Announcement

Collapse

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference

Pre-Register for FREE for the 2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference.

Registration Form: http://energyscienceconference.com/r...ation/2020.php
Schedule: http://energyscienceconference.com/2...ence-schedule/
Presenter Bio/Talk Descriptions: http://energyscienceconference.com/2020-speakers/
See more
See less

Curvature of Space/Time

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

  • Curvature of Space/Time

    Ever wondered what is meant by the "curvature of space/time"? Tom Bearden mentions this frequently in his books and DVDs and I've often struggled to understand what he's talking about.

    Hopefully, this video will help explain it



    You don't need to be a Doctor Who fan, but it helps...

    John K.

  • #2
    C'mon Mikey, if you watched the video you would have noticed Professor Brian Cox's lecture is based on scientific fact and evidence backed up by experiments.
    This is not about "I heard from some guy about UFOs", you are missing the point here. Another thing, it is an unequivocal law of the universe that NOTHING can travel faster than the speed of light. Did you miss that point too?

    Why did I post the video? Because most of the lecture has direct links to what we are trying to achieve in our Bedini devices, based on what Tesla, Faraday and Maxwell discovered in the 1800's. It is about the curvature of space/time, not about how fast a UFO can do a turn! (If they exist, which I will doubt until I've seen one!)

    There is no "free energy"! How many times must this be said? Every joule of energy must be paid for in some way. For example, a solar panel does not provide free energy. It transforms one form of energy into another, as does a wind turbine, as does a heat pump, as does an internal combustion engine. All of these devices transform energy from the local environment (yes, we do not directly pay for solar, wind or heat) but there is still a cost associated with harvesting this energy.

    What we are looking for in our experiments is to harvest a different form of energy from the local environment. It's not a new energy, it's been here since the dawn of space/time and it it all around us. It is said to travel AT the speed of light (not faster than!). Call it whatever you like - radiant, aether, negative, zero point. It's all the same, and it's not that hard to get it once you "get it".

    All you need to do is to cause a curvature of space/time in the local environment! You don't need "colossal power" to do it either, just a few milli watts will do.

    What does this mean - a local curvature of space/time? Sounds all wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey to me! It means altering the local environment to affect either the space or time of an object.

    Professor Cox demonstrated this "phenomena" many times during his lecture. If you remember the experiment where the guy is on a moving trolley and moves a bulb up and down. What did that show? It showed that space and time is relative to the observer. To the man on the trolley the bulb was just moving up and down in the same space, but to the audience it appeared that the bulb was moving through space and therefore taking more time to go up and down.

    How is that relevant to our Bedini experiments? You might say that out Bedini machine is not moving through space/time. This is not true at all. Obviously it is moving through time, as with time you can see on a clock that seconds, minutes, hours pass by - never to return. But it is also moving through space, remember that the Earth is revolving around the Sun at approximately 650 miles per hour. It just that the observer is also moving at the same speed, so it appears that our machine is not moving at all. But if you were observing the same from a fixed point in space you would plainly see that the Earth (and the Bedini machine) just wizzed by you at 650 MPH!

    Again, how is that relevant to our Bedini machine creating a curvature of space/time in the local environment? It's very relevant because even though the speed of light is constant, TIME IS NOT. This has been proven and was easily demonstrated by Professor Cox. Time is relative to the observer, as is space. So it's fair to say that space/time is relative to the observer!

    So how do we cause a "curvature of space/time in the local environment"? What we have to do is throw nature out of balance for a brief period of time to force it out of equilibrium. We have to trick nature to "think" it is out balance. How do we do that? Again, it's been proven that a SHARP GRADIENT will do the job nicely. All we have to do is produce a SHARP GRADIENT and nature will do the rest for us!
    It's been proven by a couple of Nobelists that a sharp gradient will cause a curvature of space/time in the local environment, which will throw the system out of equilibrium. Nature senses this imbalance and in its effort to restore the equilibrium, provides the energy to do so. It's like "Whoa, you can't do that! I'm going to put a stop to it. BANG! There you go, back to normal."

