Cosmic Induction Generator

[Aaron Murakami]

I did this interview with Eric Dollard last September - about the Cosmic Induction Generator. Just put it on YouTube today. Please support John Polakowski's Indiegogo campaign!

http://emediapress.com/2014/05/05/co...-eric-dollard/

[Aaron Murakami]

Cosmic Induction Generator – The Early Work

Here is a short video showing some of the early work John Polakowski did on the Cosmic Induction Generator with Eric Dollard. This was last year during one of my early visits to Eric’s lab.


In the video, John is working on the coils and he and Eric are working the bugs out of the old Navy transmitters.

Please donate to John Polakowski’s Cosmic Induction Generator Indiegogo Campaign: http://igg.me/at/cosmicinductiongenerator/x/2343214


Come see John give a demo of the Cosmic Induction Generator at the 2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference – seats are running out so register now! 2014 Energy Science & Technology Conference | Exclusive conference with the Godfathers of the modern day free energy movement!


Cosmic Induction Generator – The Early Work | A & P Electronic Media – Digital Publishing by Aaron Murakami & Peter Lindemann

[powerdraw]

Hey Aaron..I've, ( Marty from MartinMotors) been a long time fan and supporter of Eric Dollard and was wondering if you could have Eric give is answer to a general question that's been going around in my head. Question: In the vacuum of outer space beyond our atmosphere I understand that the particles constituting light would not be moving slow enough for our eye to register light; that it is our atmosphere that slows down those particles to our percieved speed of light enabling us to "see the light", so if we went to the moon and set foot on it there being no atmosphere, wouldn't we be in total darkness? If we had a flashlight and turned it on would we be unable to illuminate anything..or?? Makes me wonder how the footage of the supposed moon landing was produced..?? Opinions?? Thanks for your time and efforts!

[powerdraw]

Hello again, I had the pleasure to recently view the video of Eric's antenna project and, though most all of it was far over my head, it seems clear that Eric is probably the only soul on the planet making a "meaningful phone call" with his connection to above and below ground. And all without silly phones or computers! And what a Corolla! He started to talk a bit about the visibility of earth, moon and mars beyond our atmosphere and I am most fascinated with this bit of reality. Can anyone point me to a thread/discussion by Eric on this where he might go into detail explaining how he sees it?

[Aaron Murakami]

Hey Aaron..I've, ( Marty from MartinMotors) been a long time fan and supporter of Eric Dollard and was wondering if you could have Eric give is answer to a general question that's been going around in my head. Question: In the vacuum of outer space beyond our atmosphere I understand that the particles constituting light would not be moving slow enough for our eye to register light; that it is our atmosphere that slows down those particles to our percieved speed of light enabling us to "see the light", so if we went to the moon and set foot on it there being no atmosphere, wouldn't we be in total darkness? If we had a flashlight and turned it on would we be unable to illuminate anything..or?? Makes me wonder how the footage of the supposed moon landing was produced..?? Opinions?? Thanks for your time and efforts!

I don't believe it is so much the speed of the light that is making it visible - it is slower in our atmosphere than in the vacuum of space but for visibility, it is that light needs to interact with molecules to be visible. The moon actually does have an atmosphere and even some very faint clouds have been photographed on the moon. For years, it was denied that water was on the moon, but we now accept it as fact since they finally admitted it.

Here is one of the simplest examples to show the concept of light needing something to interact with to be visible...

Whet it is nighttime and it's midnight, we're roughly on the darkest part of the Earth, the Sun is hitting the daytime side and light that is just as bright is streaming past the Earth. When it is midnight and we look out at the sky, we don't see any of that light streaming by because there is nothing for the light to interact with to be visible. But, it is still there as bright as the light that hits the daytime side of the Earth yet it is completely invisible to us.

It's the same as infrared - the heat from the Sun is not warming the Earth. It is just the infrared that interacts with molecules here on Earth. Between the Sun and Earth, it is beyond freezing yet it is full of infrared radiation from the sun, but there is no heat. The heat cannot manifest unless it has something to interact with - same thing.

If light is supposed to be visible in the darkness of space, then infrared radiation should be detectible as heat but it is not.

The light not being visible in space was admitted to Tom Brown during a phone conversation with a NASA official years ago. In one large photo compilation of photographs in space that Peter Lindemann, etc... examined - 100% of every picture was NOT in the visible spectrum. There was x-ray, uv, etc... but not one single one in the natural visible spectrum.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hello again, I had the pleasure to recently view the video of Eric's antenna project and, though most all of it was far over my head, it seems clear that Eric is probably the only soul on the planet making a "meaningful phone call" with his connection to above and below ground. And all without silly phones or computers! And what a Corolla! He started to talk a bit about the visibility of earth, moon and mars beyond our atmosphere and I am most fascinated with this bit of reality. Can anyone point me to a thread/discussion by Eric on this where he might go into detail explaining how he sees it?

