Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Curvature of Space/Time

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    If we look at the aether/virtual photons that go over a wire from one terminal to the next, that is the "Heaviside Flow" and I accept that as a scientifically established fact. I feel the same for the Druid Electron gas model, which is the snail pace electrons moving from the copper atoms in the wire towards the positive terminal, which were not supplied by the source dipole for example.

    Basically, the observable results of all the electrical functions, gravity, etc. are all completely identical when we go to the root and use a fluid dynamic type model to analyze these things.

    Mass, batteries, permanent magnet, electromagnet, atoms, etc. have one thing in common and that is the fact that they are all acting as dipoles. Every dipole polarizes the aether and where there is any mass that can be observed, there is a displacement in the Aether and that displaced Aether pushes back. The more mass, the more proportional push back from the displaced Aether there is which of course gives higher gravity.

    When you "charge" a capacitor (not being filled with electrons), it can only hold so much of the polarized gas (Aether). You can fill the tank with the polarized electrostatic potential (voltage potential) a bit above its capacity and when you let off, that upper level of voltage drops a bit because it can't hold that much gas pressure. Voltage potential is just the pressure reading of the aether that is polarized. Get the voltage high enough you even hear it hiss. Its a gas. This gas creates the dimension of space. I have used the terms 3D when talking about space like most people but after spending quite a bit of time with Eric Dollard, all I can say is I completely agree and that he is right. There is only ONE dimension and that is SPACE. The 3D is not 3 dimensions, that are only coordinates within the single dimension of space. When that made sense to me, I was happy to realize that that revelation is actually completely compatible with my own model and that all along, I have treated space as a single dimension without seeing it that way.

    Every mass displaces the Aether proportional to itself. I don't mean volume, but rather density of the combined mass. Even if there is a block of lead, it is still mostly empty space so there is still very few protons to be pushed against by the positive polarized aether - that push is an electrostatic push.

    If we look at an electromagnetic coil and charge it that "field" is displacing more aether per volume of space than a "solid" object like a block of wood or a block of lead because it is like there is. Therefore, with that much more displacement of the aether, there is more pressure against the aether in that local area that an object sitting there. So gravity is a fairly week phenomena as it pushes against the mass that displaced it but a discharged coil is a fairly strong or FAST phenomena because the rebound of the displaced aether was at a much higher pressure.

    Even Einstein's first model(s) described an elastic aether that was displaced by mass like the planet Earth but in his mind, as the mass displaces the aether, it is storing potential in the object therefore, gravitational potential cannot contribute to doing any work. And that same source potential couldn't contribute to doing anything anywhere and all the energy is attributed to the ridiculous idea that it is a property of the mass. His entire foundation is completely inverse from all the empirical evidence. As long as this fictitious premise persists, then there is no free energy in that model and we are all trapped in a claustrophobic universe where nothing travels faster than the speed of light, we have a purely mechanical universe with pinballs rolling around empty space.

    If we're looking for meat, at the purest form, none of us can even prove that we even exist so what becomes satisfactory as being meat? I agree it is nice to have "proof", but seeing that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything in the universe, then there is no such thing as real objective proof - no default of predefined reality.

    For something you can add up, mathematical proof, lift a rubber ball to a meter and let it bounce until it stops. Add up all the work required for each lift, which is force x distance - that is real work and the combined work is many times more than what was required to lift the ball to begin with, which was our only input. One 83% efficient ball I tested showed me over 8.0 COP and I didn't even count all the bounces. It is already over 1.0 COP on the first bounce.

