Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


2019 ESTC ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!
PRE-REGISTER FOR THE
2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE

Monero XMR

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 100

Thread: Curvature of Space/Time

  1. #11
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,400
    Blog Entries
    1
    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

  2. #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

  3. #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

  4. #14
    dave i believe that was longitudinal waves

  5. #15
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,400
    Blog Entries
    1

    spike time space

    Quote 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

  6. #16
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,400
    Blog Entries
    1
    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

  7. #17
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,400
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote 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

  8. #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

  9. #19
    Hi Aaron,
    Thanks so much for taking the time to share with us. Very interesting.

  10. #20
    Hi Aaron,

    Quote 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?
    Gary Hammond,

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •