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 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 100

Thread: Curvature of Space/Time

  1. #31
    Thanks for the insight Aaron.

    I have noticed myself that the solid state rig is more sensitive to it which lines up with what your saying as well. It has an air coil and runs at much higher frequency.

    I have observed some very interesting effects from the cap dumping technique too, guess I will just keep experimenting with it.


    I have some footage of a low altitude flight of a B2. This was taken in 06 at a public day on a navy air station in Virginia.

    Does this look like what you saw?

    https://files.secureserver.net/0sihgI9ic2ZvAT



    Also the F-117 looks a bit similar. Both of them are pretty creepy looking in flight.


    F117_1.jpg

    F117_2.jpg
    Last edited by BobZilla; 12-08-2013 at 09:27 AM.

  2. #32
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,448
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by BobZilla View Post
    Does this look like what you saw?

    https://files.secureserver.net/0sihgI9ic2ZvAT
    I'm 99% sure that was it. Much more than the 117 because of the long wingspan and relatively short distance from nose to back. The serrated edge on the back was very distinct.

    I read about maybe 7 years ago research done on the fins of whales where they are sort of that serrated shape and it reduces drag in the water and they were saying if that was how they shaped the backs of wings for planes that it would take much less fuel to get them in the air, keep them there and stall speed could be reduced. It was like 15% increase in lift for the same energy or something like that.

    This looks like the exact article I saw - just found this: http://www.pratt.duke.edu/news/mimic...ne-wing-design

    Here is a good reference for the electrogravitics: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0211001

    Just read the abstract on the first page. Not the Army's "official" position but they admit the effect is on the order of several magnitudes to big to account for.

    I'd love to see Eric Dollard reduce all that math to a couple pages of simple algebra.
    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

  3. #33
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,448
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
    I have noticed my weed whip seeming weightless when I swing it just the right way. I would just write it off as who knows. It could actually have this sort of effect with many spinning things. Specifically the weed whip I remember many times surprised me. Gasoline engine spinning at extreme speeds swing it around and watch it lift up.

    Good example Aaron with the spinning weights so kool.

    Mikey
    Here is DePalma's spinning ball experiment:
    http://depalma.pair.com/SpinningBall...anding%29.html

    depalma+spinning+ball+exp.JPG

    You can see when both balls are launched in the air, the one that is spinning goes higher faster and out further and then comes down quicker.

    I disagree with DePalma's interpretation of what is going on but the MEAT of the concept is that INERTIA is something that is imparted to the mass from space outside of the mass and is not a property of mass itself and that is one of the most important concepts he is showing.

    When the spinning ball goes up in the air, it is deflecting the downward pushing gravitational potential perpendicular to its direction of propagation so the center of the mass of the ball will have less gravitational push on it so less resistance to movement up against gravity (less inertia since it is moving) and it goes up higher faster and it is the same effect coming down - it still kicks the aether out to the side so it can go down faster than the normal fall in gravity...like a swimmer diving into a pool with their arms out pointed to slip into the water with less resistance. The substance (aether) that limits the normal falling speed is deflected away from the center of the mass that is falling through the aether so less inertia.

    Something else that gives credit to the idea of thinking along the lines of a horizontally spinning disk with vertical axis for the Bedini SG is the Faraday generator where you can spin a magnet and you get a voltage potential between the axis and the perimeter of the magnet. When spinning, the aether is deflected in the same way as above and there is a higher density of it at the edge and we get voltage. Very, very low voltage, but high amperage and for the most part, nobody has been able to use it for a practical generator. Depalma's N Machine is along these lines.

    faraday1.jpg

    I posted this in Energetic Forum way back:

    bedini-sg-n-machine.jpg

    On the right is a spinning magnet that generates voltage and current rectified to a cap. You really have to have super speeds to get enough out of it, but nevertheless, you do have a virtually drag free generator with only 2 brushes on the edge of magnet and on the axis shaft. I can almost guarantee if anyone tries this, they will be very unhappy with the results.

