We have been censored by physicsforum.com.
We passed on Mike’s Boeing paper on gravity to them and it was rejected out of hand.
Possibly because the info came from Gravity Control? Possibly since no perpetual motion or free energy machine is patentable in the US. About five thousand US patents have been held in abeyance, rejected or classified since January 2008. And gravity control and antigravity are words that seem to shudder their community. The message of this Boeing report came from gravitycontrol.org. They didn’t shoot the messenger but they shut him down, quickly recognizing that ours was a crackpot website.
But the Boeing piece by Mike Gamble was done under the authorization of Boeing. It would appear that physicsforum.com didn’t check out that aspect.
Here is part of our conversation with physicsforum.com
PF: Dear tesonified (pseudonym), You have received a warning at Physics Forums.
Reason:
——-
General Warning
Posting links to crackpot “anti-gravity” sites is not permitted on PF.
GC: I think this is unfair.
I was posting a link to a document, created by BOEING, and its about gravity!
What you consider crackpot, well, how would I know?!?
tesonified is Online:
Posts: 0
GC: (to the crowd at physicsforum.com) You are being censored. I tried to share this with you earlier This link is to a document about gravity (produced by Boeing) that I thought
would be of interest to this community.
If you take the time to look at the document, you might see why its posted.
It’s most likely beyond the majority of the audience.
< crackpot link removed > uh, that’s www.gravitycontrol.org
The message (and my reply)
I think this is unfair….
PF: Please review our posting rules, which are linked at the top of
every page; note especially the section on “Overly Speculative
Posts”.
——-
Original Post:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2038059
Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum’s rules, which….
GC: Very interesting study on Gravity by Boeing
. Our posting of Michael A. Gamble’s Boeing gravity paper
http://www.gravitycontrol.org/blog/2009/01/16/gravity-study-by-mike-gamble-boeing/
There was more but, just to give you a taste.
Science today is amazing in one aspect in that they know what they know and reject that which they do not know.
2 comments ↓
So, that which can not be proven = crackpot?
According to them anyway…
I guess they’re not very religious over on physics forum!
If one does enough reading and searching one might come to the conclusion that our modern physics is a bit of a mess where any one of several theories of how and why the universe is the way it is might be considered.
So we have a multiple choice situation, where we each get to choose our favorite flavor.
But should one suggest or question the absurdity of applying static terms to describe a dynamic condition one is called a crack-pot.
My opinion is that very few understand or fully comprehend what a relative condition of universe looks like, while the rest simply try and sing along and in situations where they do not know the lyrics they simply hum to the music.