In an attempt to refute the irrefutable, William R. Lyne has posted some more incredible tales. He writes:
The most assinine thing is trying to prove that I didn't attend law school for a year, to "prove" I am a "liar".
He then goes on to give yet another preposterous story of a chain of events that supposedly happened to him. Not once in his whole tale does he address the fact that the U.T. School of Law HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RECORDS OF HIM EVER ATTENDING! Instead, consistant with the symptoms of a pathological liar, he talks about how so many famous people knew him and liked him, and goes on constantly bragging about his "intelligence." Similar to all his other fantasies, he claims that there was an entire event where prestigious teachers tried to convince him to "come back" to law school - as if he were that important. He even claims the Governor of Texas got involved! LOL!!!!
And all of this despite the fact that records prove he was never even at the University of Texas! What happened William, did the government "steal" your records???!
And lastly, he continues, post after post, to brag about his "intelligence." Listen to the old fool's egotism:
When I graduated from art with my MFA ("Master of Fine Arts", which is a professional "terminal degree", higher than a MA, meaning that there is no higher) my GPA average was the highest of any graduate student in art in the history of the University of Texas.
Not only is self-conceit a for sure sign of some type of lying disease, it is also a symptom of Narcissistic personality disorder, many symptoms of which accurately describe Lyne to a tee.
Here is the diagnostic criteria for this MENTAL DISORDER:
http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Monday, July 27, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
ATTENTION: WILLIAM R. LYNE NEVER ATTENDED U.T. SCHOOL OF LAW!!!!!
Figure 1: Lyne's claim to have attended U.T. School of Law (Click to Enlarge)
Figure 2: U.T. School of Law's reply to me, saying they have no information on Lyne (Click to Enlarge)After some good old research, I have been able to easily refute one of William R. Lyne's most frequent claims, namely, that he was a student at the University of Texas School of Law (U.T. School of Law). Figure 1 is a screenshot of one of the many posts in which Lyne makes this claim.
All one need do to figure out the truth, is email the U.T. School of Law and ask them whether they have any records on William R. Lyne.
Sure enough, I received a reply saying:
"Hi, Dimitrije, we have no information on anyone by that name."
As proof of this, Figure 2 is a screenshot of the email I sent to U.T., and the reply I received.
I can already imagine what Lyne is going to say upon hearing what I have against him, "the government made sure everything pertaining to me was taken out of their files." Yeah, okay Lyne; more of your fantasies...
Conclusively, this, by far, is some of the most powerful ammunition we have against him. I am in the process of looking into some of his other claims, so I'm sure pretty soon we'll have more confirmation that this man has a lying disease.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Refuting Lyne's Nonsense About 1/4 Wave Tesla Coils Producing DC
One of the pivots upon which Lyne's entire phony "theory of electropropulsion" turns, is his idea that by making the physical length of the secondary of a Tesla coil equal to 1/4 of the operating wavelength, one can produce high voltage D.C. instead of A.C. His theory depends on this because, says he, Tesla's flying machine requires high voltage D.C. in the front of the ship.
This is, quite simply, the most absurd scientific idea I've ever heard. Anyone who has ever dabbled in amateur radio knows that this is ludicrous. Look at a quarter wave antenna. Does it produce D.C.? Obviously not, or it wouldn't function correctly. I don't know how gullible people actually have to be to believe this guy.
As has already been noted by others, Lyne can't even get his electrical terminology correct. He says that one must "tune [the Tesla coil] to 1/4 wavelength." This is wrong: to tune a circuit means to adjust its capacitance and inductance to put it in a state of resonance with another circuit. Lyne should've instead said that the physical length of the secondary wire must be made equal to 1/4 of the operating wavelength. This is exactly how Tesla alwalys explained it (for instance, in his Colorado Springs Notes).