    I have since found a way to increase the voltage output 10 fold and will show how later on when I can do a demo some justice. But what all these experiments show is the reality of space's ability to impart an influence on a spinning mass and that the inertia, etc... are NOT intrinsic properties of the mass.

    Here is DePalma's Force Machine, which loses weight when spinning: http://depalma.pair.com/Absurdity/Ab...ceMachine.html
    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

  4. #34
    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...ll-dark-force/

    "The reason this is strange is that dark matter is thought to barely interact with itself. The dark matter should just coast through itself and move at the same speed as the hardly interacting galaxies. Instead, it looks like the dark matter is crashing into something — perhaps itself – and slowing down faster than the galaxies are. But this would require the dark matter to be able to interact with itself in a completely new an unexpected way, a “dark force” that affects only dark matter."

    Watch the following video starting at 0:45.

    "Empty space is not empty"


    "If you removed all of the particles, all of the radiation, absolutely everything from space and all that remained was nothing that nothing would weigh something." - Lawrence M. Krauss

    What weighs something has mass.

    If you remove everything else then all which remains is spacetime which means mass is associated with spacetime.

    If physicists understood mass is associated with spacetime they would realize it is what waves in a double slit experiment and what ripples when galaxy clusters collide. They would realize what 'piles-up' when galaxy clusters collide is the mass associated with spacetime.

    It is not necessary for physicists to conjure a 'new dark force'.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.5759

    "The relativistic theory of an Aether was discussed several time, see for e.g. [8], [9]. In this paper, our hypothesis is different and gives a relativistic theory of the deformation of continuous media (for which the geometry is described by the metric field)."

    The Milky Way's halo is the deformation of continuous media.

    The Milky Way's halo is the state of displacement of the aether.

    Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.

    What is referred to as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

    The pseudo-force associated with curved spacetime is the force associated with the displaced aether.

    The following article describes the aether as that which produces resistance to acceleration and is responsible for the increase in mass of an object with velocity and describes the "space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4611

    "It is shown that the force exerted on a particle by an ideal fluid produces two effects: i) resistance to acceleration and, ii) an increase of mass with velocity. ... The interaction between the particle and the entrained space flow gives rise to the observed properties of inertia and the relativistic increase of mass. ... Accordingly, in this framework the non resistance of a particle in uniform motion through an ideal fluid (D’Alembert’s paradox) corresponds to Newton’s first law. The law of inertia suggests that the physical vacuum can be modeled as an ideal fluid, agreeing with the space-time ideal fluid approach from general relativity."

    The relativistic mass of an object is the mass of the object and the mass of the aether connected to and neighboring the object which is displaced by the object. The faster an object moves with respect to the state of the aether in which it exists the greater the displacement of the aether by the object the greater the relativistic mass of the object.

    The incompressible fluid described in the following article is the gravitational aether which "the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.4176

    "But why an incompressible fluid? The reason comes from an attempt to solve the (old) cosmological constant problem, which is arguably the most puzzling aspect of coupling gravity to relativistic quantum mechanics [13]. Given that the natural expectation value for the vacuum of the standard model of particle physics is ∼ 60 orders of magnitude heavier than the gravitational measurements of vacuum density, it is reasonable to entertain an alternative theory of gravity where the standard model vacuum decouples from gravity. Such a theory could be realized by coupling gravity to the traceless part of the quantum mechanical energy-momentum tensor. However, the consistency/covariance of gravitational field equations then requires introducing an auxiliary fluid, the so-called gravitational aether [14]. The simplest model for gravitational aether is an incompressible fluid (with vanishing energy density, but non-vanishing pressure), which is currently consistent with all cosmological, astrophysical, and precision tests of gravity [15, 16]:

    __3__
    32πGN Gμν = Tμν − Tα gμν + Tμν ,
    Tμν = p (uμ uν + gμν ), T μν;ν = 0,

    where GN is Newton’s constant, Tμν is the matter energy momentum tensor and Tμν is the incompressible gravitational aether fluid. In vacuum, the theory reduces to GR coupled to an incompressible fluid."