    If you have my book, you can see the section where I point out why all the skeptic's responses to this test are completely ludicrous. They claim the ball doesn't bounce higher each time. Yeah, no duh. But adding up real work done total is more than the input. They say it went up then went down - going up is positive work and falling down is negative work (claiming no net work), when any work that happens when it hits the ground is POSITIVE work in positive time in a measurable amount of joules of real dissipated energy - they completely have no idea of what negative work even means and using vectors to describe forward or positive work is completely laughable. That goofy little bouncing ball test is like bamboo growing under the fingernails of the skeptics because it is too blatantly in their face. It shows that the conventional explanations of what energy and potential are - are wrong (Bearden has said that for years). It shows that gravitational potential actually does cause work to be done on a mass the moment the mass encounters resistance on its way down meaning Einstein is wrong and that closed system thermodynamics do not even apply to any natural system in the universe. It demonstrates that on each bounce upwards - the dissipated energy on the impact went into creating a new potential difference by compressing it x amount (regauging) so that NEW FRESH potential enters the system (no conservation of energy) by establishing a new dipole as it raised to a new height (albeit it a smaller one than last time but a new one nevertheless) - Bedini's SG has shown the regauging process openly for years since it is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system just like the bouncing ball. This list can really get long and it is longer than this but these are just a few things to consider.

    Conservation of momentum is an absurdity and a simple Newton's Cradle demonstrates everything listed above...momentum is NOT conserved in the slightest bit. Gravity comes in, pushes the balls down and 100% of that input is dissipated back to the environment and what happens is a new potential difference (dipole) is created when the balls lift to a new height a little lower than before on the other side of center (no conservation of energy or momentum) - it is NEW momentum on each cycle back and forth since new fresh gravitational potential came into the system there. A Newton's Cradle is WAY over 1.0 COP - just add up the force x distance on each lift of the balls on each half swing upwards and it is WAY more than the f x d required to lift them to begin with.

    The above experiments are mathematically able to show in real joules of dissipated energy that total work done is way more than the input meaning that this simple elementary math with junior high school equations and a stupid rubber bouncing ball flushes Eisensteinian science down the drain. Einstein's theories don't get relegated to hypothesis or postulations, they MUST be simply acknowledged as being nothing more than mistakes. These simple experiments mathematically give credit to my claims and absolutely demonstrate that at bare minimum for now, they are more accurate and are more in alignment with empirical reality than Einstein, conventional thermodynamics, etc...

    I can't say scientifically that my claims are true but I can absolutely demonstrate with their own equations that they indeed do not know the difference between energy and potential and that these demonstrations/experiments account for everything "they" are not able to. Look at the equations that are needed to do this mgh, fd and very little if anything else so quite literally, any child can mathematically overturn all the bs on a chalkboard.

    These are some bold claims that obviously go against the popular belief system, but there is nobody that has ever defeated the math argument of adding up all the positive work in positive time in the bouncing ball example and then compare that to what we pay for. As Peter Lindemann has said, free energy is dripping off the walls and that is an understatement. It is all around us when we properly account for what is actually happening.
    Aaron Murakami





    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Brodie Gwilliam View Post
      dave i believe that was longitudinal waves
      Yes, it was. That is using just the dielectric part of electricity (electrostatic potential) and not the magnetic so it is basically instantaneous.

      Those videos are all around the net.
      Aaron Murakami





      You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

      Comment


      • #18
        hi aaron, ive pretty much had a similar understanding as you with mostly everything you wrote here.... you say its a rebound affect, but why are we seeing the spike at the start (the h wave) instead of the end, unless i'm misinterpreting the scope

        Comment


        • #19
          Hi Aaron,
          Thanks so much for taking the time to share with us. Very interesting.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi Aaron,

            Originally posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
            ......................................When we start with this substance and look at the entire science behind what Bearden is explaining about breaking the symmetry of the virtual photon flux of the quantum mechanical vacuum and the entire science behind polarizing the aether from Eric Dollard's camp, in principle, they are indistinguishable.
            I've downloaded five or six of Eric Dollard's videos and in at least two or three of them he refers to Tom Bearden as a "government paid misinformer".

            Any comment?

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi Aaron,
              Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly describe what goes on in and around the coil...etc. I tend to see things pretty much the same way as you, and the way Bearden describe them. But not with everything and that's OK. I am a little disappointed that I am the only one disagreeing, I feel like the recluse guest at a happy party where people are high-fiving each other. I believe that contrasting points of view is the best driver to better understanding.

