Theory of the Universons by Claude Poher

[koboldkun]

I read something about the energy of the vacuum, which would be too isotropic for us to really capture it.
I also finish reading the articles on Claude POHER's site, on the theory of universons, and I see more than promises: results. I am a undergraduate student in Physics and I tried to present his work to professors at my university who refused to read it on the sole pretext that he was an engineer and not a researcher. I understand the explanations he gives on his site, so I think it's pretty easy to understand.
I would like to have the opinion of someone likely to raise lists of objective and interesting criticisms of his work (and not criticisms to which he would have already answered with a good explanation).

www.universons.com

[dedeleco]

With his machine which removes the gravitation, due to him according to a stream of universons, he will convince us the day when he will go for a walk in the air and even on the moon or March or elsewhere to join the extraterrestrials in their UFOs !!

He discovers too much to be credible !!!
A true discovery is almost nothing after a very big job to make it reproducible and verifiable experimentally and not only theoretically without rigorous relationship with the acquired knowledge.

[koboldkun]

What you say seems to prove that you don't know much about it. I don't think there is a "standard" relationship in science between quantity of work and quality of discovery.
But tell me then by what learned equations you come to this strange conclusion.
Just because something never happened doesn't mean it's impossible. To show that something is impossible, it must be shown that it is logically incompatible with reality.

On the other hand Claude POHER provides enormous work and what he discovered is not so easy to understand (in the physical sense). On the other hand, the POHER machine as you name it, does not claim to "suppress" gravity. It just creates propulsive force, just like a rocket engine does.

he will convince us the day when he goes for a walk in the air and even on the moon or in March or elsewhere to join the extraterrestrials in their UFOs !!

Who are you to allow yourself to be so pretentious by saying "we"? Is he our majesty? Or do you allow yourself to speak for everyone else? (in the latter case I would like to see the permission he would have given you to do so) ...

A true discovery is almost nothing after a very big job to make it reproducible and verifiable experimentally and not only theoretically without rigorous relationship with the acquired knowledge.

This seems to confirm what I think, namely that you do not know much about the subject that I mentioned, otherwise you would not suggest by this sentence that the discovery of POHER does not meet these same criteria as you quote (except of course the one where you say wrongly that a scientific discovery is necessarily only "almost nothing" after a considerable work)).

Because the discovery of POHER is based on a type of reproducible (and reproduced) experience, as well as on several observed natural phenomena.
Because the theoretical framework of this discovery (actually also built by POHER), predicts phenomena observed which are not explained by the standard model (and which require to appeal to "extensions" of the standard model ==> Which should be excluded in favor of POHER's theory according to Ockham's razor).

On the other hand you allow yourself to speak of UFO when I ask only an OBJECTIVE critique of the theory, and that this one, as it strives to be scientific (not like some), does not state of the slightest question concerning this subject (no more than the experience of POHER elsewhere). POHER's opinion on UFOs therefore has nothing to do with criticizing his discovery, even if that would be his source of inspiration, and even if UFOs of extraterrestrial origin would not exist (this on which I personally have no opinion).

I would therefore simply ask you, in the future, to formulate an appropriate response, since yours does not seem to be worthy of being intelligent enough to create a constructive discussion.
Otherwise it would be unspeakable that it is up to you to judge the credibility of anyone.

He discovers too much to be credible !!!

(note that this sentence denotes itself all the poverty of logic and intelligence of your speech)

[dedeleco]

Have you experienced it at home?
If yes describe it in detail on econology and we will discuss all the possible errors that require a lot of care and make this type of experience very difficult.
.
Only count the experience reproducible by all and repeatedly verifiable !!!

[koboldkun]

This is an already more concrete and more intelligent speech.
No, I did not carry out his experiment at home, however in science only account the reproducible experiments in laboratory (and therefore not necessarily reproducible by all). Would you challenge a new nuclear physics experiment under the pretext that you don't have a particle accelerator at home?
Or do you just want to say that it is the only thing that matters to the readers of this site (in which case you will have to prove to me that you are authorized to speak on their behalf)?
Or do you want to tell yourself that this is the regulation imposed by this site (not to speak only of experience that you can do at home, in this case I would admit that I was wrong about the sign for this message and for the previous one)?
Your message is not very clear.
On the other hand, POHER has done a lot of experiments, the fact that you are talking about "his" experience proves that you just haven't read his entire site like I did.
(What I invite you to do, because to criticize a writing without having read it would make you that a simple of spirit.)
Know for simple information that if one cannot easily reproduce such an experiment, it is however interesting to start with the criticism of the theory, requiring only the theoretical support of what is proven in the standard model (and not of its nebulae extension).
This is why I invited in my first message to a theory critic that is objective and scientific.
Obviously if there are not people with sufficient scientific training on this forum, I am wasting my time but I think that even experienced handymen can have the training necessary to understand the study of POHER.

Because you see I am not limited to the point of imagining that these are two TOTALLY DISTINCT fields that science and your tinkering "reproducible by all".

[Capt_Maloche]

Well, well well

After these presentations,
I discovered the subject, and without having to read the entire editorial staff of M. POHER

Could someone summarize in a few lines what is an anisotropic flow of Universons responsible for extracting energy from a gravitational field?

Why Universon?

please

[Christophe]

Hi Maloche (do you really want to know?),

When I go to his site I have this:

THIS SITE IS SECURE. Indeed, it is intended to inform freely, but also to be a collection of data which are reserved for certain users.
Without secure access, robotic search engines copy
illegally documents that are not accessible through any link.

I don't know if it takes ou the registration form is like the rest of the site: paranoid

I don't really like the tone of koboldkun, are you sure you're a student? You would not be called Claude POHER

[Capt_Maloche]

PS:

After a little reading, the subject turns out to be fascinating

[Christophe]

Did you "register"?

Finally it seems less crazy to me ...

But why not make it public?

[Capt_Maloche]

Hi Maloche (do you really want to know?),

...

I don't know if it takes ou the registration form is like the rest of the site: paranoid

I don't really like the tone of koboldkun, are you sure you're a student? You would not be called Claude POHER

LOL! possible

I signed up, apart from the registration form (Psychological barrier to discourage wandering Internet users who are not motivated, I suppose), all of it is left available to readers

I read an extract from one of the many documents, it deserves to stop there

and after all, maybe M POHER would let us observe his tests live in his lab to comment on them

Without claiming to be familiar with the methodology used or the concept elsewhere, I wonder if the fact of discharging thousands of volts in a conductor is not enough to create induced currents and other magnetic and electric fields capable of generating the force of "propulsion" observed in the "propellant" patent

However, reading reminds me of Tesla's experiences

I like that!

I'm ready to do a short report on the subject