Eric hasn't mentioned it a whole lot but check out this thread: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ble-light.html

[powerdraw]

Thanks Aaron. So what about pictures taken by the Hubbel telescope outside our atmosphere? Not sure how they fit into this explanation? Wouldn't celestail bodies such as stars and planets that have any kind of molecular atmosphere interact and project light and be visible to one who is outside our atmosphere? Eric did say that the earth, moon and mars were visible from ponts outside our atmosphere so why not any other body with an atmosphere...is it that most stars don't have the molecular quality you mention to interact and make light? or are the stars just too far away to be seen per there own light when we are outside our atmosphere? Just seems like something is missing and more explanation is necessary. But thanks..I think I'm starting to understand it better with your help.

[Aaron Murakami]

Thanks Aaron. So what about pictures taken by the Hubbel telescope outside our atmosphere? Not sure how they fit into this explanation? Wouldn't celestail bodies such as stars and planets that have any kind of molecular atmosphere interact and project light and be visible to one who is outside our atmosphere? Eric did say that the earth, moon and mars were visible from ponts outside our atmosphere so why not any other body with an atmosphere...is it that most stars don't have the molecular quality you mention to interact and make light? or are the stars just too far away to be seen per there own light when we are outside our atmosphere? Just seems like something is missing and more explanation is necessary. But thanks..I think I'm starting to understand it better with your help.

I don't know - there are a lot of unknowns. We just know that many cameras used by NASA actually could not pick up any of the background stars.

I think the cameras like the Hubble probably have camera lenses that are inside of a gas filled chamber for the light to interact with to be visible.

All the pictures in the visible spectrum that the astronauts take with stars in the background are almost all on the inside of the ship where there is plenty of oxygen, etc...

But at the simplest, where is the sunlight in the night sky when it is dark? There is a massive amount of light in all spectrums streaming by the Earth but we don't see a single bit of it until it hits the moon. The light that is between the Sun and Moon is completely invisible.

We can go out at night and shine a bright light into the sky and we can see the light as a long column so we can see the light appear between the source and whatever it hits at the end. But in this case, it interacts with dust particles in the air, water moisture, gases, etc... so we can see it... but we don't see the sunlight going past the Earth at nighttime.

There really is no such thing as reflected light - it is all absorbed and then re-emitted. If there is nothing in empty space to absorb and re-emit the light, then it can't be visible. There are some gases, etc... in that thread I posted for Energetic Forum, someone mentioned about hydrogen and helium - its an interesting idea.

[Faraday88]

I don't know - there are a lot of unknowns. We just know that many cameras used by NASA actually could not pick up any of the background stars.

I think the cameras like the Hubble probably have camera lenses that are inside of a gas filled chamber for the light to interact with to be visible.

All the pictures in the visible spectrum that the astronauts take with stars in the background are almost all on the inside of the ship where there is plenty of oxygen, etc...

But at the simplest, where is the sunlight in the night sky when it is dark? There is a massive amount of light in all spectrums streaming by the Earth but we don't see a single bit of it until it hits the moon. The light that is between the Sun and Moon is completely invisible.

We can go out at night and shine a bright light into the sky and we can see the light as a long column so we can see the light appear between the source and whatever it hits at the end. But in this case, it interacts with dust particles in the air, water moisture, gases, etc... so we can see it... but we don't see the sunlight going past the Earth at nighttime.

There really is no such thing as reflected light - it is all absorbed and then re-emitted. If there is nothing in empty space to absorb and re-emit the light, then it can't be visible. There are some gases, etc... in that thread I posted for Energetic Forum, someone mentioned about hydrogen and helium - its an interesting idea.

Hi Aaron,
The idea of 'Intermediate Light probing' to look for its presence pre dates or at least contemporary to the Action-at-a-Distance Theory itself, this is in fact a corollary to the Quest of knowing if Light even travels the way we know what 'travel' (Spatial) is like!!!
I strongly believe that Light propagation has no Spatial role, but it is temporal,as it has a definitive Source but no sink..! Spatial travel seeks the simultaneous presence of both these aspects.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[powerdraw]

Thanks Faraday88.. I found Eric Dollards youtube video discussing secrets of the sun wherein he mentions his take on nature of light. I don't feel so bad now finding myself trying to wrap my head around how it might be as compared to what I have been taught...the threads of discussion on this topic definantly go quite deep and I am glad to see so many thoughtful folks seeking the truth.
Thanks and regards to all,
pd

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,
The idea of 'Intermediate Light probing' to look for its presence pre dates or at least contemporary to the Action-at-a-Distance Theory itself, this is in fact a corollary to the Quest of knowing if Light even travels the way we know what 'travel' (Spatial) is like!!!
I strongly believe that Light propagation has no Spatial role, but it is temporal,as it has a definitive Source but no sink..! Spatial travel seeks the simultaneous presence of both these aspects.
Rgds,
Faraday88.