              Let's take your 1 meter high bouncing ball example. I don't believe one should add the ball elevations resulting from the subsequent bounces to say that it has a COP>1. First let's not confuse the issue with positive and negative work. If the energy get transformed or not and which vector is pointing where. I am going to attempt to explain that with a different kind of imagery: Beer and money.

              Let say that you're sitting at a table at the "One Dollar Beer Pub" where a beer cost a buck:
              - You're sitting idle at a table until your pal hands you a $5 bill. He just created a "dipole" of sorts. Unbalance in the aether, that bill is burning a hole in your pocket and you want a drink. Now you know, I know and everyone knows that you only have $5 and that gets you only 5 beers.
              A)... You can walk to the bar, give all your money to the bartender and buy 5 beers. you drink them all and have no more money. That would be analogous to a ball that does not bounce...get it? But we are not interested in that.
              B)... You can also walk to the bar, give $5 to the bartender. Buy and drink 1 beer. The bartender "gives" you $4. You're back at your table sitting with $4.
              - then You walk back to the bar, give your $4 to the bartender. buy and drink 1 beer. The bartender "gives" you $3. And you're back sitting at your table with $3......the process repeat itself until you drink the expected 5 beers.

              In keeping with your perspective
              - How many beers have you drunk? 5 beers.
              - How much money have you "received": Well you started with $5. The bartender also "gave" you $4 once and $3 and $2, and $1 after that.
              - In conclusion you have drunk 5 beers and have received a total of $10 after your initial $5 input . That's a COP of 2.

              Am I missing something?

              NoFear
              Last edited by Nofear; 12-05-2013, 12:23 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Brodie Gwilliam View Post
                hi aaron, ive pretty much had a similar understanding as you with mostly everything you wrote here.... you say its a rebound affect, but why are we seeing the spike at the start (the h wave) instead of the end, unless i'm misinterpreting the scope
                Hi Brodie,

                If you take away the output battery, you will see a spike of maybe 400 volts negative for example. You don't see it if the output battery is connected because with an output battery, the spike is entering a decompression zone of low impedance.

                Of course if you have multiple windings and a lot of turns - like the 7 transistor version, you can damage the transistors from a pressure explosion of the potential if you don't give it somewhere to go.

                On smaller setups with one power winding, you don't really have to worry about that.
                Aaron Murakami





                You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gary Hammond View Post
                  Hi Aaron,



                  I've downloaded five or six of Eric Dollard's videos and in at least two or three of them he refers to Tom Bearden as a "government paid misinformer".

                  Any comment?
                  I believe it is Bearden's claims about the Soviet scalar conspiracy stuff that tainted Eric Dollard's views of Bearden.

                  Even if Bearden is a misinformation agent, the concepts of breaking the symmetry of the symmetrical "photon flux" to polarize it so it goes to the terminals and over the wires is conceptually what Eric Dollard says about polarizing the aether in order to get it to do some work.
                  Aaron Murakami





                  You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    overunity bouncing ball

                    Originally posted by Nofear View Post
                    I don't believe one should add the ball elevations resulting from the subsequent bounces to say that it has a COP>1.
                    Hi NoFear,

                    What your example is shows lifting a ball of clay and dropping it where all the energy is dissipated into the impact with no bounce so there is a COP of 2.0. That is the "we get out what we put in scenario". Conventionally, the idea is twisted into a delusion, but what you describe is more to the truth - but only for something that doesn't regauge itself to to a new potential difference. We always get a freebie from nature.

                    Your example shows: If we have a 100kg ball and lift it to 0.75 meters, the REAL dissipated energy that it took to lift that according to force, which is mass x gravity times distance = 100kg X 9.8meter per second per second x 0.75 meters distance = 735 joules of real dissipated energy or REAL WORK. That is real work that contributed to the entropy of the universe. When we lift that, we really DID expend that energy and it is gone forever. We did not store one iota of potential in that ball at that height because what we got out of what we put it was the lift of the ball in and of itself.

                    At the height of 0.75 meters for a 100kg ball, that new dipole that is created has a potential difference between that height and the ground of potential = mgh or mass x gravity x height (the same number of what it took to lift it to that height). So at 100kg times 9.83mss times 0.75 meters = 735 joules of gravitational potential energy that is not stored in the ball, but is available from gravity for the ball if/when that ball is released and then meets resistances. In this example, that 100 kg ball is a big lump of clay that will not bounce at all.