Back to his idea that at 1/4 wavelength a TC will produce D.C., in a vein attempt to refute someone else who has discovered his lies, Lyne wrote the following:
In another slanted argument (citing Wikipedia), Daniel referred to a drawing from Nikola Tesla's patent #723,188, Method for Signaling (from page 197, my book Pentagon Aliens) stating that an oscillating high frequency electromagnetic dipole, tuned to three-eights (or one-quarter) wavelength, produces only "an A.C. node". This flies in the face of the fact well-documented (from a standard electrical engineering text) in the first edition of my 1993 book Space Aliens From the Pentagon-
"...an oscillating electric dipole consists of two equal and opposite charges of dipole moment p, where p oscillates sinusoidally with time. A dipole which is tuned to 3/8th (or 1/4, the same) will continue to throw out energy even when the conditions are reversed, because there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution. " (5)
So Daniel's "node" is not really there, and what results is negative electrostatic discharges, D.C. in sign. Most schlubs would assume that the dipole is "supposed" to produce an A.C. node, but it does not do so at sufficiently high frequency, because of this phenomenon, which Tesla knew about in the 1890s, which is why he called his single terminal ("pancake")coil "...my method for producing direct current with an alternating current."
I'd first like to remark that citing wikipedia, as the man who wrote this refutation against Lyne did, is better than citing nothing at all, and instead saying that you know tons of people whose names you cannot reveal, as does Lyne! Lyne doesn't understand that the reason Tesla made the length of his secondary coils 1/4 of the operating wavelength was so that the points of highest voltage on the secondary would be on the free terminal. He obviously doesn't know that in a Tesla coil secondary, there are waves of voltage on the wires, which reflect, producing standing waves of voltage. In other words, the voltage and current vary from point to point on a secondary. Thus, Tesla made their length 1/4 of a wavelength so that the point of highest voltage would be on the terminal. Read, for instance, what Tesla said in his Patent #645,576 (System of Transmission of Electrical Energy):
"The length of the thin-wire coil in each transformer should be approximately one-quarter of the wave length of the electric disturbance in the circuit, this estimate being based on the velocity of propagation of the disturbance through the coil itself and the circuit with which it is designed to be used...By such an adjustment or proportioning of the length of wire in the secondary coil or coils the points of highest potential are made to coincide with the elevated terminals D D' and it should be understood that whatever length be given to the wires this condition should be complied with in order to attain the best results."
He says nothing about A.C. turning into D.C. here. In fact, these coils HAD to produce A.C., in order for his system of wireless transmission to work. Next, Lyne cites a text which he claims supports his idea the a 1/4 wave secondary will produce D.C. What's weird is that he calls his citation "well documented," when, in actuality, all he cited was the name of the book and author - no page number, no chapter, nothing! Now this is the laughable part. The quote Lyne provided in his self-defense was totally altered from what one reads in the book. Lyne left out parts, and also added parts that are not even in the book! When I saw what he had done, I was hysterical laughing. This is the quote Lyne gives (without any page number):
"...an oscillating electric dipole consists of two equal and opposite charges of dipole moment p, where p oscillates sinusoidally with time. A dipole which is tuned to 3/8th (or 1/4, the same) will continue to throw out energy even when the conditions are reversed, because there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution. "
The first sentence he gives from this quote, does actually appear in the book, on page 154. The WHOLE quote is:
"In theory, an oscillating electric dipole consists of two equal and opposite charges of dipole moment p where p oscillates sinusoidally with time as shown in Fig. 9.6. In practice, an oscillating current in a conducting wire is equivalent to an oscillating dipole as indicated in Fig. 9.7."
Okay, all nice; but this proves nothing for Lyne. The second sentence is where the lies come. The words, "A dipole which is tuned to 3/8th (or 1/4, the same) will continue to throwout energy even when the conditions are reversed," ARE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE BOOK. These words were cunningly added by Lyne to mislead. Do you not see how evil this man is? Simply go get the book for yourselves to verify this. Note for example, how he uses his incorrect terminology "tune to 3/8th," instead of saying that the "length is made 3/8 wavelength." No electrical engineer would speak like this. Further, notice how he says "continue to throw out energy." That is exactly how Lyne speaks, and is proof that he totally doctored this quote. So the first half of the second sentence was made up. The last part of the second sentence, however, was indeed taken from the book. It reads: "...because there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution." This was taken from page 155, and is part of the ORIGINAL, non-altered quote, which Lyne used in his disgusting book. I will get back to that in a moment, but let me summarize:
1) The quote Lyne just gave in his re-refutation to Daniel, supposedly from the book by Robin L. Armstrong, was altered by him.
2) Lyne took two real quotes from the book (on pages 154 and 155), and put them together with a sentence that is of his own writing, to make this fake quote.
Lyne finishes this part of his "refutation," by saying:
Most schlubs would assume that the dipole is "supposed" to produce an A.C. node, but it does not do so at sufficiently high frequency, because of this phenomenon, which Tesla knew about in the 1890s, which is why he called his single terminal ("pancake")coil "...my method for producing direct current with an alternating current."
