Curvature of Space/Time

[Faraday88]

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.

Great JK!!!
It was a reminscence of the JB & TB days..
Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Sam J Batchelar]

The clear understanding of relativity entails the motion of a object through space where there is only one velocity quantity (vector) associated / effective with relation to other linearly proportional quantities. As there is only one kinetic energy quantity present for a given mass likewise its velocity must be finite, therefor velocity has to be relative to a singular position/s which is space.

A change in the kinetic energy without the application of a force to the same object means its velocity is measured to a secondary space with a vector against the primary space.

[Faraday88]

Hi Aaron,
First of all thanks for your attention! Yes, let me state it this way.. Power=Positive Time rate of dissipation of Energy, Energy= Negative Time rate of Evocation of Power, the co-relation between the two entities bears the same curvature as the curvature between the Space and Time. one can visualize the above equation to be a in circle, in such a way as to define the other.
as you rightly stated 1V x 1A =1w x TIME is the Spatial Energy.
Whether it is the Curvature or Broken Symmetry its is the same.

And on the transformation of the type of Energy, it is the Energy which is translated as Power in the subsequent level that it results into.

Rgds,
Faraday88.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,

I fully agree with you, just that the interpretation needs to involve Curvature between POWER and ENERGY.
Yes both are Conserved so nothing is Created or Destroyed..!
Rgds, Fardaay88.

Faraday88,

Please clarify what you mean by curvature between power and energy.

Power isn't a thing in and of itself - it is just a power reading. 1v x 1a = 1w.... 1 watt is a power reading but it isn't doing anything until it is expended over time.

I don't believe in conservation of energy though. No energy is transformed or conserved.

Organized potential simply dissipates right back to the local vaccuum while work is being done (resistance) and another dipole can be created to bring in more source potential but the original "energy" didn't transform into new energy in the next cycle. It dissipated, new dipole created, new potential comes in, does work, dissipated, new dipole created, etc...

[Faraday88]

Hi Aaron,

I fully agree with you, just that the interpretation needs to involve Curvature between POWER and ENERGY.
Yes both are Conserved so nothing is Created or Destroyed..!
Rgds, Fardaay88.

[Faraday88]

Hi John K,

Excellent review and explanation here!, I also feel the Curvature of the Space -Time can be more easily interpreted same as the Broken Symmetry between Space and Time.
(at least I could'nt comprehend the Einstein's Space-Time Curvature Until The Super Electromagnetic Theory).
'If the void of Space is Filled by Matter.....what 'VOID' Fills MATTER..?' ......YES it is filled by TIME! is'nt it?.
The Same Curvature of Space -Time or Broken Symmetry holds between Electricity and Magnetism.
we have lately realized that Gravity is the Node (centre) for the Broken Symmetry between Electricity and Magnetism.
Tom Bearden has coined a term what he calls as the 'Anenergy' to retain Law of Conservation of the entity of what we see as excess Energy...hence no violation of Conservation of Anenergy in a 4-Dimensional Manifold (Space-Time Manifold..Minkoski Space-Time..).

BTW I also feel Light has a Temporal Propagation rather than Spatial one!!!
Best regards,
Faraday88.

[Coye]

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.

It's found on the "Soviet Weather Engineering over North America" DVD, within the first
15 minutes or so. I can come back later with the exact quote, where Tom Bearden says
something about personally participating in experiments involving speed of light.
Thanks.
- Coye

[Aaron Murakami]

I have heard people say Tom B was a disinfo plant by the gov because of these contradictions.

I've heard the same thing off and on over the years. But to me, regardless of the reality of that, as long as something just makes sense, I take it and it helps me grow - and I leave the rest.

[Aaron Murakami]

Hi Aaron,
I appreciate your explanations and examples you have written so thanks.

Most of this entire subject is beyond my pay grade but I do find it interesting. Without speaking directly about the content I would just say don't be to hard on Mr. Bearden, as you have fairly stated he wrote that stuff back in the 80's. He is much older than most of us and let's remember that he did not have the internet or the digitized world of resources that we have today back when he was doing his research. In fact you know you are the next generation to carry it forward. He did not have Aarons work to use as references right, so he did the best he could with what he had and gave everyone something to think about.

In any communication there are going to be at least two realities involved which can muck the message up. You have the message being given and the person giving it understands exactly what they think and that is their reality but on the other hand you have the message receiver who can only listen and form a comprehension of what is being said in their own reality. Eye of the beholder.

In lies the potential for either the speaker to lack in ability to present their reality in the right context ( wrong words, wrong examples, whatever) or the receiver to improperly interpret what the speaker has presented, the two realities just do not meet sometimes.

Not to bring religion into it but a good example of what I mean is reading a Bible. Most people will tell you that they have understood many different things at different times of their lives from reading the exact same book/chapter. That is why they read the same thing over and over because their reality is the filter. It doesn't have to be a religious book, any book will do.