                    Release the ball, it's pushed to the ground since gravity potential is moving back to the where the Earth displaced it in dynamic fashion. Now, work is only done when the mass of the ball meets any form of resistance and the gravitational potential imparts an electrostatic push against the mass of the atoms that make up the clay. Air resistance is very insignificant but still there - just a tad. When the ball of clay hits the ground, it meets resistance and the gravitational potential that was predicted at 0.75 meters for the ball turns from potential into energy, which is potential meeting a resistance and that is the organized potential being dissipated back into the environment. Heat is produced, deformation of the clay, etc. That is all REAL WORK that is measurable in real joules of energy dissipated and that is positive work in positive time since heat did appear and that all contributed to the entropy of the universe just like the work it took to lift the ball when you burned some calories to lift the ball. Both contributed to entropy of the universe.

                    So lifting the ball of clay took a real measurable 735 joules of real dissipated energy to get it to that height. What did we get out of what we put into it? We got the ball to that height.

                    When the ball was released and gravitational potential entered from the balls open system relationship with the environment and that gravitational potential was completely different and disconnected from the energy we used to lift the ball (no conservation, etc...). The impact of that clay ball on the ground generated a measurable 735 joules of real dissipated energy that contributed to the entropy of the universe. Both are FORWARD WORK in "FORWARD" TIME.

                    735 + 735 = 1470 joules of real work in dissipated energy that is actually measurable occurred and it is mathematically proven with basic Newtonian formulas used in the proper context with elementary school math.
                    1470 joules divided by our only input of 735 joules = 2.0 or COP 2.0 and that is consistent with your example that you get out what you put in. It will always be 2.0 COP if there is no regauging.

                    Now in the bouncing ball experiment, our only input is the initial lift and that is it.

                    500 gram rubber bouncing ball getting lifted to 0.8 meters = 0.5 x 9.8 x 0.8 = 3.92 joules of energy that is 100% dissipated to the environment at the peak of the lift. No conservation or storing the potential because there is no potential to store, we used it all up. A new dipole is created.

                    Let's say the ball is 90% efficient in bouncing meaning it will bounce to 90% of the height it was lifted to on its own...

                    We input 3.92 joules and that is it so we know there are 3.92 joules of gravitational potential avail when it is dropped.

                    1st drop, it impacts the ground and rises to 0.72 meters (90% of the height it was dropped to). That means 10% was lost in the the drop in air resistance but mostly in heat/deformation impact on the ground. 90% of the 3.92 was needed to lift it back to the height of 0.72 meters (90% of original) and we can verify because 0.5 kilo x 9.8mss x 0.72 meters = 3.528. 3.92 * .9 = 3.528 so only 10% of that original was indeed lost. That gravitational potential turned into work to lift the ball from the impact to 90% of 3.92 joules.

                    Already, 3.92 was input and it bounced 3.528 joules worth of work up against gravity so that is already over 1.0 COP.

                    2nd drop from 0.72 meters... 0.648 meters it lifted to which is 90% of the previous height. It gets to a high COP quickly.

                    Each bounce up is real dissipated work (force x distance) according to even mainstream equations and that dissipated work is measurable and contributes to the entropy of the universe.

                    To calculate work done (and we aren't talking about work on the impact even), just lifting work (force x distance), we have to add up every fxd demonstrated by the ball and it is cummulative for each and every bounce until it comes to a rest.

                    The regauging process is indicative of a non-equilibrium system, which doesn't prevent a system from coming into full equilibrium with the environment, it just allows it to get delayed since environmental input continues to supply source potential to do more work usually in gradually decreasing increments, hence the lower bounce each time.

                    Equally important as an example is that if after the initial drop, you grab the ball at the 90% bounce back and lift it to the original height. You are getting a full 100% lift on each cycle for only making up for the losses the 10% in impact. From then on out, you put in 10% but are actually getting 100% of the work. That is a very valid concept that is shown in all kinds of open system motors, energizers, etc... just make up the loss to get the full amount.