    The aether is, or behaves similar to, a supersolid, which is described in the following article as the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. The article describes a 'back reaction' associated with the 'fluidic' nature of space itself. This is the displaced aether 'displacing back'.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.3458

    "We hypothesize that space itself resists such surges according to a kind of induction law (related to inertia); additionally, we provide further evidence of the “fluidic” nature of space itself. This "back-reaction" is quantified by the tendency of angular momentum flux threading across a surface."
    Last edited by mpc755; 12-08-2013 at 06:50 PM.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Branch Gordon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN
    Posts
    614
    Aaron-

    John mentions in DVD 33 that the earth ground symbol was just a bad habit, and was interchangeable with the other ground symbol. I'll have to go back and watch for the exact wording, but it was clearly explained as an inaccuracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    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.

  6. #36
    Very cool mpc755,
    This is the first time that I come across recent university papers discussing the existence aether. That feels like a breeze of fresh air in a desolated desert.
    Most of you wrote about, if not all of it jives with what Aaron presented in earlier posts. It's cool that there's confirmation. The confirmation that the aether has fluid like behavior. That it react with moving object and explains the apparent mass increase otherwise explained by "inertia"
    So will it be correct to state that when we are talking about big large celestial objects the gravitational aether fluid could be assumed to behave like an incompressible fluid but when it is stimulated by electromagnetic field/pressure it behaves like a compressible gas? I might be reaching out but it intuitively seems more appealing to think of it that way.

    Thanks Again.
    NoFear
    Last edited by Nofear; 12-08-2013 at 11:20 PM.

  7. #37
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,448
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by mpc755 View Post
    Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.

    What is referred to as the curvature of spacetime physically exists in nature as the state of displacement of the aether.

    The pseudo-force associated with curved spacetime is the force associated with the displaced aether.

    Aether has mass, physically occupies three dimensional space and is physically displaced by particles of matter.
    Thanks for posting all of that. I think I came across that last article in a discussion with another member here when this forum was new.

    My spidey senses are tingling though - We've had this conversation before

    The primary disagreement with that person that I had was that I don't subscribe to the idea that Aether has mass, yet.

    Maybe I'm biased by Bearden's description of a massless source charge, but I have given several arguments for the aether actually not having any mass.

    I would however have to challenge that aether occupies 3D space because without aether there is no space (which can be moved through), it is a true vaccum or void in the sense that it truly is empty.

    There is space because there is the aether and 3D is not really dimensions but coordinates within the single dimension of space.

    If we define different areas of a home in a triple axis coordinate system x, y, and z and I'm at one point and someone else is at another point, we are at different coordinates for sure, but we both still exist in the exact same single dimension of space.

    That last paper looks familiar, I think I might have posted that or someone else did before.
    I believe inertia is like a back emf and appears when there is acceleration or deceleration (rate of change) and they seem to be saying the same thing.
    Actually all those papers seem to be backing it.

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

    Below is a copy and paste from my post on 11/25 in another thread - its relevant to the topic of this thread:

    http://www.energyscienceforum.com/sh...ull=1#post3816

    The relative density of the aether in relation to a mass determines exactly how fast light will move through that region.

    That density determines the motion of all mass through it and also determines how fast the clock will tick in that region.

    Einstein was wrong, but you are stating the wrong thing(s) that he is wrong about and having time linked to motion of mass through space is not one of them.

    I know it's en vogue to smash Einstein lol, but at least do it with things he was actually wrong about.

    If you understand what I posted, you'll see I'm not saying what Einstein said.

    By virtue of being able to calculate Power, P = W/t, the rate that time flows is absolutely relative to the local Aetheric density.

    And when you know that inertia is a back emf equivelant (mass is the inductor), it's indisputable - it's common sense.

    If you have a bowl of water and let a rubber band powered propeller loose, it will spin fast. That is like low density aether, low gravity or low inertia. The motion of this propeller in the water analogy is the movement of mass through the Aether. The rate at which this motion can happen is limited by the aetheric density. Light travels faster in this space compared to an absolute benchmark reference point.