Ah, yes, the old "my method for producing direct current..." quote. Let me ask you, Mr. Lyne, where in all of Tesla's papers is this quote? I've looked everywhere, and I have never been able to find it. Where is it? Well, folks, I'll tell you that it is nowhere. The quote was made up by Lyne; Tesla never said or wrote it. That is why he provides no citation for it. If I am wrong then simply prove it, and end everything by showing the quote. But no, you obviously cannot and won't. And, as I said before, you will say things like "I have it but I'm not giving it to you," to distract from the fact that you simply cannot answer the question because you are a liar.
Now, what, you may ask, of the non-altered quote from that same Armstrong book, which Lyne originally gave as support of his theory? Here is the quote in its entirety:
"Since electromagnetic effects are not transmitted instantly from point to point in space...there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution on the dipole," which "...allows some of the energy to continue flowing outward even though conditions at the dipole may have changed to indicate an inward flow of energy...as if some of the electric and magnetic field has become detached from the dipole or 'shaken off' by the oscillation."
What Lyne did here, is very simple to explain. Lyne purposely misinterpreted the quote to suit his own agenda. This quote, was not at all talking about part of the A.C. waveform getting "shaken off" so that it becomes D.C. Instead, what the author was doing was discussing electromagentic radiation, and getting ready to introduce the concept of "retarded time." It has nothing to do at all with what Lyne says it means. Retarded time means that once launched, an EM wave will take a finite time to propagate from the source to a detector. A specific electromagnetic disturbance, once "detached" (radiated) from the source, propagates outward at the speed of light and is no longer affected by anything the radiating source does afterwards. The radiating source could even disappear, but the wave created by the initial disturbance will still propagate outward at the speed of light. This independence of source behavior was what Armstrong was referring to for a launched EM wave.
Very simply, Armstrong was saying that since an EM wave has a finite velocity, it takes time to reach a detector, so that even if conditions at the source change, the wave will still exist. This is observed every night in looking at the stars. Stars far away are emitting electromagnetic radiation. Since it takes a finite time for this radiation to reach us, what we are seeing in the sky is what the star looked like in times past. In other words, the star may not even exist anymore, but since the radiation is independent of the source (star), we still see it.
Lyne, as I said before, is so conceded, trying to portray himself as some prodigal, genius inventor, whose inventions everyone is out to steal. And yet, judging by this mere incident, one can see that he really truly is stupid. His "science" is his own fleeting fantasies.
This is, quite simply, the most absurd scientific idea I've ever heard. Anyone who has ever dabbled in amateur radio knows that this is ludicrous. Look at a quarter wave antenna. Does it produce D.C.? Obviously not, or it wouldn't function correctly. I don't know how gullible people actually have to be to believe this guy.
As has already been noted by others, Lyne can't even get his electrical terminology correct. He says that one must "tune [the Tesla coil] to 1/4 wavelength." This is wrong: to tune a circuit means to adjust its capacitance and inductance to put it in a state of resonance with another circuit. Lyne should've instead said that the physical length of the secondary wire must be made equal to 1/4 of the operating wavelength. This is exactly how Tesla alwalys explained it (for instance, in his Colorado Springs Notes).
Back to his idea that at 1/4 wavelength a TC will produce D.C., in a vein attempt to refute someone else who has discovered his lies, Lyne wrote the following:
In another slanted argument (citing Wikipedia), Daniel referred to a drawing from Nikola Tesla's patent #723,188, Method for Signaling (from page 197, my book Pentagon Aliens) stating that an oscillating high frequency electromagnetic dipole, tuned to three-eights (or one-quarter) wavelength, produces only "an A.C. node". This flies in the face of the fact well-documented (from a standard electrical engineering text) in the first edition of my 1993 book Space Aliens From the Pentagon-
"...an oscillating electric dipole consists of two equal and opposite charges of dipole moment p, where p oscillates sinusoidally with time. A dipole which is tuned to 3/8th (or 1/4, the same) will continue to throw out energy even when the conditions are reversed, because there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution. " (5)
So Daniel's "node" is not really there, and what results is negative electrostatic discharges, D.C. in sign. Most schlubs would assume that the dipole is "supposed" to produce an A.C. node, but it does not do so at sufficiently high frequency, because of this phenomenon, which Tesla knew about in the 1890s, which is why he called his single terminal ("pancake")coil "...my method for producing direct current with an alternating current."
