|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
Il giorno giovedì 20 febbraio 2020 06:13:38 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto:
On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: .........................cut........... I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. This is what we are doing NOW with a view to the international patenting of PNN and its industrial development. But unfortunately everything requires suitable personnel, experimental means time and unfortunately money. But to do this it had to improve the PNN of 20 years ago to have a comparable boost with an ion engine. The primary advantage of the pnn lies not only in violating the principle of action and reaction but also in changing the first and second principles of Newtonian dynamics. But these events are seen well only if the push increases. I'm just waiting for the experimental events we're preparing to speak for me. Quo Fata Ferunt E.Laureti |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
On 20/02/2020 7:13 pm, Doctor Who wrote:
On 2/20/20 6:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 19/02/2020 3:23 am, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 14:16:14 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:14 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 12:28:05 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 7:18 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 04:43:37 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:38 am, wrote: 10% of the patent of the PNN F432 (reactionless drive) prototype for sale http://www.asps.it/patportions.htm This has scam written all over it. Sylvia. There are those who live by cheating billions for 50 years with human bases on the Moon and Mars https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonatha.../#7f0dc0022af5 Â*And the relevance of that is? you understand the meaning of the motto "two weights two measures" ? No. “to operate/use/adopt/have double standards“ from https://www.parolaio.it/dizionario-i...si-due-misure/ Â* I really cannot follow your line of thought. Is it that since other people have scammed, that makes scamming OK? Or that the fact that other such proposals have been scams, this must not be a scam? Perhaps it's that because a better propulsion system is desirable (which I don't dispute), anything that proposes one is necessarily real. Sylvia. The scams are decided on the merits of the facts. I say that a reaction mass ejection propulsion system (rockets) that in 50 years has failed to place a human outpost on the moon and that loses more than 99% of the mass going and returning to the Moon (Apollo 11) is, although it got there! A fraud. A scam is to hope that an evolution is possible with a miracle is a scam. And the disastrous history of the Shuttle taught nothing. Rockets have limitations. That doesn't make them a fraud or a scam. They do at least work. We come to PNN because you are talking about the scandal of asking for funds for your patent and development. Have you understood that in www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm the three physicists Moretti, Fabri and Pastore say that the principle of action and reaction is violable in electrodynamics? No youÂ* didn't understand it and they cheat too. Also in that link, did you understand that a patent of mine filed in 1998 was granted in 2000? And that the patent said how to violate Newton's third? No ! No you did not understand it: even those of the Italian patent office were participating in the PNN scam! The Italian patent office may have failed to grasp the significance of what your patent was claiming. That doesn't mean they will similarly fail next time, and it certainly does not suggest they were participating in a scam. Did you understand that 2 Japanese people copied (bad)Â* months after in 1998 the filing of my patent, the basic idea of the same and they republished it in their name? So scammers can also be plagerists. Quelle surprise. No you didn't understand! Now I'm going to patent the PNN more enhanced than in this video http://www.asps.it/qct05_ENG.mp4 However, I will patent whether or not I find funding. You don't know that you will succeed in getting the patent. The F432 patent will be copied at the speed of light because the real and not bogus conquest of space will go. I will annoy you as long as you at least recognize that the only functioning reactionless drive (the Emdrive does not work!)Â* is PNN and can take the money from the nobel prize. I hope it is not a scam for you to receive (perhaps!) the nobel prize too, and of course ridicule and punish people like you who have always hindered me. I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. Sylvia you have an invalid email address, that makes you a troll. Run that line of reasoning past me again? Sylvia. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
On 2/21/20 12:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20/02/2020 7:13 pm, Doctor Who wrote: On 2/20/20 6:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 19/02/2020 3:23 am, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 14:16:14 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:14 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 12:28:05 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 7:18 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 04:43:37 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:38 am, wrote: 10% of the patent of the PNN F432 (reactionless drive) prototype for sale http://www.asps.it/patportions.htm This has scam written all over it. Sylvia. There are those who live by cheating billions for 50 years with human bases on the Moon and Mars https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonatha.../#7f0dc0022af5 Â*And the relevance of that is? you understand the meaning of the motto "two weights two measures" ? No. “to operate/use/adopt/have double standards“ from https://www.parolaio.it/dizionario-i...si-due-misure/ Â* I really cannot follow your line of thought. Is it that since other people have scammed, that makes scamming OK? Or that the fact that other such proposals have been scams, this must not be a scam? Perhaps it's that because a better propulsion system is desirable (which I don't dispute), anything that proposes one is necessarily real. Sylvia. The scams are decided on the merits of the facts. I say that a reaction mass ejection propulsion system (rockets) that in 50 years has failed to place a human outpost on the moon and that loses more than 99% of the mass going and returning to the Moon (Apollo 11) is, although it got there! A fraud. A scam is to hope that an evolution is possible with a miracle is a scam. And the disastrous history of the Shuttle taught nothing. Rockets have limitations. That doesn't make them a fraud or a scam. They do at least work. We come to PNN because you are talking about the scandal of asking for funds for your patent and development. Have you understood that in www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm the three physicists Moretti, Fabri and Pastore say that the principle of action and reaction is violable in electrodynamics? No youÂ* didn't understand it and they cheat too. Also in that link, did you understand that a patent of mine filed in 1998 was granted in 2000? And that the patent said how to violate Newton's third? No ! No you did not understand it: even those of the Italian patent office were participating in the PNN scam! The Italian patent office may have failed to grasp the significance of what your patent was claiming. That doesn't mean they will similarly fail next time, and it certainly does not suggest they were participating in a scam. Did you understand that 2 Japanese people copied (bad)Â* months after in 1998 the filing of my patent, the basic idea of the same and they republished it in their name? So scammers can also be plagerists. Quelle surprise. No you didn't understand! Now I'm going to patent the PNN more enhanced than in this video http://www.asps.it/qct05_ENG.mp4 However, I will patent whether or not I find funding. You don't know that you will succeed in getting the patent. The F432 patent will be copied at the speed of light because the real and not bogus conquest of space will go. I will annoy you as long as you at least recognize that the only functioning reactionless drive (the Emdrive does not work!)Â* is PNN and can take the money from the nobel prize. I hope it is not a scam for you to receive (perhaps!) the nobel prize too, and of course ridicule and punish people like you who have always hindered me. I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. Sylvia you have an invalid email address, that makes you a troll. Run that line of reasoning past me again? Sylvia. there are strong motivations to deem you as a troll, because of your line of thinking. Rocketry cannot live past PNN. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
On 2/21/20 12:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20/02/2020 7:13 pm, Doctor Who wrote: On 2/20/20 6:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 19/02/2020 3:23 am, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 14:16:14 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:14 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 12:28:05 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 7:18 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 04:43:37 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:38 am, wrote: 10% of the patent of the PNN F432 (reactionless drive) prototype for sale http://www.asps.it/patportions.htm This has scam written all over it. Sylvia. There are those who live by cheating billions for 50 years with human bases on the Moon and Mars https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonatha.../#7f0dc0022af5 Â*And the relevance of that is? you understand the meaning of the motto "two weights two measures" ? No. “to operate/use/adopt/have double standards“ from https://www.parolaio.it/dizionario-i...si-due-misure/ Â* I really cannot follow your line of thought. Is it that since other people have scammed, that makes scamming OK? Or that the fact that other such proposals have been scams, this must not be a scam? Perhaps it's that because a better propulsion system is desirable (which I don't dispute), anything that proposes one is necessarily real. Sylvia. The scams are decided on the merits of the facts. I say that a reaction mass ejection propulsion system (rockets) that in 50 years has failed to place a human outpost on the moon and that loses more than 99% of the mass going and returning to the Moon (Apollo 11) is, although it got there! A fraud. A scam is to hope that an evolution is possible with a miracle is a scam. And the disastrous history of the Shuttle taught nothing. Rockets have limitations. That doesn't make them a fraud or a scam. They do at least work. We come to PNN because you are talking about the scandal of asking for funds for your patent and development. Have you understood that in www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm the three physicists Moretti, Fabri and Pastore say that the principle of action and reaction is violable in electrodynamics? No youÂ* didn't understand it and they cheat too. Also in that link, did you understand that a patent of mine filed in 1998 was granted in 2000? And that the patent said how to violate Newton's third? No ! No you did not understand it: even those of the Italian patent office were participating in the PNN scam! The Italian patent office may have failed to grasp the significance of what your patent was claiming. That doesn't mean they will similarly fail next time, and it certainly does not suggest they were participating in a scam. Did you understand that 2 Japanese people copied (bad)Â* months after in 1998 the filing of my patent, the basic idea of the same and they republished it in their name? So scammers can also be plagerists. Quelle surprise. No you didn't understand! Now I'm going to patent the PNN more enhanced than in this video http://www.asps.it/qct05_ENG.mp4 However, I will patent whether or not I find funding. You don't know that you will succeed in getting the patent. The F432 patent will be copied at the speed of light because the real and not bogus conquest of space will go. I will annoy you as long as you at least recognize that the only functioning reactionless drive (the Emdrive does not work!)Â* is PNN and can take the money from the nobel prize. I hope it is not a scam for you to receive (perhaps!) the nobel prize too, and of course ridicule and punish people like you who have always hindered me. I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. Sylvia you have an invalid email address, that makes you a troll. Run that line of reasoning past me again? Sylvia. you part for a failing technology, rocketry is unsuccessful, disastrous, abortive, ruinous, insolvent, and finally failing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY1cEOzaf78 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
On 20/02/2020 4:49 pm, wrote:
Il giorno giovedì 20 febbraio 2020 06:13:38 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: ........................cut........... I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. This is what we are doing NOW with a view to the international patenting of PNN and its industrial development. But unfortunately everything requires suitable personnel, experimental means time and unfortunately money. But to do this it had to improve the PNN of 20 years ago to have a comparable boost with an ion engine. The primary advantage of the pnn lies not only in violating the principle of action and reaction but also in changing the first and second principles of Newtonian dynamics. But these events are seen well only if the push increases. If the results from experiments you've done already are not sufficiently compelling as to convince impartial experts, then the obvious suspicion is that you're deluding yourself as to the effectiveness of your drive. No one in their right mind would invest in something that not only cannot be shown to function, but also breaks the accepted laws of physics. The natural assumption would be that it doesn't work, and that any money spent on it is money wasted. You're putting the cart before the horse. The first thing to do is to show, convincingly, that the effect is real. It doesn't need to be a practical space drive for that, and attempts at industrial development are premature. Sylvia. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
On 2/21/20 12:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 20/02/2020 4:49 pm, wrote: Il giorno giovedì 20 febbraio 2020 06:13:38 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: ........................cut........... I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. This is what we are doing NOW with a view to the international patenting of PNN and its industrial development. But unfortunately everything requires suitable personnel, experimental means time and unfortunately money. But to do this it had to improve the PNN of 20 years ago to have a comparable boost with an ion engine. The primary advantage of the pnn lies not only in violating the principle of action and reaction but also in changing the first and second principles of Newtonian dynamics. But these events are seen well only if the push increases. If the results from experiments you've done already are not sufficiently compelling as to convince impartial experts, then the obvious suspicion is that you're deluding yourself as to the effectiveness of your drive. No one in their right mind would invest in something that not only cannot be shown to function, but also breaks the accepted laws of physics. The natural assumption would be that it doesn't work, and that any money spent on it is money wasted. You're putting the cart before the horse. The first thing to do is to show, convincingly, that the effect is real. It doesn't need to be a practical space drive for that, and attempts at industrial development are premature. Sylvia. compliments this is a troll reasoning in all respects... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
On 21/02/2020 10:44 am, Doctor Who wrote:
On 2/21/20 12:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 20/02/2020 7:13 pm, Doctor Who wrote: On 2/20/20 6:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 19/02/2020 3:23 am, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 14:16:14 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:14 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 12:28:05 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 7:18 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 04:43:37 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:38 am, wrote: 10% of the patent of the PNN F432 (reactionless drive) prototype for sale http://www.asps.it/patportions.htm This has scam written all over it. Sylvia. There are those who live by cheating billions for 50 years with human bases on the Moon and Mars https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonatha.../#7f0dc0022af5 Â*And the relevance of that is? you understand the meaning of the motto "two weights two measures" ? No. “to operate/use/adopt/have double standards“ from https://www.parolaio.it/dizionario-i...si-due-misure/ Â* I really cannot follow your line of thought. Is it that since other people have scammed, that makes scamming OK? Or that the fact that other such proposals have been scams, this must not be a scam? Perhaps it's that because a better propulsion system is desirable (which I don't dispute), anything that proposes one is necessarily real. Sylvia. The scams are decided on the merits of the facts. I say that a reaction mass ejection propulsion system (rockets) that in 50 years has failed to place a human outpost on the moon and that loses more than 99% of the mass going and returning to the Moon (Apollo 11) is, although it got there! A fraud. A scam is to hope that an evolution is possible with a miracle is a scam. And the disastrous history of the Shuttle taught nothing. Rockets have limitations. That doesn't make them a fraud or a scam. They do at least work. We come to PNN because you are talking about the scandal of asking for funds for your patent and development. Have you understood that in www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm the three physicists Moretti, Fabri and Pastore say that the principle of action and reaction is violable in electrodynamics? No youÂ* didn't understand it and they cheat too. Also in that link, did you understand that a patent of mine filed in 1998 was granted in 2000? And that the patent said how to violate Newton's third? No ! No you did not understand it: even those of the Italian patent office were participating in the PNN scam! The Italian patent office may have failed to grasp the significance of what your patent was claiming. That doesn't mean they will similarly fail next time, and it certainly does not suggest they were participating in a scam. Did you understand that 2 Japanese people copied (bad)Â* months after in 1998 the filing of my patent, the basic idea of the same and they republished it in their name? So scammers can also be plagerists. Quelle surprise. No you didn't understand! Now I'm going to patent the PNN more enhanced than in this video http://www.asps.it/qct05_ENG.mp4 However, I will patent whether or not I find funding. You don't know that you will succeed in getting the patent. The F432 patent will be copied at the speed of light because the real and not bogus conquest of space will go. I will annoy you as long as you at least recognize that the only functioning reactionless drive (the Emdrive does not work!)Â* is PNN and can take the money from the nobel prize. I hope it is not a scam for you to receive (perhaps!) the nobel prize too, and of course ridicule and punish people like you who have always hindered me. I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. Sylvia you have an invalid email address, that makes you a troll. Run that line of reasoning past me again? Sylvia. there are strong motivations to deem you as a troll, because of your line of thinking. Rocketry cannot live past PNN. That's all very well, but now you're trying to justify your original conclusion via a different path. Your original claim was that having an invalid email address makes me a troll. Whether or not I can be determined to be a troll by some other route is neither here nor there. Sylvia. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