Anyway I think you are a very fair person and I really appreciate your efforts.

@ ALL
Earlier in the post it seemed people started wanting to throw Mr. Bearden under the bus and I think that is quite shameful. He is not here to defend himself and nobody can actually prove any wrong doing by him. He worked very closely with Mr. Bedini so we are told, many phone conversations back in the 80's so we have all benefited from the mans work indirectly.

Thanks Bob,

I have a lot of respect for Bearden and he is actually one of the people I dedicated my quantum key book to 7 years ago when it was first put in paperback. I'm just being honest about my interpretation of his work and his work was highly influential on me.

I agree - there is all ways WHAT IS and then the STORY we make up about it. In my opinion, the closest we can get to understanding what is in terms of the real underlying principles of nature is to study the natural philosophy of it, which was how it was done way back before "science" took hold as the dominant way to analyze the world.

[why_me]

Thank you Aaron! I was about to scream or post something stupid.

[BobZilla]

Hi Aaron,
I appreciate your explanations and examples you have written so thanks.

Most of this entire subject is beyond my pay grade but I do find it interesting. Without speaking directly about the content I would just say don't be to hard on Mr. Bearden, as you have fairly stated he wrote that stuff back in the 80's. He is much older than most of us and let's remember that he did not have the internet or the digitized world of resources that we have today back when he was doing his research. In fact you know you are the next generation to carry it forward. He did not have Aarons work to use as references right, so he did the best he could with what he had and gave everyone something to think about.

In any communication there are going to be at least two realities involved which can muck the message up. You have the message being given and the person giving it understands exactly what they think and that is their reality but on the other hand you have the message receiver who can only listen and form a comprehension of what is being said in their own reality. Eye of the beholder.

In lies the potential for either the speaker to lack in ability to present their reality in the right context ( wrong words, wrong examples, whatever) or the receiver to improperly interpret what the speaker has presented, the two realities just do not meet sometimes.

Not to bring religion into it but a good example of what I mean is reading a Bible. Most people will tell you that they have understood many different things at different times of their lives from reading the exact same book/chapter. That is why they read the same thing over and over because their reality is the filter. It doesn't have to be a religious book, any book will do.

Anyway I think you are a very fair person and I really appreciate your efforts.

@ ALL
Earlier in the post it seemed people started wanting to throw Mr. Bearden under the bus and I think that is quite shameful. He is not here to defend himself and nobody can actually prove any wrong doing by him. He worked very closely with Mr. Bedini so we are told, many phone conversations back in the 80's so we have all benefited from the mans work indirectly.

[Aaron Murakami]

Please do, before I beat you to it

John K.

LOL, ok he is gone.

If anyone really wants to follow him - he can be found through plenty of posts through this google link: https://www.google.com/search?q=mpc755+aether

[John_Koorn]

I'm going to ban him - any objections?

Please do, before I beat you to it

John K.

[Aaron Murakami]

Here are a couple Tom Bearden quotes from a paper he has online.

http://www.cheniere.org/books/newtes...crepancies.htm

(1) In present electromagnetics theory, charge and charged mass are falsely made identical. Actually, on a charged particle, the "charge" is the flux of virtual particles on the "bare particle" of observable mass. The charged particle is thus a "system" of true massless charge coupled to a bare chargeless mass. The observable "mass" is static, three-dimensional, and totally spatial. "Charge" is dynamic, four-dimensional or more, virtual and spatiotemporal. Further, the charge and observable mass can be decoupled, contrary to present theory. Decoupled charge -- that is, the absence of mass -- is simply what we presently refer to as "vacuum." Vacuum, spacetime, and massless charge are all identical. Rigorously, we should utilize any of these three as an "ether," as suggested for vacuum by Einstein himself (see Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Revised Edition, Dover Publications, New York, 1965, p. 224). And all three of them are identically anenergy -- not energy, but more fundamental components of energy.

That is by Tom Bearden - 22 Discrepancies in Present EM Theory - from 1982 (wow!)

I want to break every one of these points down if I can but just want to share a couple - the ones very specifically relevant to this thread.

Exactly - charge and mass are made identical and they are not. The "charge" IS the aether and it doesn't have mass itself.

Tom Bearden uses the 3D terminology erroneously but it is obvious what he means.

He states "vacuum, spacetime and massless charge" are identical - exactly - that is the aether.

(2) Electrostatic potential is regarded as a purely 3-dimensional spatial stress. Instead, it is the intensity of a many-dimensional (at least four-dimensional) virtual flux and a stress on all four dimensions of spacetime. This is easily seen, once one recognizes that spacetime is identically massless charge. (It is not "filled" with charge; rather, it is charge!) Just as, in a gas under pressure, the accumulation of additional gas further stresses the gas, the accumulation of charge (spacetime) stresses charge (spacetime). Further, if freed from its attachment to mass , charge can flow exclusively in time, exclusively in space, or in any combination of the two. Tesla waves -- which are scalar waves in pure massless charge flux itself -- thus can exhibit extraordinary characteristics that ordinary vector waves do not possess. And Tesla waves have extra dimensional degrees of freedom in which to move, as compared to vector waves. Indeed, one way to visualize a Tesla scalar wave is to regard it as a pure oscillation of time itself.

Bearden says spacetime (already defined as aether) is massless charge. He says it is not "filled" with charge, IT IS CHARGE! That is one of the most important points I've been trying to make for years. Space is not filled with aether - space IS aether. Therefore, aether does NOT occupy "3d space", it IS space. I remember being excited to find this reference that Tom Bearden was saying the same thing long time ago when I found some of his references I was using to back my argument.

I do disagree with him saying charge can flow exclusively in time or space or a combo of the two. I'll have to ponder that. Time is just a local concept to measure the movement of mass through space from one coordinate to another and from an outside observer not subject to anything (God's eye view) - time is flowing slow in high density aether and slow in low density aether. My rubber band powered propeller example in water or Jello shows the point. That is really all that time is when using it as a mathematical dimension to multiply something by. And when multiplying a spatial dimension like distance - we only use one variable. We don't multiple an object by 3 dimensions (coordinates) because those are not real dimensions.

When we measure power, we take the work done and divide it by time. If we have a small cap and discharge it in a small enough time, we can get a megawatt for that small unit of time, but the work done is the same as if it were discharged over a long period of time. Time doesn't show work - it shows energy DENSITY. Whether it takes 10 years or 10 seconds to lift an object to the same height, the work done is the same, but the POWER will be much different.

If we measured something in local time, it would be absolutely incredible if we actually had a non-local frame of reference as a benchmark to compare it against to see what kind of local aetheric density we have.

SHORT TIME PERIODS for x amount of work appear to always be attached to high density aether or relative high density aether. If we lift an object in Earth's gravity to x height over a 1 hour period, there isn't that much relative density the object experiences. But if we lift that object in a nanosecond, imagine the density of the aether relative to the object's trip to that same height - it would be astoundingly DENSE (like high pressure).

If we pulse a coil and could connect a cap to the leads fast enough (like Paul Babcock) when we disconnect the power supply, the field collapses slowly (low pressure = low voltage). But if the field collapses without that, we get a high voltage spike. That spike has SHORT TIME PERIOD but the pressure of that spike is very high (high voltage). The organized aether that makes up that spike is very, very DENSE = high voltage.

The principle is universal from my own observations and my take on it is that it shows that time is variable and has an apparent proportional flow rate to the density of the aether. So although time is a mathematical dimension, time does not appear to be something that can be separated from the very space, which defines the time.

My perspective on charging a battery with spikes and having it be referred to as a TIME CHARGE, which it is - to me is literally that. It is filling the battery with cultivated time, which is locked up in that high density aether (hv spike). You put that compressed time into the battery and then you get work out of the battery, which we see as work at a lower voltage over a period of time. We got the time out of the spike by decompressing it. That is literally what time is made of - the aether. That is why time can't be separated from the aether so the pure massless charge (aether) cannot flow only in the dimension in time as Bearden mentions. If you read it carefully, Bearden contradicts himself here from my perspective. He already properly defined space as not being filled with source charge/aether, it IS source charge/aether. Therefore, "Further, if freed from its attachment to mass , charge can flow exclusively in time, exclusively in space, or in any combination of the two."

That is a contradiction. If massless charge (aether) is detached from a mass, which it can be, how does it flow exclusively in space? That makes no sense. He is saying the aether flows through itself and can do so separate from time. After properly defining space AS source charge, which it is, he speaks of the massless charge as if it is something different than itself if it flows through space. A little strange, but anyway... I think he is off on his explanation of the Tesla Wave as oscillating time itself (since Bearden speaks of time and space as being separate things. The Tesla Wave or longitudinal dielectric "wave" is oscillating the aether itself such as between two resonator coils in the Cosmic Induction Generator for example. That is oscillating time itself, but inseparable from the massless charge.

In any case, Bearden deserves a lot of credit for getting these general concepts, especially back in 1982! That is 32 years ago. Bottom line, he is right in my opinion about the massless characteristic of the aether.

Looking through that paper, I really have to spend some time on that. He hits on a quite a bit, some I disagree with, most I agree with, some is semantics, etc... Even though it is about EM concepts being wrong in the books, it is completely relevant to any discussion about space and time.

[Nofear]

I'm going to ban him - any objections?

Fine by me...