    But here's the tricky part! What happens when we create a local curvature of space/time? Well, we haven't changed the space that the object is occupying but we have changed the TIME!!! We have actually engineered the time constant - we have either slowed time down or sped time up. Just a tiny little bit. But just a tiny little bit is all we need, because we can repeat the same effect over and over again - that is produce a sharp gradient over an over again. We can make the system OSCILLATE and produce many little adjustments in time, over the course of "regular" time to the observer.

    Poppycock you say! Not at all, I say. It's easily proven by simply capturing this "energy" that nature has provided into a storage battery or capacitor. That is, capturing the tiny little bits of time and storing them for later use.
    Have you ever wondered why a Bedini system charged battery takes less time to charge and longer to discharge? I'm not talking about rejuvenating a battery, I'm talking about extending the life of a perfectly good battery.
    To the observer it appears that the battery is charging faster and discharging slower, because the observer measured it with a "clock" that measures "time". But the battery is running on its own time scale. How? The chemical reactions that take place in the battery during charge and discharge haven't changed and we haven't changed the system that charges or discharges the battery, so what changed to make our battery charge faster and discharge slower. Yep, you guessed it - TIME!! We have actually changed the "speed of the clock" inside the battery by causing a local curvature of space/time! Clever little devils aren't we???

    So, please watch the lecture again and try and apply the principles explained by Prof. Cox to what we are doing with the inventions of John Bedini that he has so selflessly shared! And forget about UFOs

    John K.

    Comment


    • #3
      john k, ive heard bedini mention time in almost every video ive seen, but ive never seen it elaborated on until now... thanks for that...
      as for nothing being unable to travel faster than light, ive read otherwise on multiple occasions

      Comment


      • #4
        I didn't realize that all that was going on with the battery. Interesting, and very cool!

        Originally posted by John_Koorn View Post
        C'mon Mikey, if you watched the video you would have noticed Professor Brian Cox's lecture is based on scientific fact and evidence backed up by experiments.
        This is not about "I heard from some guy about UFOs", you are missing the point here. Another thing, it is an unequivocal law of the universe that NOTHING can travel faster than the speed of light. Did you miss that point too?

        Why did I post the video? Because most of the lecture has direct links to what we are trying to achieve in our Bedini devices, based on what Tesla, Faraday and Maxwell discovered in the 1800's. It is about the curvature of space/time, not about how fast a UFO can do a turn! (If they exist, which I will doubt until I've seen one!)

        There is no "free energy"! How many times must this be said? Every joule of energy must be paid for in some way. For example, a solar panel does not provide free energy. It transforms one form of energy into another, as does a wind turbine, as does a heat pump, as does an internal combustion engine. All of these devices transform energy from the local environment (yes, we do not directly pay for solar, wind or heat) but there is still a cost associated with harvesting this energy.

        What we are looking for in our experiments is to harvest a different form of energy from the local environment. It's not a new energy, it's been here since the dawn of space/time and it it all around us. It is said to travel AT the speed of light (not faster than!). Call it whatever you like - radiant, aether, negative, zero point. It's all the same, and it's not that hard to get it once you "get it".

        All you need to do is to cause a curvature of space/time in the local environment! You don't need "colossal power" to do it either, just a few milli watts will do.

        What does this mean - a local curvature of space/time? Sounds all wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey to me! It means altering the local environment to affect either the space or time of an object.

        Professor Cox demonstrated this "phenomena" many times during his lecture. If you remember the experiment where the guy is on a moving trolley and moves a bulb up and down. What did that show? It showed that space and time is relative to the observer. To the man on the trolley the bulb was just moving up and down in the same space, but to the audience it appeared that the bulb was moving through space and therefore taking more time to go up and down.