On 2/21/20 2:08 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 21/02/2020 10:44 am, Doctor Who wrote: On 2/21/20 12:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 20/02/2020 7:13 pm, Doctor Who wrote: On 2/20/20 6:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 19/02/2020 3:23 am, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 14:16:14 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:14 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 12:28:05 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 7:18 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 04:43:37 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:38 am, wrote: 10% of the patent of the PNN F432 (reactionless drive) prototype for sale http://www.asps.it/patportions.htm This has scam written all over it. Sylvia. There are those who live by cheating billions for 50 years with human bases on the Moon and Mars https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonatha.../#7f0dc0022af5 Â*And the relevance of that is? you understand the meaning of the motto "two weights two measures" ? No. “to operate/use/adopt/have double standards“ from https://www.parolaio.it/dizionario-i...si-due-misure/ Â* I really cannot follow your line of thought. Is it that since other people have scammed, that makes scamming OK? Or that the fact that other such proposals have been scams, this must not be a scam? Perhaps it's that because a better propulsion system is desirable (which I don't dispute), anything that proposes one is necessarily real. Sylvia. The scams are decided on the merits of the facts. I say that a reaction mass ejection propulsion system (rockets) that in 50 years has failed to place a human outpost on the moon and that loses more than 99% of the mass going and returning to the Moon (Apollo 11) is, although it got there! A fraud. A scam is to hope that an evolution is possible with a miracle is a scam. And the disastrous history of the Shuttle taught nothing. Rockets have limitations. That doesn't make them a fraud or a scam. They do at least work. We come to PNN because you are talking about the scandal of asking for funds for your patent and development. Have you understood that in www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm the three physicists Moretti, Fabri and Pastore say that the principle of action and reaction is violable in electrodynamics? No youÂ* didn't understand it and they cheat too. Also in that link, did you understand that a patent of mine filed in 1998 was granted in 2000? And that the patent said how to violate Newton's third? No ! No you did not understand it: even those of the Italian patent office were participating in the PNN scam! The Italian patent office may have failed to grasp the significance of what your patent was claiming. That doesn't mean they will similarly fail next time, and it certainly does not suggest they were participating in a scam. Did you understand that 2 Japanese people copied (bad)Â* months after in 1998 the filing of my patent, the basic idea of the same and they republished it in their name? So scammers can also be plagerists. Quelle surprise. No you didn't understand! Now I'm going to patent the PNN more enhanced than in this video http://www.asps.it/qct05_ENG.mp4 However, I will patent whether or not I find funding. You don't know that you will succeed in getting the patent. The F432 patent will be copied at the speed of light because the real and not bogus conquest of space will go. I will annoy you as long as you at least recognize that the only functioning reactionless drive (the Emdrive does not work!)Â* is PNN and can take the money from the nobel prize. I hope it is not a scam for you to receive (perhaps!) the nobel prize too, and of course ridicule and punish people like you who have always hindered me. I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. Sylvia you have an invalid email address, that makes you a troll. Run that line of reasoning past me again? Sylvia. there are strong motivations to deem you as a troll, because of your line of thinking. Rocketry cannot live past PNN. That's all very well, but now you're trying to justify your original conclusion via a different path. Your original claim was that having an invalid email address makes me a troll. Whether or not I can be determined to be a troll by some other route is neither here nor there. Sylvia. Wrong, there are both ways, your invalid email and your line of reasoning. Oh and you look like a man, but Sylvia is a female name, impostors are beaten to death. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
10% of PNN patent for sale
On 21/02/2020 12:57 pm, Doctor Who wrote:
On 2/21/20 2:08 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 21/02/2020 10:44 am, Doctor Who wrote: On 2/21/20 12:42 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 20/02/2020 7:13 pm, Doctor Who wrote: On 2/20/20 6:13 AM, Sylvia Else wrote: On 19/02/2020 7:27 pm, wrote: Il giorno mercoledì 19 febbraio 2020 02:41:18 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 19/02/2020 3:23 am, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 14:16:14 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:14 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 12:28:05 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 7:18 pm, wrote: Il giorno martedì 18 febbraio 2020 04:43:37 UTC+1, Sylvia Else ha scritto: On 18/02/2020 11:38 am, wrote: 10% of the patent of the PNN F432 (reactionless drive) prototype for sale http://www.asps.it/patportions.htm This has scam written all over it. Sylvia. There are those who live by cheating billions for 50 years with human bases on the Moon and Mars https://www.forbes.com/sites/jonatha.../#7f0dc0022af5 Â*And the relevance of that is? you understand the meaning of the motto "two weights two measures" ? No. “to operate/use/adopt/have double standards“ from https://www.parolaio.it/dizionario-i...si-due-misure/ Â* I really cannot follow your line of thought. Is it that since other people have scammed, that makes scamming OK? Or that the fact that other such proposals have been scams, this must not be a scam? Perhaps it's that because a better propulsion system is desirable (which I don't dispute), anything that proposes one is necessarily real. Sylvia. The scams are decided on the merits of the facts. I say that a reaction mass ejection propulsion system (rockets) that in 50 years has failed to place a human outpost on the moon and that loses more than 99% of the mass going and returning to the Moon (Apollo 11) is, although it got there! A fraud. A scam is to hope that an evolution is possible with a miracle is a scam. And the disastrous history of the Shuttle taught nothing. Rockets have limitations. That doesn't make them a fraud or a scam. They do at least work. We come to PNN because you are talking about the scandal of asking for funds for your patent and development. Have you understood that in www.asps.it/pnndatabase.htm the three physicists Moretti, Fabri and Pastore say that the principle of action and reaction is violable in electrodynamics? No youÂ* didn't understand it and they cheat too. Also in that link, did you understand that a patent of mine filed in 1998 was granted in 2000? And that the patent said how to violate Newton's third? No ! No you did not understand it: even those of the Italian patent office were participating in the PNN scam! The Italian patent office may have failed to grasp the significance of what your patent was claiming. That doesn't mean they will similarly fail next time, and it certainly does not suggest they were participating in a scam. Did you understand that 2 Japanese people copied (bad)Â* months after in 1998 the filing of my patent, the basic idea of the same and they republished it in their name? So scammers can also be plagerists. Quelle surprise. No you didn't understand! Now I'm going to patent the PNN more enhanced than in this video http://www.asps.it/qct05_ENG.mp4 However, I will patent whether or not I find funding. You don't know that you will succeed in getting the patent. The F432 patent will be copied at the speed of light because the real and not bogus conquest of space will go. I will annoy you as long as you at least recognize that the only functioning reactionless drive (the Emdrive does not work!)Â* is PNN and can take the money from the nobel prize. I hope it is not a scam for you to receive (perhaps!) the nobel prize too, and of course ridicule and punish people like you who have always hindered me. I repeat again: The scams are decided on the merits of the facts E.Laureti Why not allow device, and the experimental demonstration that it works, to be examined by scientists of impeccable credentials, under a non-disclosure agreement that does, however, allow them to say whether or not they think the effect is real? Sylvia. Sylvia you have an invalid email address, that makes you a troll. Run that line of reasoning past me again? Sylvia. there are strong motivations to deem you as a troll, because of your line of thinking. Rocketry cannot live past PNN. That's all very well, but now you're trying to justify your original conclusion via a different path. Your original claim was that having an invalid email address makes me a troll. Whether or not I can be determined to be a troll by some other route is neither here nor there. Sylvia. Wrong, there are both ways, your invalid email and your line of reasoning. Oh and you look like a man, but Sylvia is a female name, impostors are beaten to death. OK, let's go back to the invalid email address. What is the line of reasoning that leads from an invalid email address to the quality of being a troll? I mean, you do realise that if you put a valid email address on Usenet, it will get spammed? Usenet dates from a gentler time before spam was a thing, hence the display of an email address. Sylvia. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to get a Patent | Jim[_26_] | Misc | 0 | January 23rd 11 02:56 PM |
Bigelow patent | Allen Thomson | Policy | 36 | August 27th 06 06:48 AM |
Wooo! Patent | Scott Lowther | Policy | 4 | December 2nd 03 07:39 AM |
Woo hoo! New patent ... | Scott Lowther | Space Shuttle | 4 | July 3rd 03 06:09 PM |
Woo hoo! New patent ... | Scott Lowther | Policy | 4 | July 3rd 03 06:09 PM |