                    Even according to conventional formulas, lifting a weight to a height is REAL WORK so each bounce up is REAL WORK and we have to add that real work up. This experiment of the bouncing ball showing very high COP in realty is 100% consistent with an aetheric model, Prigogine's open dissipative systems, Bedini's energizers, Bearden's teachings, etc.

                    Your beer example actually demonstrates the reality of a system that doesn't regauge itself but is still 2.0 COP. That is the reality of "we get out what we put in" but it is a net gain. That is the hoodwinking caused by Einstein and company.

                    We put in 1 joule and we get 1 joule - yes we did get out what we put in with a system that doesn't regauge itself, but 1 in is entropy for the universe and 1 out in the impact or whatever is entropy for the universe. That is a total of 2 joules done for our 1 input. The common interpretations have always been wrong to hide "free energy". The powers that be cannot hide what is in front of us but they can manipulate the masses to see a different number of fingers being held up compared to what is really there.

                    It always has to be additive because it is real work that contributes to entropy of the universe.

                    I was out at John's today with Peter and we actually got into some of this taking about DePalma and his work. Everyone should look at his spinning balls experiment... one still and one spinning launched into the air. The spinning one will always go higher faster and then drop faster and go out further. The model I present predicts those results perfectly but DePalma had his own way of interpreting it with "inertial frames of references", etc. But still, he has a lot of profound work dealing with inertia, the nature of space and mass completely debunking Einstein in more ways than one.

                    Anyway, work is work and that is entropy and that is measurable mathematically and I believe the example speaks for itself. If it doesn't, then the very foundational equations for calculating work by lifting an object are completely wrong. I believe they're right, but just interpreted wrong since there is no such thing as storing potential... just work, dissipation and then establishing a new potential difference, repeat. But the mgh equation does show what external gravitational potential will do on mass when the mass is released and encounters resistance.
                    Aaron Murakami





                    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Brodie,

                      Here is a scope shot of a solid state oscillator from an SG circuit.

                      oscope.jpg

                      John posted one that looks almost the same way back, this one is mine.

                      I actually scoped it upside down.

                      The little bumps on the bottom are my 12v input and the big spikes should be on the bottom and are hundreds of volts negative.

                      Not the H wave since it is solid state, but you see the charge then discharge (big spike).

                      There is no battery on the output.

                      That is a 2000 turn trifilar coil I built way back. I independently found how to make an oscillator from an SG circuit about 13 years ago and when I heard the coil buzzing, I thought I was tapping some cosmic energy.

                      John Bedini and his brother Gary came to my work and I showed them and John warned me about not overcharging the output cap because it charges fast with high speed spikes like that. That was before I ever had a scope so didn't know what was going on. The wheel wasn't turning but the output cap was charging super fast and the coil was buzzing.

                      I was manually discharging the output cap to a battery with a copper switch I made every time that cap got charged up and I would just stand there for like 30 minutes to an hour discharging it because I didn't want this cosmic energy circuit I discovered to stop working. LOL

                      Anyway, that is the spike that leaves the coil when the switch is off that you won't see if you have a battery on the output.
                      Aaron Murakami





                      You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BroMikey
                        A simple expression of how and airfoil works could be applied to the light speed. nature does what it needs to do to get back to equilibrium and just like air moving faster on the top side of a wing to create a vacuum so light might do similar things.
                        BroMikey,

                        I read your ufo type stuff and I agree. You mention the tendency towards equilibrium and that is why the aether pushes back on mass that displaces it. You mention taking a 90 degree turn, etc... I believe that can happen if we deflect the aether around the shell of a ship so if it doesn't move through the mass of the ship, there is no inertia.

                        If we take an extremely high positively charged electrostatic potential and put it on one part of a shell of a ship and the negative at the back end or behind it, it will go forward in the direction of the positive. I was really excited that at one point when I found out about T Townsend Brown that his tethered little ships on the axis spin around it and he has the same voltage arrangement that I believed would work and it moved in the same direction.

