Upon two suggestions; I propose this tread dedicated to GRAVITY. This is NOT about engines, drives, systems or any other than the sole purpose to try understanding and learning as much as possible about the phenomena generally called “Gravity”. Surely this will not be an easy task because there are just no clear definitions about gravity.

Included off course we can look at ‘anti’-gravity or as I prefer to say ‘counter’-gravity or 'shifting'-gravity. On this scope the most interesting part should be the possibility of ‘controlling’ or re-apply gravity. The Stan Deyo explanations of gravity movement; in particular about the smoking ‘O’ comes to mind.

I will repost some of the related postings I found scattered around other threads on Energetic.

N. Tesla saying, courtesy of a post from @Armagdn03 elsewhere:
"As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment."

I took a bit of liberty and copied some related material from other threads on Energetic forum. Hope I got the best parts out and correctly assigned the credits. For full review and details please refer to the related thread.

From: “The Case Against Over Unity”

#216 – Aromaz:
What is gravity? Before you will be able to use gravity for any purpose as to energy; you will first need to understand how it works. And that has been a mystery since humans started doing science - and it still is today. I had a theory; then it made more sense, then I searched if was really so out of line and I was in fact very surprised to find this theory already existed more than 300 years ago! But mainstream science ignored it.

#217 – Inquorate:
Well supported by this experiment
YouTube - Extended Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiment. English version

#222 – CloudSeeder:
Hold on just a sec there Aromaz! You are coming dangerously close to saying we are being held down by the push of sunlight. I'm sure you don't mean that but the General Public gets whiff of a statement that even remotely sounds like that we won't be able to show our face. What I'm thinking is that all the Matter in the Universe (and us, and Earth) is all one big homogenized "liquid", and the dry liquid of our universe has a pressure against all the stuff in the [dry] liquid. Like repels Like, so since #1 most large bodies has its own gravitational field and #2 all the gravitational fields likely have the same charge, it's the #3 combination of ALL OF THEM against the ONE OF US. The total of their REPEL is pushing against us, and yet still from gravity fields, a Constant all the time from all sides. It's an illusion put upon us that we're being pulled down. Hmm, perhaps all that repel force is adding to our gravitational field's effect. Our field would be magnified by the rest. Maybe that's how it works. But somebody else will have to write it better... as in a proper equation.

#231 – Aromaz;
For centuries people looked for and try to find some sort of proof that Gravity is 'something that is pulling' something comparable to magnetism - but all failed. If all fail, then it is time to change the hypothesis and start looking for the push effect. @CloudSeeder: ... Well, shockingly YES - that is exactly what I am saying

#234 – Stealth;
Actually, any rotating object creates it's own gravitational field. As an object rotates it tries to pull everything on it and around it to the center of its axis. We can create artificial gravity by rotating an object on it's axis. The faster an object rotates, and the larger the mass, the greater the gravitational field is…

#237 & #238 – CloudSeeder;
‘Impossible’ Device Could Propel Flying Cars // Current
Slashdot Science Story | VASIMR Ion Engine Could Cut Mars Trip To 39 Days

#241 – Aromaz;
… @Cloudseeder; see my 'anti'-gravity word again. By failure of another suitable word that is the only one to use for some sort of description. We can not make or create anti-gravity. It is like anti-matter. But what we need is exactly similar to the ionic devices. Something that can re-direct the 'gravitons' (again gravitons is used because of lack of better word at present.) We need something that will like open the radiant energy in the direction you wish to move, re-direct it around the object and then close it behind the object in such a way that it pushes the object in the direction of the 'vacuum'. So we need some kind of force that will repel and another pole of the same that will attract the ‘gravitational matter’. Now here is a hidden lead: Why does the floaters work? Because they 'direct' the ions - aka Ionic Devices. So then what are these 'ions', where do they come from? Are those not behaving exactly like electrons ? So we only need to learn how to control two units of matter - Electrons and Photons - but are they not basically the same?

#242 – Stealth;
… Whenever I see an anti gravity aircraft, it seems to have some kind of spinning gyro or other, undetermined spinning force to repel gravity.

#243 – CloudSeeder;
We have a need for better terms. <> The air is so filled with all forms of energy we are held down by an invisible energy mush. Energy mush = Gravity. Everything is held down by a no-space-remaining energy mush. We walk through 100% cross-intersected Wave Stuff we can't see as it fills in the hole behind us at 186,000 mph ~as we walk~ so omnipresent fast we consider it to be a constant somebody once decided to call singular gravity when it's not singular at all just acts singular. Radiant energy + every~all invisible energy bandwidths mushed together = three parts of our physical reality => #1 wouldn't be able to see it with our eyes because if we did we wouldn't see anything but mush (total blackout-level zero visibility blindness or blinding light, same difference) + #2 we experience a controlling force (combined wave) from zero-weight energy (surrounding particles) we can shove around (Matter trumps Energy by virtue of its Weight) while #3 it holds us in every new position we shove ourselves and all physical Matter into.

#244 – Stealth;
This is interesting. We should start a thread solely on gravity, to define it's parameters, to discuss it's strengths and weaknesses, and to develope a plan to use it as a source of energy potential. If we could get most all the researchers interested in studying and experimenting with known gravity fields, then we may just be able to put together a concept to use it as our slave to do our work for us.

I present to you a work I consider one of the best. VERY well explained. Read this and I think we are well on the way to understand gravity better.

EMRP Push Gravity Theory : Introduction

From: “I have cracked the gravitational constant”

#4 – Morpher44;
True calculations involving gravity are n-body, whether you like it or not. In any experiment involving gravity, it is very difficult to NULL out the effects of gravity you don't want. We have large gravitational bodies in our solar system. N-body equations are computationally difficult -- especially when you go and add time to the mix.

#5 – witsend;
My own take is that proximity of an object to another is determined by the mass of both objects. That eventually determines the rest mass of both objects - which relates to weight. And completely different is the interaction of an object with pervasive fields in space that I see as being magnetic. This simply determines the direction of the object with no reference to mass. Here I propose an interaction with the field that determines direction and, presumably - velocity. But It's 'weight' computation is irrelevant as regardless of the mass it will generate a given and constant velocity. So. In my book the equation relating to gravity would only be resolved depending on where in space the object is.

#8 0 Armagdn03;
Here it can be shown that the gravitational constant is dependent on the the distance perpendicular from the center of the mass in question. In other words, just like a candle, the further from the point source you get, the less gravity you "feel". Because of this"the acceleration of gravity, g, is an expression of the intensity of the gravity field. " … Therefore, the gravitational constant of 9.81 meters per second is applicable only to objects near to the surface of the earth. It will change according to the inverse squared law if you go above or below this point. It is also interesting to note Archimedes' principle and buoyant force. "Any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid, is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object." An object forced into a strata of differing density will experience buoyant force, either positive or negative which will either lift the body in question up (think hot air balloon) or down (rock dropped in water). If the surrounding body is of the same character as the object immersed in it it will feel no net force, meaning it does not "feel" gravity (think your rappla medium depth fishing lures or how you feel weightless in water (since its what we are composed of)). Because of this, the effect we call gravity much more complicated than simply a constant. The net effect is a combination of the interaction between an inward flow of contraction, and outward push of radiation, and the character of the two objects in question, which take into account mainly density, which can be well researched and understood with a bit of attention to the idea gas laws, PV=nrT, where pressure volume and temperature are all interconnected each affecting..........density. The question to ask is, what causes "orbits" at pre-defined distances, why do planets not fall into the sun, and why did tesla state "As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." If one looks at iron filings around a magnet, why do they prefer certain bands, which alternate in predominance with bands where no filings are held. Its as if we are alternating bands of density predominance, with space predominance, much like electromagnetic waves from a point source alternate with magnetic and electric predominance. (those filings will have their own attractive force, which will not exist if the parent magnet is not there, much like our moon and planet, planet and sun, our sun and galaxy on and on, refer to Tesla quote above) If gravity is a gradient following the inverse squared law, then stratification can only be a result of the interaction between two objects, the strata do not exist if nothing is there to fill them. believe me when I say, we are only touching the surface of so called "gravity" its not what we think it is, and all phenomenon can be boiled down to cause, while we are preoccupied with effect.

#9 – morpher44;
I'm impressed by Stan Deyo's explanation that the MASS is influencing the aether by sending out waves that come back ... creating certain standing wave gravity wells which influence orbit locations. Orbits are purely a standing wave phenomenon. These standing waves occur as a LARGE mass and its gravitational influence is affected by other masses in the reach of its gravitational influence.

#10 – witsend;
I absolutely agree with Tesla about matter being at the 'mercy' of this hidden force. My own eccentric take is that even photons are 'moved' by the field. Had no idea that Tesla was there - just so long ago. I think the 'strata' exist but are only evident when there's something there to 'fill them'. But I see these, on Earth, as our magnetic fields that determine the 'direction of matter'. The 'weight' kicks in in relation to matter's proximity to the really big 'object' or amalgam - being our entire planet. But that's my take. By the way, I also think that the Casimir effect is the thing that determines an object's weight.

----- > > > END ... ! ! !

Surprise; I expected MUCH more, but this seems to be all I could find around Energetic. How can we even think of building things based on gravity if we do not even know what gravity is? More interesting I think - Gravity and Radiant energy are the same or at least closely related.

It is like going into forest to get food (for eating) with no sight, no smell, no taste, no hearing and no feeling !!

Well i suppose looking at Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity would be of interest. Unfortunately i dont think it was ever officially published. Here is some quotes i found.

"... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena."
"My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment." — Nikola Tesla

xncmdkfigueh

vvvv xxxxx bbbb cccc

xxxx cccc vvvvbbb

Hi Aromaz;

Some very interesting stuff here, esp. the experiments. Takes quite a while to go through it all, but maybe it will help.

Pi = BLUEPRINTS to Magnetic Currents /

Al

Keely was the first to, not only define precisely what gravity was, but also to show how to defeat it. He was the first to build an anti gravity flying machine,7 years before the Wright brothers. He also showed how to levitate objects, only to close friends and associates. He ridiculed the scientific establishment for their theories, when he proved his as not only theories, but laws of the universe. To read what he defines as gravity, see Keely chapter 08. His univeral laws, have never been disproven. Although we don't have many of his notes, as we do Tesla's,Newton's, Einstien's, and Leedskalnin, we can still extrapolate some of his knowledge from what has survived through the past century. He uses words not associated with todays terminology, but he describes these words meanings so as to establish a repotoire to make his words compatable with our scientific definitions. With the help from these geniuses, we may just be able to establish a definition of Gravity. good luck. Stealth

vvvvv bbbb ddd sssss

@cody;As usual Tesla hammered the nail right on the head. Even though at this time he was just theorizing, it is very interesting that he already knew what general science still to this day - a full century later - does not realized yet.

And I tend to agree with Tesla - Curvature of SpaceTime is not possible, therfore the issue of time travel and the like based on his rival Einstein's theory; is also a big mathematical dream.

Gravity has nothing to do with "curving" anything. It is a displacement effect pure and simple. Mass displaces the aether and the aether rebounds back from where it was displaced pushing on anything with mass on its way back...pushing towards the center of the mass that displaced it.

Aaron

I can accept moving a mass displaces the aether, but if we pick a ball up from the ground, thus displacing the aether, what causes the ball to fall to the ground when released? The aether is pushing towards the center of mass.

I want to report this gravitational wave detectior study.

http://www.omirp.it/www/CdS_Detector/Part_4/Part_4.pdf

http://www.omirp.it/www/Electricity+...CLR/CLR_en.pdf


from

OMIRP: Detecting Gravitational Waves since 1994!

The ball is a smaller system within a bigger system of the Earth's displacement. The overall push is towards the center of the Earth and not the ball. The ball will have an asymmetrical push towards the Earth since the Earth takes away some of that rebounding effect on the side of the ball facing the Earth.

"Two pieces of matter/mass cannot occupy the same space." That is almost like a cliche and would be correct in conventional circumstances. However, two things with mass CAN and WILL influence at the same time and in the same space the the common aether between them.

The aether is pushing back on all sides of the large object (Earth) and the small object (the ball - but on the ball not as symmetrically). The Earth has a more dominant mass and is taking away from the aetheric push on the ball on the side of the ball that happens to be facing the Earth. Meaning, the symmetry of the would be aether, if that ball was out in space away from anything else, is now broken. There is an asymmetrical push on the far side of the ball pushing towards the Earth's direction.

When this happens, less is pushing on the ball on the side facing the Earth since on that side, the Earth takes away from it causing a depletion that disrupts the would be symmetry around it - again, like the ball in outer space away from anything.

As a note, the Earth is also not PERFECTLY symmetrical in it's displacement effect from it's mass. The ball offsets the symmetry of the Earth so does the Earth move towards the ball? Conceptually yes, but only like an ultra small percentage of the amount that the Earth influences the ball, proportionately.

Ball has small impact on Earth. Earth has large impact on ball.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx cccccc

nnnnnnnnnnn yyyyyyyyyy

I've said this a few times on different threads, and I'll say it again here;

Imagine a bath tub full of water, and pull the plug. A water-less vortex forms.

This is equivalent to mass. Mass is a form in space, sustained by the mass-less aether.

By rushing in to mass, the aether sustains it. It spends some of it's energy doing so, and radiates the rest as heat etc, which is why hydrogen is still fluid at zero kelvin.

A large vortex will pull other vortices to it.

High voltage dc will interfere with the flow of the aether, and objects will decrease in apparent mass, as well as deteriorate.

Love and light

jjjjjjjjjj rrrrrrr

sssssssssss ttttttttttttt

It does appear that gravity can be influenced by high voltage as well as rotational forces. Bruce DePalma did some experiments with rotational mass in gravitational fields with some interesting results. Here is a link to that work, might be worth a read.

http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/spinni...experiment.pdf

dddddddddddddd

@john mayer
Gravity is working against me
And gravity wants to bring me down
...
Oh gravity has taken better men than me how can that be?

@tom petty
I wanna free fall out into nothin'
Gonna leave this world for awhile

@coldplay
Oh the way that gravity turns on you and me

---

To work out how to lift something, you need the center of mass.
Knowing this, you can apply a force that apposes the most dominant
gravitational force. If you tried to do this only at that point,
however, there would be a very large instability since balancing
something on a needle is very difficult -- unless your W. C. Fields.
So, plan B. would be to distribute those forces around the
mass, with the intent that their vector sum would have the NET
counter-apposing effect.
If the object in question has a large horizontal-to-earth component
and a narrow vertical-to-earth component, it stands to reason
that the forces you use around the object can all be small forces ..
but you need many of them.

Gyroscopes don't like to be tipped. The energy put in to
keep them spinning has the benefit of also keeping the object
steady -- stable.
With a gyroscope, it is easier to balance it on a pin.

If you could develop craft that had a shield that protected it from the influence of any and all external forces, you could move that craft at a constant velocity.

In space you don't have air friction .. but you do have gravitational forces ... depending upon your proximity to large masses.

A collision is defined to be
"an isolated event in which two or more bodies (colliding bodies)
exert relatively strong forces on each other for a relatively
short period of time".

It seems to me that if you are a traveling body, and you want
to avoid collisions with other bodies out there, it might make
sense to reduce your mass -- your inertia -- down to zero --
i.e. to become pure energy.

gggggggggggggggggg

I have had "Anti-Gravity and the World Grid" on my bookshelf for many
years.

Recently I'm rediscovering Bruce L. Cathie's work. He keeps
popping up as I google for various things.

Cathie argues that at the time of Pythagoras, and perhaps even earlier,
they had worked out various units such as "arc minutes",
"number of degrees in a circle" and the "speed of light".

Harmonic of speed of light -- 144.
Half-wave -- 72.
Apply to Pythagoras right-angled 3, 4, 5 ...
you get
216 - number of minutes of arc in a circule
288 - (144 x 2) or 2C were C is speed of light
360 - degrees in a circle

He claims that it can't be an accident that these units
were selected that way.

hhhhhhhhhhhhh

Yes I'm a big fan of the show.
You can simply go to
Shows - Coast to Coast AM
to find the show in question.
And these too are good shows:
Whitley Strieber's Unknown Country
and Dreamland or
Laura Lee
Laura Lee Show

I have thoughts in the similar direction. But rather than a shield, would think of a closed loop electronized gas flowing in defined and controlable directions - within the shell of the hull and such then 'redirect' the radaint energy around exterior. i.e. the hull of such craft is a double hull with example mercury vapour flowing from forward to back; this will create a flow of ions in same direction near exterior of craft - ionic wind - vacuum in front, pressure on back. As for the craft; complete closed circuit propulsion system.