seem to" !
The theory is good for selling museum tickets.
As the wikipedia page points out, the trace element profiles match those >>>> seen by the Mars rover.
It's be better founded theory than you want to acknowledge, probably
because you haven't got a clue about the science that backs it up.
Oh, I've worked with TOF atom probe spectroscopy and backscatter
analysis and analytical NMR and all sorts of exotic physics.
Physiscists need help with circuits.
But a lot of the solar system has rocks with similar isotopic content.
Declaring a meteorite to be a chunk knocked of Mars is a real
hand-waver.
Not really. The oxygen isotopic signature on Mars is different enough to
recognise Mars rocks. Although that doesn't stop charlatans on eBay
selling Mars meteorites that are just similar looking Earth rocks.
Anyone with a stable isotope MS or a noble gas MS would be able to test
the gasses in inclusions and see old Martian atmosphere if it is real.
Wouldn't therre be a lot of diffusion in billions of years?
Same for ice cores.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 29/12/2025 12:17 am, E.Laureti wrote:You are terrifyed from PNN experimental tests
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:47:27 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
An important announcement like this really should have been held back
until the beginning of April.
You're terrified of repeating any PNN experiment that might violate
the Newtonian dogmas of the religion you believe in.
Science isn't a religion. Everybody was happy to junk Newtonian physics
when special and general relativity showed up, and the experimental
evidence showed the Einstein was more nearly correct.
The result is that with your missile dogmas you will never colonize anything
as has been the case for over half a century :-)
Missiles are just things that get thrown. Even if your reactionless
drive works, the thing it moves around will still be a missile.
Rockets have got us to the moon, and they've got exploring robots to
Mars. Their economics are horrible, but there are cheaper schemes that
could do the same job that might become technologically feasible.
You do seem to think that you have discovered a new technology, but the
"evidence" that you have presented so far isn't all that convincing.
In fact it looks terrifying like earlier schemes that turned out to be
scams.
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/pitchdeck
On 1/01/2026 8:54 pm, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 29/12/2025 12:17 am, E.Laureti wrote:You are terrifyed from PNN experimental tests
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:47:27 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com> >>>> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
An important announcement like this really should have been held back >>>> until the beginning of April.
You're terrified of repeating any PNN experiment that might violate
the Newtonian dogmas of the religion you believe in.
Science isn't a religion. Everybody was happy to junk Newtonian physics
when special and general relativity showed up, and the experimental
evidence showed the Einstein was more nearly correct.
The result is that with your missile dogmas you will never colonize anything
as has been the case for over half a century :-)
Missiles are just things that get thrown. Even if your reactionless
drive works, the thing it moves around will still be a missile.
Rockets have got us to the moon, and they've got exploring robots to
Mars. Their economics are horrible, but there are cheaper schemes that
could do the same job that might become technologically feasible.
You do seem to think that you have discovered a new technology, but the
"evidence" that you have presented so far isn't all that convincing.
In fact it looks terrifying like earlier schemes that turned out to be
scams.
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/pitchdeck
Demonstrating that you are incompetent experimentalists isn't a great
way to attract investors/
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 1/01/2026 8:54 pm, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
In fact it looks terrifying like earlier schemes that turned out to be >>>> scams.
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/pitchdeck
Demonstrating that you are incompetent experimentalists isn't a great
way to attract investors/
My prototypes work despite me being incompetent, while you competent people
only have chatter
On 02/01/2026 06:32, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 1/01/2026 8:54 pm, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
In fact it looks terrifying like earlier schemes that turned out to be >>>> scams.
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/pitchdeck
Demonstrating that you are incompetent experimentalists isn't a great
way to attract investors/
Several LNER proponents seemed to have been able to do it.
One even took DOD for a ride :(
My prototypes work despite me being incompetent, while you competent people
only have chatter
They only work for some very relaxed definition of "work".
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force
if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is
of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force
if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is
of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy
source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force
if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is
of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy
source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force >>>> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is >>>> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy >>>> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CAmon, Martin, enjoy the funuhistorically the real crazies round here have >been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Josef Matz, John Brookes, and Dirk Bruereuwhere are they now?
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
On 02/01/2026 06:32, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 1/01/2026 8:54 pm, E.Laureti wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
In fact it looks terrifying like earlier schemes that turned out to be >>>>>> scams.
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/pitchdeck
Demonstrating that you are incompetent experimentalists isn't a great >>>> way to attract investors/
Several LNER proponents seemed to have been able to do it.
One even took DOD for a ride :(
My prototypes work despite me being incompetent, while you competent people >>> only have chatter
They only work for some very relaxed definition of "work".
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force
if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is
of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy
source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force >>>> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is >>>> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy >>>> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CrCOmon, Martin, enjoy the funrCohistorically the real crazies round here have
been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force >>>> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is >>>> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy >>>> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CrCOmon, Martin, enjoy the funrCohistorically the real crazies round here have
been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
On 02/01/2026 20:06, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force >>>>> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is >>>>> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy >>>>> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CrCOmon, Martin, enjoy the funrCohistorically the real crazies round here have
been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
True enough.