                        In my opinion, the very high potential at the front of a shell of a ship will deflect the positive potential of the aether around the shell and it will move towards the negative. So the negative potential of the aether (negative virtual photons whatever I just like aether terminology for simplicity) will actually attract and pull that part of the ship into it. So instead of the ship moving into a positive resistance with inertia, it is being pulled into a negative resistance without inertia. There can't be inertia if the positive component of the aether cannot move through the atomic matrix of mass and impart an electrostatic repulsion against its positively charged protons. It is the only simple practical way I can see to "drive a wedge" into space to create a true vacuum without aether. It would seem this electrostatic "bubble" around the ship would allow the aether in the ship to remain as a detached and separate frame of reference so the inhabitants will still be there but if they are slipping through space, there is no real distance between any two points since it isn't moving through space since space literally is composed of the aether as a single dimensional entity. Also, we wouldn't age much differently from our Earthly counterparts if we traveled to the next star system and back since inside the ship isn't slowing down from an increase in aetheric density (cause of higher gravity - passive resistance to moving aether or higher inertia - active resistance to stationary aether).

                        With the tendency towards equilibrium, the ship is pulled forward into a negative resistance and it is the positive aetheric potential at the back that is squeezing down pushing it from the back as free propulsion since the tendency is for the aether to fill the void where it is displaced from. It is a perfect asymmetrical arrangement.

                        Another way to deflect the aether to avoid or reduce inertia is by high speed spinning.

                        In the Bedini SG, the wheel is usually vertical with a horizontal axis.

                        If we have two setups and the wheels are solid metal like aluminum for example...

                        In the common vertical wheel spinning, as the gravitational potential is moving towards the wheel, it encounters the tip of the wheel moving at 90 degrees to the gp (gravitational potential) for the most part deflecting it towards the circumference of the wheel on one side but the other side of the wheel is moving up against gravity so it is kind of equalized in the net result.

                        If we have a horizontal spinning wheel with a vertical axis, as the GP moves down, it is symmetrically deflected by the mass of the wheel moving at 90 degrees to the GP equally over the whole wheel towards the circumference. That means that GP is literally evenly deflected to the circumference of the wheel all around, which is very different from a vertical wheel.

                        If that wheel can go fast enough, I believe the output in the coils would be higher as they're place around the edge because each time the switch turns off, the suction of the collapse will pull in the higher density aether that is deflected towards the circumference and the spike would be higher.

                        I think the speed would be much higher than an SG circuit could give and the difference might be so small it might not be easily measured, but another thing is the thought experiment based on this gravitational model is that the wheel would also lose weight as the downward moving GP is deflected towards the edges so less GP is actually imparting a push on much of the mass of the wheel since it isn't making it through the wheel but goes out to the edges and over the side.

                        If we had a spinning bell with thick enough walls spinning like this, I think a clock inside the bell up towards the top of the axis would tick very fast since hardly any GP is moving down through the watch vicinity.

                        This model predicts the results DePalma actually got with the spinning ball experiments so with or without this aetheric gravity model being correct, DePalma's experiment suggest to me that the results will show up like I mention.

                        I actually got a sphere of solid aluminum (that was actually hard to find) 4-5 inches in diameter and I mounted it on a shaft but wasn't perfectly centered so that was screwed up. I'm am amateur machinist so oh well LOL. But that is what I wanted to try.

                        I know a flywheel can get to high speeds in the right arrangement. They go over 100,000 RPM in electromechanical batteries with free floating magnetic bearings and that was the route I was moving towards to try this experiment. But the more important experiment is that time will be faster under the wheel towards the axle and slower at the perimeter since the density of aether is less at the axle and higher at the circumference.
                        Aaron Murakami





                        You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Aaron,
                          You seem to be able to get highly technical but also can speak in the common mans language which is great.