I'd first like to remark that citing wikipedia, as the man who wrote this refutation against Lyne did, is better than citing nothing at all, and instead saying that you know tons of people whose names you cannot reveal, as does Lyne! Lyne doesn't understand that the reason Tesla made the length of his secondary coils 1/4 of the operating wavelength was so that the points of highest voltage on the secondary would be on the free terminal. He obviously doesn't know that in a Tesla coil secondary, there are waves of voltage on the wires, which reflect, producing standing waves of voltage. In other words, the voltage and current vary from point to point on a secondary. Thus, Tesla made their length 1/4 of a wavelength so that the point of highest voltage would be on the terminal. Read, for instance, what Tesla said in his Patent #645,576 (System of Transmission of Electrical Energy):
"The length of the thin-wire coil in each transformer should be approximately one-quarter of the wave length of the electric disturbance in the circuit, this estimate being based on the velocity of propagation of the disturbance through the coil itself and the circuit with which it is designed to be used...By such an adjustment or proportioning of the length of wire in the secondary coil or coils the points of highest potential are made to coincide with the elevated terminals D D' and it should be understood that whatever length be given to the wires this condition should be complied with in order to attain the best results."
He says nothing about A.C. turning into D.C. here. In fact, these coils HAD to produce A.C., in order for his system of wireless transmission to work. Next, Lyne cites a text which he claims supports his idea the a 1/4 wave secondary will produce D.C. What's weird is that he calls his citation "well documented," when, in actuality, all he cited was the name of the book and author - no page number, no chapter, nothing! Now this is the laughable part. The quote Lyne provided in his self-defense was totally altered from what one reads in the book. Lyne left out parts, and also added parts that are not even in the book! When I saw what he had done, I was hysterical laughing. This is the quote Lyne gives (without any page number):
"...an oscillating electric dipole consists of two equal and opposite charges of dipole moment p, where p oscillates sinusoidally with time. A dipole which is tuned to 3/8th (or 1/4, the same) will continue to throw out energy even when the conditions are reversed, because there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution. "
The first sentence he gives from this quote, does actually appear in the book, on page 154. The WHOLE quote is:
"In theory, an oscillating electric dipole consists of two equal and opposite charges of dipole moment p where p oscillates sinusoidally with time as shown in Fig. 9.6. In practice, an oscillating current in a conducting wire is equivalent to an oscillating dipole as indicated in Fig. 9.7."
Okay, all nice; but this proves nothing for Lyne. The second sentence is where the lies come. The words, "A dipole which is tuned to 3/8th (or 1/4, the same) will continue to throwout energy even when the conditions are reversed," ARE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND IN THE BOOK. These words were cunningly added by Lyne to mislead. Do you not see how evil this man is? Simply go get the book for yourselves to verify this. Note for example, how he uses his incorrect terminology "tune to 3/8th," instead of saying that the "length is made 3/8 wavelength." No electrical engineer would speak like this. Further, notice how he says "continue to throw out energy." That is exactly how Lyne speaks, and is proof that he totally doctored this quote. So the first half of the second sentence was made up. The last part of the second sentence, however, was indeed taken from the book. It reads: "...because there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution." This was taken from page 155, and is part of the ORIGINAL, non-altered quote, which Lyne used in his disgusting book. I will get back to that in a moment, but let me summarize:
1) The quote Lyne just gave in his re-refutation to Daniel, supposedly from the book by Robin L. Armstrong, was altered by him.
2) Lyne took two real quotes from the book (on pages 154 and 155), and put them together with a sentence that is of his own writing, to make this fake quote.
Lyne finishes this part of his "refutation," by saying:
Most schlubs would assume that the dipole is "supposed" to produce an A.C. node, but it does not do so at sufficiently high frequency, because of this phenomenon, which Tesla knew about in the 1890s, which is why he called his single terminal ("pancake")coil "...my method for producing direct current with an alternating current."
Ah, yes, the old "my method for producing direct current..." quote. Let me ask you, Mr. Lyne, where in all of Tesla's papers is this quote? I've looked everywhere, and I have never been able to find it. Where is it? Well, folks, I'll tell you that it is nowhere. The quote was made up by Lyne; Tesla never said or wrote it. That is why he provides no citation for it. If I am wrong then simply prove it, and end everything by showing the quote. But no, you obviously cannot and won't. And, as I said before, you will say things like "I have it but I'm not giving it to you," to distract from the fact that you simply cannot answer the question because you are a liar.