He does amazingly have a patent application filed with WIPO.
They must use the same algorithm as USPTO - if your dollars are green
and supplied in sufficient quantity then the application goes onto the
books and then waits for someone to bother to shoot it down.
It doesn't seem to have occurred to the OP that once published anyone
with the right gear can reproduce his experiment and see for themselves.
I recall the Fleischmann & Pons heavy water and palladium incident when
for months afterwards it was impossible to buy any of either material.
They were very reputable electrochemists but lousy at calorimetry.
On 02/01/2026 20:06, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force >>>>> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is >>>>> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy >>>>> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CAmon, Martin, enjoy the funuhistorically the real crazies round here have >> been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
True enough.
He does amazingly have a patent application filed with WIPO.
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:21:17 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 20:06, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force >>>>>> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is >>>>>> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy >>>>>> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CrCOmon, Martin, enjoy the funrCohistorically the real crazies round here have
been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
True enough.
He does amazingly have a patent application filed with WIPO.
There you go, then. Don't be mean. The poor guy only needs a paltry
24m dollars to turn his dream into a reality, so don't you think you
should give him a break and invest?
On 1/4/26 19:26, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:21:17 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 20:06, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force >>>>>>> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is >>>>>>> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy >>>>>>> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CAmon, Martin, enjoy the funuhistorically the real crazies round here have >>>> been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
True enough.
He does amazingly have a patent application filed with WIPO.
There you go, then. Don't be mean. The poor guy only needs a paltry
24m dollars to turn his dream into a reality, so don't you think you
should give him a break and invest?
Milli dollars?
Jeroen Belleman
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:21:17 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 20:06, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram force >>>>>> if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus that is >>>>>> of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their energy >>>>>> source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for you :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CrCOmon, Martin, enjoy the funrCohistorically the real crazies round here have
been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
True enough.
He does amazingly have a patent application filed with WIPO.
There you go, then. Don't be mean. The poor guy only needs a paltry
24m dollars to turn his dream into a reality, so don't you think you
should give him a break and invest?
On 5/01/2026 5:26 am, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2026 14:21:17 +0000, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 20:06, Phil Hobbs wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
On 02/01/2026 13:50, E.Laureti wrote:
Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> posted:
You were consuming 250W for minutes and generated at most 2 gram >>>>>>> force
if we are to believe your graph and that was using an apparatus >>>>>>> that is
of unstated weight and a lot of energy.
One thing about spacecraft is that they have to carry all their >>>>>>> energy
source with them. How will your magic carpet be powered?
Doing nothing of PNN experiment, you try to understand what i say
by newtonian physics.
Conclusion : PNN is absurd for-a you-a :-)
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
All you have provided so far is "proof by dynamic assertion".
Yogic flying stands more chance of getting men to Mars!
CrCOmon, Martin, enjoy the funrCohistorically the real crazies round
here have
been German, Dutch, or Australian, so an Italian one is a novelty. ;)
True enough.
He does amazingly have a patent application filed with WIPO.
There you go, then. Don't be mean. The poor guy only needs a paltry
24m dollars to turn his dream into a reality, so don't you think you
should give him a break and invest?
A significant proportion of these sort of investment opportunities turn
out to be scams. The inventor may be sincere, but they may have acquaintances who aren't.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> posted:
On 29/12/2025 12:17 am, E.Laureti wrote:You are terrified by PNN experimental tests.
Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com> posted:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 03:47:27 -0800, john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 2025 07:36:16 GMT, E.Laureti
<user2039@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
ITALIAN MARS EXPEDITION
with PNN spaceships that don't lose parts like Columbus' caravels and can reach Mars in 4 days
http://www.asps.it/tron7.jpg
https://propulsion-revolution.com/en/subspace
http://www.asps.it/tron15.jpg
http://www.asps.it/tron16.jpg
Since momentum is not conserved, it follows that energy isn't
conserved either.
An important announcement like this really should have been held back
until the beginning of April.
You're terrified of repeating any PNN experiment that might violate
the Newtonian dogmas of the religion you believe in.
Science isn't a religion. Everybody was happy to junk Newtonian physics
when special and general relativity showed up, and the experimental
evidence showed the Einstein was more nearly correct.
The result is that with your missile dogmas you will never colonize anything
as has been the case for over half a century :-)
Missiles are just things that get thrown. Even if your reactionless
drive works, the thing it moves around will still be a missile.
Rockets have got us to the moon, and they've got exploring robots to
Mars. Their economics are horrible, but there are cheaper schemes that
could do the same job that might become technologically feasible.
You do seem to think that you have discovered a new technology, but the
"evidence" that you have presented so far isn't all that convincing.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 21:15:43 |
| Calls: | 742 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| D/L today: |
6 files (8,794K bytes) |
| Messages: | 186,018 |
| Posted today: | 1 |