                          I have a question for you in the common mans language please. I have noticed many times over that if I leave a monopole running in the other room for awhile and then come back to look at it my charge curve will jump up in voltage while I am in the presence of the machine. It will jump up about 1 1/2 to 2 *EDIT* tenths of a volt (Original post said volt) when I am in proximity. If I back away to nearly four feet I can consistently see it go back down, move closer again and it goes up. Their is an interaction there for sure that I can reproduce every time. It also happens with a solid state setup. I have often wondered if the coil is somehow pulling energy off of my body but in reading some of what you have written I am wondering if perhaps it has to do with a displacement of aether in the local environment. For example if we could but something of my mass into the field and pull it away again would the same effect be observed?

                          Along the same lines does the aether give a constant pressure against objects or could it vary with oscillations? I have been playing with various cap dumping methods where I intentionally change the frequency on a loop to upset the consistency of the pattern. Along the lines of making waves in a pool for example so that a literal wave may come in say two inches high, then one, then a quarter, then another at two and so on. I'm not sure if I am explaining this clearly but what I mean is can the aether pressure be modified in this way or will it always be constant? With the cap experiment I am looking at creating secondary dipole events from the cap to the charge battery nothing to do with the main function of the monopole and it's dipoles. Just changing the dump cycle around thinking that I may be able to create a pressure by varying the speed of the dump. Like if it were strictly once per second than if a pressure wave developed I may be catching it at the low side each time, by changing the frequency to dis-similar times I am hoping to have at least some of the waves build up amplitude, like splashing around in the pool a sort of elasticity if you will. By contrast if if were not water but say something like sand where you would have a constant pressure if you moved things around. I am thinking of it sort of as a fluid.

                          Anyway I'm not sure if I can explain this properly but I would value any input you may have on both of these situations.
                          Last edited by BobZilla; 12-07-2013, 04:50 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by BroMikey
                            I know people who know how to make these UFO shapes move with the energy fields you described. One is a 16 channel pulsed coil arrangement on huge toroidal's hooked up to the front, back, sides and mirco controlled for overlapping harmonic frec's and overlapping duty cycle.

                            However the 5th dimension stuff with mis-shapen alien heads is very real to those in the VRIL society but is most often demonically influenced.
                            That would be awesome to see those experiments from the people you know.

                            About a month ago, I was down at a lab in the Nevada desert and was sleeping out in my car. Woke up at 3am and was amazed at the stars I could see. 15 min later, a black Batman kind of wing went over flying low, no lights and completely silent.

                            I drew a pic and from what I could find, I believe it was a B2.

                            Northrop-Grumman.jpg

                            Of course I saw it from a bottom view, but ZERO sound.

                            I bet it was using high voltage electrostatics for "ion propulsion".

                            The Army even has a letter where they officially said (in regards to lifters) that the ion propulsion strength is NOT enough to account for the lift. I think it has to do with creating that HV dipole that deflects the gravitational potential over the shell to a certain level and reduces its weight.

                            With the VRIL Society, Hitler and Schumann (of Schumann resonance) and company were meeting on a regular basis with women who claimed to have been channeling info from the Sirian start system I believe. The plans they received were really supposed to be about time travel / teleporation technology. That is what inspired the whole movement towards the Hanebu I and II before the Coler technology came along. Before that, was all conventional BMW motors carrying those saucers up to as high as 80,000 feet.

                            Anyway, not saying I believe they did receive info from another star system, but not saying I don't not believe them either...whatever the case may be, all of this is taken very seriously by a lot of elitists in all countries.
                            Aaron Murakami





                            You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by BobZilla View Post
                              Aaron,
                              You seem to be able to get highly technical but also can speak in the common mans language which is great.

                              I have a question for you in the common mans language please. I have noticed many times over that if I leave a monopole running in the other room for awhile and then come back to look at it my charge curve will jump up in voltage while I am in the presence of the machine. It will jump up about 1 1/2 to 2 *EDIT* tenths of a volt (Original post said volt) when I am in proximity. If I back away to nearly four feet I can consistently see it go back down, move closer again and it goes up. Their is an interaction there for sure that I can reproduce every time. It also happens with a solid state setup. I have often wondered if the coil is somehow pulling energy off of my body but in reading some of what you have written I am wondering if perhaps it has to do with a displacement of aether in the local environment. For example if we could but something of my mass into the field and pull it away again would the same effect be observed?