        How is that relevant to our Bedini experiments? You might say that out Bedini machine is not moving through space/time. This is not true at all. Obviously it is moving through time, as with time you can see on a clock that seconds, minutes, hours pass by - never to return. But it is also moving through space, remember that the Earth is revolving around the Sun at approximately 650 miles per hour. It just that the observer is also moving at the same speed, so it appears that our machine is not moving at all. But if you were observing the same from a fixed point in space you would plainly see that the Earth (and the Bedini machine) just wizzed by you at 650 MPH!

        Again, how is that relevant to our Bedini machine creating a curvature of space/time in the local environment? It's very relevant because even though the speed of light is constant, TIME IS NOT. This has been proven and was easily demonstrated by Professor Cox. Time is relative to the observer, as is space. So it's fair to say that space/time is relative to the observer!

        So how do we cause a "curvature of space/time in the local environment"? What we have to do is throw nature out of balance for a brief period of time to force it out of equilibrium. We have to trick nature to "think" it is out balance. How do we do that? Again, it's been proven that a SHARP GRADIENT will do the job nicely. All we have to do is produce a SHARP GRADIENT and nature will do the rest for us!
        It's been proven by a couple of Nobelists that a sharp gradient will cause a curvature of space/time in the local environment, which will throw the system out of equilibrium. Nature senses this imbalance and in its effort to restore the equilibrium, provides the energy to do so. It's like "Whoa, you can't do that! I'm going to put a stop to it. BANG! There you go, back to normal."

        But here's the tricky part! What happens when we create a local curvature of space/time? Well, we haven't changed the space that the object is occupying but we have changed the TIME!!! We have actually engineered the time constant - we have either slowed time down or sped time up. Just a tiny little bit. But just a tiny little bit is all we need, because we can repeat the same effect over and over again - that is produce a sharp gradient over an over again. We can make the system OSCILLATE and produce many little adjustments in time, over the course of "regular" time to the observer.

        Poppycock you say! Not at all, I say. It's easily proven by simply capturing this "energy" that nature has provided into a storage battery or capacitor. That is, capturing the tiny little bits of time and storing them for later use.
        Have you ever wondered why a Bedini system charged battery takes less time to charge and longer to discharge? I'm not talking about rejuvenating a battery, I'm talking about extending the life of a perfectly good battery.
        To the observer it appears that the battery is charging faster and discharging slower, because the observer measured it with a "clock" that measures "time". But the battery is running on its own time scale. How? The chemical reactions that take place in the battery during charge and discharge haven't changed and we haven't changed the system that charges or discharges the battery, so what changed to make our battery charge faster and discharge slower. Yep, you guessed it - TIME!! We have actually changed the "speed of the clock" inside the battery by causing a local curvature of space/time! Clever little devils aren't we???

        So, please watch the lecture again and try and apply the principles explained by Prof. Cox to what we are doing with the inventions of John Bedini that he has so selflessly shared! And forget about UFOs

        John K.

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi John

          Thank you for doing your level best to explain to us "simple folk" how this technology works.

          Every time I read something "since I attend the 2010 conference", I see another aspect allowing me to put a small piece of this jigsaw puzzle together.

          Somehow I need to "learn how to forget" what we were taught and start relearning all over again

          Derk

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Brodie Gwilliam View Post
            john k, ive heard bedini mention time in almost every video ive seen, but ive never seen it elaborated on until now... thanks for that...
            as for nothing being unable to travel faster than light, ive read otherwise on multiple occasions
            Hi Brodie, I'm interested in where you read that something can travel faster than the speed of light. Can you post quotes or references?

            John K.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by John Smith View Post
              Hi John

              Thank you for doing your level best to explain to us "simple folk" how this technology works.

              Every time I read something "since I attend the 2010 conference", I see another aspect allowing me to put a small piece of this jigsaw puzzle together.

              Somehow I need to "learn how to forget" what we were taught and start relearning all over again

              Derk
              Hey Derk, I'm just one of those simple folk as well It's a hard concept to grasp that we can engineer the speed of time, as none of us were ever taught this at school. Most university professors even have a hard time of grasping the concept, let alone the backyard tinkerers like us.

              John K.

              Comment


              • #8
                http://www.livescience.com/28550-how...fographic.html - here discusses how quantum entanglement works faster than speed of light, i remember reading an old nasa document discussing a object(i think planet) that was measured moving faster than light speed, also nasa even admits now they are working on faster than light speed travel

                Comment


                • #9
                  @John K - I respectfully, but very much disagree with you that the energy is transforming from one form to another. The rest of the post is directed to everyone in general.

                  There is no such thing as conservation of energy or the transformation of energy.

                  You mention Bearden but some of the concepts are actually very incompatible.

                  The only thing that happens is that when work is done (energy), that is dissipation of a potential difference through resistances. No transforming form one form to another.

                  Here is what I mean... even Bearden says that a generating station does not contribute 1 single watt to the grid. It simply establishes a dipole and then the "virtual photons" go to the terminals and over the wires to the opposite terminal.

                  If you're on a bicycle with a generator attached to the wheel, you expend energy (doing real work) to turn the wheel. What that work does is simply create a potential difference in the generator and the potential comes in from the environment towards the charge separated terminals of the generator and over the wires. And what happens over the wires is that potential is delivered to a load, etc...

                  The energy you demonstrated in your leg power, etc. did not change into another form of energy. Your leg power simply did work by creating a dipole and that leg work (heat in muscles, etc...) was dissipated directly into its own local environment. Potential in - work - dissipation.

                  At the generator was that a potential difference was created (polarization of the aether), that moved to the terminals and over the wires to go do other work.

                  The energy (real work dissipation in your legs, etc.) did not transform into work at the other end of the wires. Your leg work happened locally to do nothing more than create a dipole and it dissipated to its local environment.

                  When you created that other dipole, new potential came in from the active vacuum, aether, etc. and was polarized (broken symmetry) and that moves in towards he wires to do work and then was dissipated in its own local environment.

                  So, no transformation.

                  There is only the creation of a potential difference (dipole), work is done if that charge separated (polarized aether) encounters resistances moving to the opposite polarity and it gets dissipated locally at the point of resistance back into the vacuum/aether.

                  That work created a dipole (which is a separate dipole with separate and disconnected potential that comes into it to do work) meaning that there is no energy conservation and there is no transforming of energy from one form to another.

                  There is always and only a creation of a dipole, potential energy (voltage potential, Heaviside flow, etc.) moving to its opposite potential and any resistance encountered in is path will result in real measurable work in joules/sec/sec done and then dissipation.

                  What results in a "free energy" machine is that any system where the dipole/potential separation/dissipation happens where that dissipation establishes another dipole like a bouncing ball, then the entropy is delayed and can be over 1.0 COP because of the re-gauging process.

                  There is no experimental evidence to suggest that energy is ever conserved or transformed from one form to another - not even in a closed system.

                  The idea that light is a constant is also a myth and ignores varying degrees of aetheric density depending on the mass that displaces the aether, etc... whereas light is slower in higher density aether than in lower density aether with a corresponding higher or lower "gravity".

                  If we go to experimental evidence, we have to quantify the very substance that makes the propagation of light possible or even gravity itself.

                  There is way less experimental evidence to suggest a aether-less "space" than there is of space filled with aether.

                  And there no such thing as space without the aether. A lack of aether is not space, it is a true void or vacuum.

                  Bearden's use of "vacuum" is a misnomer, but is acceptable because of the widespread use but a true vacuum has no aether either and vacuum space should really be called a plenum.

                  So if we look at the very substance of space itself, which is a volume of aether (lack of aether is negative space or a void), we can deduce that inertia and other phenomena is caused by it when there is action between mass and "space" over distance for varying degrees of time.

                  If we look at what energy and potential is for the sake of what they actually are in and of themselves. Energy is not a thing and potential is not an abstract. Potential is the aetheric potential (virtual photons so to speak) and energy is nothing more than an experience that the potential experiences when it meets a resistance by encountering its like charge meaning electrostatic potential that bucks it. When that happens, that is resistance and work is done in a measurable unit of joules/sec/sec.

                  When we lift an object, it is impossible to store potential in an object. We DO WORK when we lift an object and it is all dissipated when we lift it to its peak. That work only established a potential difference between itself at its height and the ground (dipole). When let go, the gravitational potential (aetheric rebound from the mass displacing it - gravity of Earth for example) pushes on it (potential) it will push the object back down until it encounters resistance and work gets done. None of that potential that turned into real work came from the work we expended to lift the object. That means there is no conservation of energy and that we can actually quantify the work done on a bouncing ball for example by adding up all the FxD in the bounces and it is way more than we put in. Since it will be more as an indisputable calculable fact based on elementary school math and junior high school equations, that shows that energy transformation did not occur because if it did, the output would have to match our energy input but it did not.

                  The mathematical evidence shows that more work is done on the rubber bouncing ball when adding up all the FxD compared to the work we put into the initial lift so we quantify not only that energy transformation is not occurring since the output work is more showing that gravitational potential absolutely, indisputably is contributing to more work in total that what we contributed, that shows there is this "invisible aether" or whatever you want to call it. Even if we can't prove the aether exists, we CAN absolutely prove that there is no energy transformation since the input vs output can be many times different by a factor of close to 10 times with a rubber bouncing ball close to 90% efficient.

                  Once we see the reality of this, experimental evidence shows that there is "something" that does in fact have an interaction with mass and can contribute to a re-gauging process, which allows a mass, etc. to regauge itself into a new potential difference to do more work.

                  So many experimental evidences for various belief systems can indeed be logically extrapolated from these simple experiments that are mathematically irrefutable with elementary math and junior high school Newton's equations (which are accurate to show the #'s, but are inaccurate when interpreted int he classical sense.)

                  When reviewing some of my theories in my book The Quantum Key (really not trying to sell my book here) (in my opinion have not only stood the test of time but have predicated every result in every experiment I've done and properly describes the outcome of any other experiment dealing with electricity that I've looked at by other people) with someone that is a master at proving longitudinal propagation at superluminal speeds - I was told that my concepts essentially were what J.J. Thompson was explaining over 100 years ago, but I have never studied his work but intend to when I have time.

                  I would like to say that time is not some 4th dimension and that TIME is nothing more than motion of mass through the aether at different densities. In the local frame of reference, it will always appear to be the same since light and perception will be operating at the same time so it will always be appearing to the be same no matter where the observer is). With entanglement, etc. I have volumes of recorded documents showing through TRV (technical remote viewing) that my perception instantaneously perceived data at distances and times that my local body is not subject to). That may be a stretch for some to believe, but my documented remove viewing sessions show virtually instantaneous connection to targets that are thousands of miles away but the data transfer is instantaneous. You can see http://energeticforum.com and search for my TRV Basic Sessions posts to see what I mean.

                  Higher density slower time. Lower density faster time because there is less resistance to the movement through it. With that being said, there are many densities of the aether all through the universe as evidenced by varying degrees of gravity by various sized masses and therefore, light will be traveling through them all at varying speeds depending on those densities. Doing experiments to show the speed of light in a local density of the aether and claiming that it is a constant is like fish trying to explain the properties of its environment based on its own local experience in the water that it is in not knowing that a fish in other water might be in water 3x as dense for example with light traveling a 1/3 the speed, but to each observation, it will be the same to their own conscious awareness for the reason stated above.

                  Just my 2 cents, but I can show the basic math that proves it that satisfies what Bearden says but quantifies it in a way that Bearden hasn't, etc. It is consistent with what I believe Eric Dollard says about polarizing the vacuum. It is consitent with my understanding if John Bedini's work, Peter Lindemann, etc... and by saying this, it is not my desire to imply that they agree with my interpretation.
                  Last edited by Aaron Murakami; 12-04-2013, 07:17 PM.
                  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


                  • #10
                    Hi John,
                    First I am very glad you're bringing this to our attention, and you can't believe how pleased I am that we could exchange "big picture" type idea. There's of course a time and place to discuss what diode to use or how many magnets one should use but it is just as helpful to understand what the heck is happening in those batteries. In other words, all those hours spend in my garage or reading the forum's posts are only teaching me the "HOW" but very little consideration is given to the "WHAT". As in what exactly is happening, as an engineer I find that extremely annoying and debilitating.

