gravity waves found

[david lambright]

if you saw it!

David,

i think the best/easiest way to determine wether or not it is the camera alone producing the odd optical effects is as follows...

take a piece of card, circular, roughly the same diameter as your rig, using a thick marker pen just roughly draw the same shapes as you have when looking down at your rig, ie :- the circle of outward pointing "U" shapes....mount the whole thing on a nail which is pointing upwards....to enable you to spin it... doesnt matter if it wobbles ( your rig wobbles too )...

spin it & film it.

Hope this helps

thank you for all your good ideas ..i did not mean any thing by the box stuff...i know that when you see this energy wave you will under stand also ...thursday is coming and i want to try many expirements...the schlieren photography method by ian works great...i just need a bigger mirror ..watch the video[bad]...in the upper left you can start to see a flow pattern...your input on this project is needed....thanks for helping... this is so new that we have to make new terminology ....david

[witsend]

We need to keep searching for the truth.

LOL Cat. You seem to have a knack at finding appropriate comments.

In defense of the internet I would say this much. It is a means of recording our history of sundry developments with reliable reference. Otherwise - as so often happens - the development of new insights and new technologies - would and could be misapplied, misinterpreted or, God forbid, misappropriated. In this way no-one can ever assume that Dave's discovery is less than his own work and - hereafter - it will be acknowledged as such. The proof is here and available to us all. This is regardless as to whether it ever reaches mainstream or not and regardless as to what he subsequently finds as an explanation of these anomalies. That he has found it and made it available to us all to explore is a tribute to his integrity and to Open Source principles. Yet again. Thanks Dave.

[david lambright]

i can do better..

you can see a flow at the upper left....you can see one of the zip ties on the side of the device..this was done using ians method, with a 4" mirror....ian uses an 18"....24 might work better...i said that before....greenpowerscience mylar+vacuum method ....that would make things easier...more soon...david...YouTube - schlieren & ian...thanks...

[Harvey]

Anyone pondered this issue. What exactly is light.
Is it PHOTONS - I say "No it is not".
- or did I say "Yes it is"
Is it Radiation - Well, in as far as it generates heat - yes.
I guess I should clarify: Light is a result of photons; a product of photon action.

Unless we know what light is, all other arguments will be obsolete.

Well, Einstein sort of solved that question with his work on the photo electric effect which led to all kinds of technological breakthroughs including the LED. Once the principle was understood, getting light out of the atom was relatively straight forward. Of course there was a few hurdles along the way. The lower energy photons of red and yellow were not too hard to produce and green soon followed. But the blue and the white were considered major achievements when success was finally made.

We have so much empirical proof now that photons of specific wavelength are ejected as the electron orbits lose energy that it is almost taken for granted as being matter of fact. And the inverse too, all of the various types of solar cells are based on the same inverse principle that when photons are absorbed, they add to the energy of the electron orbits and push them into higher orbits - which results in free electrons being made available in things like CDS and Solar Cells.

The working theory is that visible light is simply a narrow portion of the relatively large electromagnetic spectrum. So the properties may be different, but the energy type is the same whether it is a radio wave, visible light, X-Ray, T-Ray, Alpha, Beta or Gamma Rays. So you see, visible light is just one small form of Radiant Energy.

One of the principle properties of light is that it's energy is a factor of its frequency, not just it's volume or quanta. So 10 blue photons contain more energy than 10 red photons because blue is a higher frequency. See this page for more information on how that was determined and a nice energy calculator for different frequencies.

[Aromaz]

BUT: What is light?

Anyone pondered this issue. What exactly is light.
Is it PHOTONS - I say "No it is not".
- or did I say "Yes it is"
Is it Radiation - Well, in as far as it generates heat - yes.
I guess I should clarify: Light is a result of photons; a product of photon action.

Unless we know what light is, all other arguments will be obsolete.

[CatLady]

Could it be?

We need to keep searching for the truth.

[Harvey]

Scientists Create Light-Bending Nanoparticles

Yogi-Like Scientists Bend Light Beams Into Pretzel-Shaped Knots

University of California scientists bend light to create the invisible - Times Online

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/science/12ligh.html

No consensus yet folks

But you have to love the Inductive Reasoning being thrown around as conclusive definitive reality.

The TRUTH is light CAN be bent but it is not an easy thing to do. Since light is both Electrical and Magnetic by nature it CAN have its path altered by those forces. Why is this so difficult to do? Because light oscillates between Positive and Negative, North and South at its fundamental frequency.



This means that to effectively alter the path, you must apply the needed force in phase with the light source and of sufficient field strength to cause the desired deflection.

This is no easy task. Just look at how many miles the particle accelerators are in diameter and how strong their magnetic fields are to move much greater electromagnetic charges and you get an idea as to why this method of bending light is not an easy task though definitely within the realm of feasibility.

A polarized laser emitted along a path of several miles between two electrically charged plates would do the trick. But the plates would have to be pulsed at a subharmonic of the laser light frequency being used. The end result would be a target where with no bending a dot would be produced. But with bending, a line will be produced. This is because the phase is different for each photon leaving the laser. But because there is a negative plate on one side and a positive plate on the other that are pulsed at a subharmonic common to all particles, those that are in phase with the negative attractor will bend toward that plate and those that are in phase with the positive attractor will bend toward that plate. There will be all phases in between, so a line will be produced that follows the bell curve in intensity.