                              Along the same lines does the aether give a constant pressure against objects or could it vary with oscillations? I have been playing with various cap dumping methods where I intentionally change the frequency on a loop to upset the consistency of the pattern. Along the lines of making waves in a pool for example so that a literal wave may come in say two inches high, then one, then a quarter, then another at two and so on. I'm not sure if I am explaining this clearly but what I mean is can the aether pressure be modified in this way or will it always be constant? With the cap experiment I am looking at creating secondary dipole events from the cap to the charge battery nothing to do with the main function of the monopole and it's dipoles. Just changing the dump cycle around thinking that I may be able to create a pressure by varying the speed of the dump. Like if it were strictly once per second than if a pressure wave developed I may be catching it at the low side each time, by changing the frequency to dis-similar times I am hoping to have at least some of the waves build up amplitude, like splashing around in the pool a sort of elasticity if you will. By contrast if if were not water but say something like sand where you would have a constant pressure if you moved things around. I am thinking of it sort of as a fluid.

                              Anyway I'm not sure if I can explain this properly but I would value any input you may have on both of these situations.
                              BobZilla,

                              Your body does have a capacitance and it can change what is happening in the circuits.

                              I saw this quite a bit especially with the Ainslie inductive resistor tests I did way back. That was more sensitive than the SG circuits especially when I was in the high megahertz range.

                              By the way, have you ever tried grounding your SG to the Earth to see if there is a difference with what you are witnessing? I believe it just makes a stronger sink for the gravitational potential to move towards in the circuit so the result can be more is moving into the coil from gravity upon the collapse to add to the spike as it goes to a battery. Even though the batt is connected to the positive of the input, that does have a ground that can go to Earth.

                              Not sure if you saw the diagrams in the SG book, I think we put it in there, but from the beginning, John B has shows the EARTH GROUND symbol from the ground of the SG for the past 13 years or so, but that is hardly mentioned anymore. It is the pitchfork ground and not the 3-4 parallel lines ground symbol. It's there in the original SG diagrams that John posted in Keelynet way back.

                              You have a good feel for your machine and the voltage changes when you're in proximity to the machine...take the input ground and connect it to a seriously good ground stake and see if that even makes a difference when you are near or not.

                              Anyway, I think it is mostly a capacitance effect of your body because that also screws with the tuning of a lot of the circuits like what Eric Dollard is using. When he was tuning the Cosmic Induction Generator that John Polakowski built, we couldn't stand too close to the coils or it would throw everything off. Of course that is higher voltage and frequency so more prone to our influence like that - but pretty neat that you can see such a difference with the SG.

                              With the pressure you're taking about, the closest thing I would compare it to is that you are able to entrain the aether. Like if you zip your finger through the still water in a tub from one end to the other, the rest of the water around that path follows in the water's pull that you caused. So by varying the frequency - could influence that but I think the main difference is just keeping the polarity because the entrainment factor is there. I think John or Peter L may have talked about this before, but I can't think of any specific references right off. You could always ask but there is something to that.

                              In a way, along the lines of what you're mentioning, is like making something more disruptive in one direction so that it becomes longitudinal where there is no dissipation 90 degrees or any other angle from the primary direction of propagation if you can even call it propagation since it isn't moving over time, but is just there at the other place instantaneously.
                              Aaron Murakami





                              You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by BroMikey
                                Looks as crude as some of my experiments. LOL

                                Professor Laithwaite has a really good one that shows the deal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8
                                The wheel spinning isn't parallel to the ground like I mention, but his is giving input to steer it. 40 pounds... an
                                Olympic weight set has 45 pound weights. You can't take one of those and on a stick and move it like that showing
                                that the spinning wheel absolutely IS losing weight. Especially at 2000 rpm, which is pretty fast for something like
                                that, it is deflecting the gravitational potential around it causing it to resist the downward push of gravity so he
                                can lift it like that. He is giving just enough input so there is an asymmetrical tendency in any particular direction.

                                I think he is a professor - been a while, but his demos have been around for a long time.

                                Aaron Murakami





                                You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X