Author Topic: Open letter to P. Lindemann  (Read 24410 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3607
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #56 on: October 24, 2011, 04:09:59 am »
Physical or chemical, does it really matter? We found here a big claim, and i don't think we should deny new theories.

I still think there is something else stan was talking about... in the end he clearly says that he can transform hydrogen into energy at 100% mass decay. But of course he worked thru many things in 30 years, i'm sure he might had used this system tut is talking about at maybe the initial time...   later he was going to use the injectors only...

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Hero member
  • ****
  • Posts: 980
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #57 on: October 24, 2011, 16:13:59 pm »
100% Mass decay into energy would be E=mc^2 from Einstein. Stan supersedes this, as he mentions while teasing Einstein's theory for only being 3 dimensional in the New Zealand video. Mass energy is one thing and Stan's Universal Energy is another. You can find out more by reading the Universal Energy Balance of Water in the Tech Brief.

Offline Login to see usernames

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 270
Re: Open letter to P. Lindemann
« Reply #58 on: October 24, 2011, 19:33:51 pm »
100%? That doesn't sound right. Doesn't that mean something turns to nothing? Not to be a nag or anything, but, could you give me a better description? Why is it considered "decay"?