                    So in the spirit of scientific debate I would like to submit this:
                    I read your post and looked at the vid. Your argument is that there must be a time/space curvature triggered by the sharp gradients (i.e the coil spike) which cause the battery to charge faster and discharge slower then a regular battery.
                    We can't deny the facts but we can't unequivocally explain that by a curvature time/space. Where's the proof? I see that as one possibility.

                    Here's another possible explanation: Maybe the spikes are changing the morphology of the plates. And possibly depositing those lead sulphates such as the cell plate has a bigger active area. That's actually much easier to confirm or deny. Just SEM the electrode structure and compare that to a regular battery.

                    Here's something worth reminding everybody: During fabrication the lead is screen-printed onto the plate. When assembled the battery's capacity increases during the first cycles, why? because the cell plate structure changed, this time the lead is electrically deposited. Couldn't that also happen when we switch to high voltage spikes charging? I could be wrong but it's only fair to have all the plausible explanations on the table.

                    Hope that doesn't confuse the issue, we all seem to agree on what is the battery`s behaviors. However very little is being said about why is the battery behaving that way.

                    John, I like the way you think, now let`s put some meat on that theory.

                    Cheers,
                    NoFear.
                    Last edited by Nofear; 12-03-2013, 12:34 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Here is what the spike is...

                      When the coil charges - that is a dipole that polarizes the aether. It is a lot more dense than just a chuck of mass in the aether.

                      When the coil charges - the aether is displaced like pushing you finger into a balloon.

                      When you let go, the balloon goes back to where it was.

                      With a coil, when the switch is turned off, the displaced aether rebounds very fast pushing it "into" a coil with a much faster time constant. (rebound)
                      And that is why there is a "spike".
                      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


                      • #12
                        OK I appreciate that Aaron. But where's the meat?

                        I respectfully ask that you change the first line of your last post from".....what the spike is" to "....what the spike possibly is" Because again, even though your point of view seem to be bulletproof and make some sense with no evident contradictions it is still just a theory. A good one, but just a theory.

                        The members of this forum are being asked to question the mainstream physics theories because they are fundamentally incorrect. It only fair that I asked that we don't feed them substitute theories that are only validated with taught experiments. Again where's the meat?

                        OK Aaron the ball is in your court. Don't tell me what I already know, I ordered your book, it make sense but is it true? And don't ask me to have faith, show me the meat.

                        Respectfully,

                        NoFear

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Is there not a spike also at the moment of switch closure... as there is a differential in the potential while the coil (load) is energizing and forming a dipole which is across the primary battery? Or have I simply misunderstood the concept?

                          Aslo in one of the Dollard videos, Eric with a colleague demonstrate with a rope pulled tight in tug of war fashion. What were they demonstrating in that example? Anyone remember the vid?


                          Dave Wing

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            dave i believe that was longitudinal waves

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              spike time space

                              Originally posted by Nofear View Post
                              OK I appreciate that Aaron. But where's the meat?

                              I respectfully ask that you change the first line of your last post from".....what the spike is" to "....what the spike possibly is" Because again, even though your point of view seem to be bulletproof and make some sense with no evident contradictions it is still just a theory. A good one, but just a theory.

                              The members of this forum are being asked to question the mainstream physics theories because they are fundamentally incorrect. It only fair that I asked that we don't feed them substitute theories that are only validated with taught experiments. Again where's the meat?

                              OK Aaron the ball is in your court. Don't tell me what I already know, I ordered your book, it make sense but is it true? And don't ask me to have faith, show me the meat.

                              Respectfully,

                              NoFear
                              Hi NoFear,

                              I could have stated it more objectively but I'll leave it because it does actually describe my viewpoint that I think it is the only thing that is consistent with what we do have documentation on. And this post stands as me conceding that yes, I "shouldn't" state it as an absolute fact.