I couldn't find that phrase "intermediate light probing" but I know what you mean. We also have to define what TIME is - below is a definition that I created long time ago because it is the only thing that makes sense to me.

From a non-relative perspective, time itself seems to be nothing more than the rate of motion of mass moving through the aether, which is dependent on the density of the aether.

So under high density aether, there is more restriction to the movement of mass and even light speed but to an observer in that area, light will still look like light speed since all perception, etc... is based on the aether being that dense.

Under low density, there is less restriction to the movement of mass and light speed is faster with less restriction - but to an observer it will still be at light speed since their perception is subject to that lower density aether.

From the universal perspective - if we could look at both areas of the aether at high and low densities, we should see that the high density aether light is slow and the low density aether has light moving fast.

But again, to each observer in their own respective areas of different densities of aether everything looks normal and to them time seems to tick normally because they are perceiving at their own benchmarks based on the aetheric density that they are in.

Many of the principles of relativity are accurately describing the effects but an aether based model is what actually makes sense out of it.

When we look at space and time - Eric considers space to not have 3 dimensions, but 1. XYZ are coordinates but not dimensions. You and I are at different coordinates in this world, but we are in the same singular dimension of space. So any "travel" that light does if it even travels is still within 1 single dimension of space from point A to B and that movement is from one set of coordinates to the other - but again in the same single dimension of space. As far as time, it can be a mathematical dimension we can multiply different variables by but it doesn't look like it is a dimension in the sense of "3D space and time". Time is an amount of movement that happened and that is about it.

If some kid is swinging on a swing and the swinging is consistent and we count those swings, that is just as valid of a timepiece as a clock. The only thing the kid swinging and a clock are doing is simply MOVING in a countable or incrementally quantifiable way. To the observer within their own aetheric density - time will always look the same since the light is moving at a speed governed by that density, their observation faculties are governed by it, movement of mass is governed by it, etc... so no matter what density, this will always be the case but comparing locations with different densities, there will be a difference in the "flow of time" and therefore the "speed of light" from an absolute perspective.

What is the actual mechanism at play that allows light to be created at one spot and appear at another spot in outer space without it being visible in between or light created at one spot down on Earth and hitting another spot while illuminating its pathway by interacting with dust, moisture, etc... good question! In both situations, the light only appears when it hits something because illuminating its own pathway down here is simply each particle on the path being hit and illuminated so essentially it is the same thing as light out in space where the moon is simply a big particle on the sunlight's path that is being illuminated by absorbing and re-emitting light.

There is also a big fallacy when it comes to measuring distance to different stars by looking at color shifts as the light moves past other objects. I can't find that reference but there are examples where that whole idea doesn't manifest so it can change everything we think about in terms of how big the universe is, etc... I'll try to find it and post it because in a way, it kind of gives credit to some of Eric's ideas about light travel and it is based on actual photographs taken by NASA, etc.

[bruno]

Hi all,
I have a question and don't know if it really belongs to this thread but I taught that the cosmic induction generator was based on the magnifying transmitter, my question is:
When I read the papers of Eric Dollard conserning the magnifying transmitter, there is always spoken off a wavelength of a certain frequency but this frequency is never the resonance frequency off the total system because this is influenced by the capacity's or am I wrong?
To make myself more clear: I have a test kit from Constantin Meyl where a single wire transmission system is build with 2 coils on pcb board, on this board are balls attached for the capacitance. When one use the coil with lambda/2 the system resonates at +-3Mhz and +-7Mhz being the 7Mhz the frequency where the longitundinal waves are most present. Now I want to implement the third "tesla coil" from the paper of Eric Dollard "Condensed intro to tesla transformers" and I would take the same wire length as is used on the secundary coil on the pcb. But this length is approx 9m (trying to measure it)
so the frequency of resonance should be 33Mhz, this would mean I think that the 10th harmonic is used. So I whas wondering if one build a tesla magnifying transformer with the 3 coils, does he need to use the wire length for a certain wanted frequency "with or without" the influence of the capacity's. Does the capacity's values need to be changed to?

[thu292]

had the pleasure to recently view the video of Eric's antenna project and, though most all of it was far over my head, it seems clear that Eric is probably the only soul on the planet making a "meaningful phone call" with his connection to above and below ground.

[JohnNelson]

Here is a short video showing some of the early work John Polakowski.

[wrtner]

We just know that many cameras used by NASA actually could not pick up any of the background stars.

Is this not a matter of the plane in focus and hyperfocal distance?