Now, what, you may ask, of the non-altered quote from that same Armstrong book, which Lyne originally gave as support of his theory? Here is the quote in its entirety:
"Since electromagnetic effects are not transmitted instantly from point to point in space...there is a time lag between changes in charge and current distribution on the dipole," which "...allows some of the energy to continue flowing outward even though conditions at the dipole may have changed to indicate an inward flow of energy...as if some of the electric and magnetic field has become detached from the dipole or 'shaken off' by the oscillation."
What Lyne did here, is very simple to explain. Lyne purposely misinterpreted the quote to suit his own agenda. This quote, was not at all talking about part of the A.C. waveform getting "shaken off" so that it becomes D.C. Instead, what the author was doing was discussing electromagentic radiation, and getting ready to introduce the concept of "retarded time." It has nothing to do at all with what Lyne says it means. Retarded time means that once launched, an EM wave will take a finite time to propagate from the source to a detector. A specific electromagnetic disturbance, once "detached" (radiated) from the source, propagates outward at the speed of light and is no longer affected by anything the radiating source does afterwards. The radiating source could even disappear, but the wave created by the initial disturbance will still propagate outward at the speed of light. This independence of source behavior was what Armstrong was referring to for a launched EM wave.
Very simply, Armstrong was saying that since an EM wave has a finite velocity, it takes time to reach a detector, so that even if conditions at the source change, the wave will still exist. This is observed every night in looking at the stars. Stars far away are emitting electromagnetic radiation. Since it takes a finite time for this radiation to reach us, what we are seeing in the sky is what the star looked like in times past. In other words, the star may not even exist anymore, but since the radiation is independent of the source (star), we still see it.
Lyne, as I said before, is so conceded, trying to portray himself as some prodigal, genius inventor, whose inventions everyone is out to steal. And yet, judging by this mere incident, one can see that he really truly is stupid. His "science" is his own fleeting fantasies.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
A Revealing Incident
Very recently, after having carefully monitored the activity on the TeslaFlyingMachine Yahoo Group, and after having satisfied myself that William R. Lyne is a nut, Mr. Lyne made a post which says a lot about his rabid lying disease. Above is an image of the post (taken just in case Lyne's thug Luke decides to remove it), which reads:
"While I'm at it here's a post from my Los Alamos friend Tracy concerninghis coil named "Thumper". Pretty damned impressive.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-FAdM_5E-s"
"While I'm at it here's a post from my Los Alamos friend Tracy concerninghis coil named "Thumper". Pretty damned impressive.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-FAdM_5E-s"
All one need do is a little research work to prove that Lyne's claim here is more bunk. The man who made this coil, first of all, is not named "Tracy," nor is he from Los Alamos, NM. Anyone who goes on over to the http://www.pupman.com/ Tesla Coil Mailing List can see that the name of the man who made this coil is Finn Hammer. "Thumper" is the name of his experimental coil. Secondly, Mr. Hammer, is not from "Los Alamos" as Lyne asserts, but is instead from Denmark. To verify this, simply go to the bottom of this link to his website:
In fact, one need not even do this much research; just click on his youtube channel from the link Lyne provided, and you will see that his country is Denmark. How dumb does Lyne think his victims are? Well, unfortunately for him, there is no getting out of it this time; he has shown his true colors. Why does he lie like this? I think he wants people to think he is the greatest thing happening, and so he acts as if he knows every famous person and has been involved in every major recent historical event. Definitely a lying disorder...
Be forewarned that I'm sure he'll accuse me of being a "government agent," out to "get him," by providing misinformation. But sooner or later people have to realize that he is in effect making his "followers" take on a cult-like mentality. He has turned his little group into a place where one must "turn of" their reason and common sense, at the plea of everyone against Lyne being a government agent or worse. For instance, if one finds any quote or something which disproves his ideas, they will immediately be accused of being "in on" the conspiracy. This is simply a tactic used to divert attention from the fallacies of his theories. More coming.
Note that I originally tried sending this exposé via a post to the TeslaFlyingMachine Group, however, the moderator - Lyne's buddy, Luke - did not post it. Does this not alone prove that they are both in on Lyne's hoax?
Dimitrije Lukovic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)