    If you have a bowl of gelatin and let the propeller go, it will spin slower. That is high density aether, high gravity or high inertia. The rate at which this motion can happen is reduced and in this area of space, light will travel slower compared to the absolute reference point.

    If there is an observer in both areas, it will look like time is normal to that person in their own area, because since light is also at a speed that the aetheric density will permit, their conscious awareness is also subject to the same density and will be proportionately slower as well. So, it will simply look normal.

    This is NOT Einstein's relativity - E does not equal mc2. MASS IN AN INDUCTOR and mass has zero energy stored - what is being inducted when the mass is accelerated? When you know what that means, you know what time is.

    When you charge a battery with Bedini's circuits, it is a TIME CHARGE. What do you think that means? The inductive spike is POTENTIAL, which is a TIME CHARGE. Why? You are charging the battery with time potential or POTENTIAL TIME. It is a POTENTIAL for time to exist! When you force that potential to perform work, motion is enabled.

    The greatest trick Einstein ever pulled was to convince others that Dayton Miller's experiments were flawed. What I explained overturns Einstein's manipulation - it does not agree with it. Again, if you dispute Einstein, at least do it for what he was actually wrong about - otherwise, it just looks like your opposing Einstein just for the sake of disagreeing with him.

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

    "The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect."Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

    "My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
    — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.


    "I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."
    — Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)


    "You imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
    — Albert Einstein, on his 70th birthday, in a letter to Maurice Solovine, 28 March 1949 (in B. Hoffman Albert Einstein: Creator and Rebel 1972, p.328)
    Last edited by Aaron Murakami; 12-09-2013 at 12:19 AM.
    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. #38
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,448
    Blog Entries
    1

    @mpc

    OK mpc,

    Here is a past thread that got heated lol.

    http://www.energyscienceforum.com/showthread.php?t=356

    I give all my arguments for being against an aether with mass, supersolid discussion, etc... if anyone wants to look at that thread, which I don't necessarily recommend, the points I bring up against the friction vs resistance arguments, etc... remain unanswered in an intellectually honest way to my satisfaction.
    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

  9. #39
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,448
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Branch Gordon View Post
    Aaron-

    John mentions in DVD 33 that the earth ground symbol was just a bad habit, and was interchangeable with the other ground symbol. I'll have to go back and watch for the exact wording, but it was clearly explained as an inaccuracy.
    Ok, I have had different conversations with him 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

  10. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Koorn View Post
    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.
    Hi John,

    Loved your post, but wanted to comment on a couple of the points you make.

    In regards to the Speed of Light, it would seem that the Hadron Collider did some experiments recently where they appeared to break the speed of light. Of course science rejected the idea pretty quickly, even went as far to "scold" them for releasing their information/theory before checking with the universities first.

    Eric Dollard raised a very interesting point in one of his youtube videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kH3ETTd6bPI where he talks about Professor Wheatstone measuring the speed of electrostatic induction as "Pi over 2 x SOL" (speed of light).
    This was done along time ago in a very interesting way, using spark gaps. Eric has no love for Einsteins theories, Im far from an expert but it seems to me that we have hung onto the theory of relativity for far too long.

    Also, I recently read that science is not so sure that the Speed of Light is constant anymore, and that it varies under certain circumstances. Once again I am far from an expert on the subject. Problem is, I just cant bring myself to believe the so called "experts" these days, everyone seems to regurgitate what they learn as being LAW, not THEORY. I remember Bedinis page well on Tesla: "Physics was hijacked early in the 20th Century" http://johnbedini.net/john34/Radiant1.htm

    There seems to be alot of confusion about it all. Bottom line for me is this: When someone is passionate about something and devotes their life to understanding and mastering said thing above all else, then I tend to listen to what they have to say about the subject. And I am more likely to take what they have to say seriously, no matter how preposterous it may seem, over that of someone who just states what they have been told/taught without any genuine desire to KNOW/PROVE, or even test.

    I guess this is why I love JB's work so much.

    Regards

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
  •