                              The spike is just a pure impulse of electrostatic potential or voltage potential with no current and or significant pulse width. Obviously we do have a bit of time involved but for the most part, we are simply talking about high voltage POTENTIAL, which is polarized aether at -400 volts of pressure or +400 volts of suction if you want to look at it from the backside.

                              Some of the meat is quantifying this voltage potential, which is exactly the Heaviside flow over a wire where it is condensed in the coil and discharged over a small rate of time. Bearden gives tons of references in published literature regarding the source potential and its flow over a wire. Dollard teaches a lot of that. Heaviside, etc... show the meat of this mathematically. So I will point to all of that monumental research and references that show this Heaviside flow is polarized aether or chaotic virtual photons that had their symmetry broken by a dipole (same thing). I personally accept it as a scientifically indisputable fact that has stood the test of time seeing that the status quo "science" is proven to be fundamentally flawed up one end and down the other.

                              It is just my belief that the aether is being displaced by the charged coil and when the coil is disconnected, the aether electrostatically repels the positive potential of the cultivated voltage potential (Heaviside Flow) under a great deal of pressure and that is why it squeezes out of the coil so fast and gives us a spike. It pushes it to the path of least resistance of a lower potential. Even before the coil is turned off, the ambient aether is still pushing against the voltage potential gas in the coil with pressure, but it is meeting resistance. Switch off, you get an impulse of gas shooting over the wire, through the diode and into the charging battery or whatever your circuit is. For almost 10 years I've describe the Bedini SG as an oscillating gas pump, because that is literally what it is.

                              With the definition of time, it shows that it is indeed tied to the density of the aether and the motion of mass through it. In the spike, there is no time component that is significant so time is literally locked up in the high voltage potential. When you take that potential and make it do work, you get the time "out of it" by putting it to work over lower densities, pressures or voltages. When Bedini said years ago that it is a TIME charge, that is literal.

                              I apologize I may not be giving you the meat you're probably looking for but I think it is self evident based on what we do know. I realize anything we know we only think we know and that can get quite philosophical as we can't ever really prove we know anything at all so I'll leave it at that - it is a logical deduction based on known principles and ample published literature on the entire concept of the Heaviside Flow, etc. which is the medium that the spike is made of of anyway.

                              I'll add the below just for conversation as it is about time and space - the topic of this thread.

                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              The below is for anyone else since you probably already read this then, but it shows the reality of a medium and of a medium that gets displaced by mass, which is evidence by the action of gravity and when doing the simple math experiments below, it proves that potential from outside of the mass comes into the mass to do work. It is all connected to the idea that a charged coil is displacing the ambient aether at a much higher density per volume of space than common mass like an object.

                              When we have this kind of evidence of the displacement effect of the Aether and we see what displaces it - mass being electrostatically repelled by like charges of the displaced aether that is rebounding back = gravity, then we can see what else pushes against the aether is like polarized aether, which anyone can demonstrate with HV experiments showing they repel.

                              I was told that JJ Thompson's work goes into these kind of concepts, but I haven't had time to study his work. Eric Dollard said the math can be confusing because he doesn't stay consistent with the characters he is using for various mathematical definitions through the book. In any case, it is supposed to be written in fairly common sense English so most people can understand the concepts anyway.

                              If we look at Bearden's work - there are many papers he has where the references are longer than the content of his own writings. Throughout all of that, much of the whole "virtual photon" issue has been quantified just as the aether has absolutely been quantified by Dayton Miller's work and even Michelson himself wound up validating some of Miller's findings later, but "everyone" only talks about the Michelson/Morley experiment where they did not. But the truth is that in their original experiment, they had a positive result too. Einstein claimed Miller's findings were simply due to temperature changes - he knew that Miller's findings would single-handedly flush him down the drain. What I'm getting to is that the very substance that creates the dimension of space has been quantified to the hilt and I personally accept that as an indisputable fact and the counter opinions have been debunked countless times over the decades.

                              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.
                              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