There is my hypothesis and I challenge the world to prove it wrong.

[witsend]

This "bending of light" through a gravity field is actually well understood. In fact this was predicted by Einstein and he waited many years for a proper solar eclipse to prove that gravity warps space-time. You see, the light does indeed travel only in straight lines. Very massive objects warp the space which makes the light appear to bend as it travels in straight lines through curved space.

Astronomers "rely on the bending of light by gravity to make telescopes almost as big as the Universe" as described in this article..

Eclipse that Changed the Universe

Thanks for this Psyclic. I think we now have consensus on the fact that light does not bend other than in a gravitational field. It only changes it's 'straight line' depending on whether it's been deflected, reflected, defracted or refracted. We rather depend on that purity of direction - that straight line - in order to be able to see objects as they really are. So. When something - some 'trick of light' misrepesents those shapes then the question, rightly, is what is responsible?

Many proposals have been made. One relates to the possibility that air pressure - or sharp changes in air temperature, may be responsible. I did a quick view of an ice tray on my kitchen counter. I even viewed this through a camera. But I didn't photograph or film it because there was evidently no distortions due to such changes in air temperature. To make doubly sure I also spun the tray. Couldn't quite see what happened because my eyesight is not that good. But it ended up on the floor. So that part of the experiment probably needs re-doing. Frankly I got rather bored with it. I also viewed the inside of my fridge. Then I viewed the freezer. Saw nothing. On the face of it, it certainly does not show any of the distortion that Dave's rig shows.

Another proposal is that there may be some distortion due to Lorentz Contraction. With respect I think this can be substantially discounted as this effect requires extraordinary velocities before it makes even the slightest difference. Dave's rig is not spun at the required speed.

The only point that remains unanswered is that the effect could be due to spatial distortions. I'm not sure what this means. If the space behind matter was able to 'change shape' then one must assume that the changes would be perceived with or without the rig. Clearly none such are apparent therefore the 'rig' is also, somehow causal to this effect if, indeed, it is actually changing space itself. Therefore, with respect, I would suppose that the changing of that space would then also be the cause of that light distortion. It could very well be the case. Perhaps this is just another heretofore unknown way to 'bend light' in the same way as gravity is known to bend light. But that would require new physics involving new and different principles related to space and it's intrinsic structures. It's a big ask - but no doubt it would have value. Certainly mainstream seriously consider the existence of 'worm holes' and that is also related to anomalies related to space.

What is significant - regarding just this apparent 'changing shape' is that Jet could not find it. He's rig was certainly of a kind. Nor does everyone seem to 'see' it. Or possibly it would be better to say that not everyone sees it with the same level of clarity. Fortunately it is also an effect that can be photographed or filmed. So it's not based on some kind of fantasy or bad eyesight or wishful thinking. The control was brilliant. Clearly one needs to explore the similarity of the shape without the 'field' effect. But, as this does not give a similar result, one can assume that the magnetisation of that structure is key. Presumably therefore one needs to explore that magnetised condition more closely.

But on the face of it - and at its least - we definitely have a rig that seems to do to light what it should not be able to.

EDITED

[david lambright]

Hi David,

Was that Cargille Labs or IAN.org?

http://www.ian.org/Schlieren/.......thanks

[Harvey]

getting this all setup is tricky....i will get this,......schlieren,thanksand to cargille.com for his "bare bones" method.....david

Hi David,

Was that Cargille Labs or IAN.org?

[witsend]

When I think of Skype, I think of this........

LOL - We've done this OFTEN.

[david lambright]

better way

David,

may i ask, 'why' you dont want to do the "3 boxes in a row , one of them has the rig inside it, you have to tell which one by feeling with your laser pointer"- test?

i am getting the bugs out of this cargille.com method of schlieren photo stuff...tested with great results.......video soon as i can!!...david

[CatLady]

Skype

what languages?.....david

When I think of Skype, I think of this........

[david lambright]

While that may seem like a good test, the introduction of the boxes breaks the validity of the result. For one thing, the laser may have to be in proximity to the device for him to feel the effect. If the box is in the way, it may absorb the very thing causing the effect.

So first, you should ask for him to place a single box over the device and see if the effect still exists. If it does, then it is only a matter of having him put on some headphones to drown out any noise from the unit spinning, and then have a few blind tests done where he doesn't know if the unit is in the box or not. Then you will have to deal with the accuracy of the detection. If he is only able to detect the pressure 50% of the time even when the wheel is there 100% of the time, then the tests are only 50% accurate. That too would break the validity because it reaches the point of coin flipping - he can just guess and still be within the margin of error.

So, as you can see, there are reasons why such an experiment is not to be taken as conclusive in either direction.

thanks...david

[david lambright]

fibre

Thanks David.

Yes that Schlieren method is really kewl - I'm certain it will show the vortex action I have described in my earlier post.

I found this article interesting as well: http://www.lle.rochester.edu/pub/rev...120_04_All.pdf

It would really be something if your photographs and videos turned out to be evidence of Lorentz contraction magnification rather than some shutter speed aberration.

Since my Mock-Up was specifically assembled to provide non-metallic comparisons (i.e. look for similar effects while using non-magnetic elements), if there is anything you want me to do with my rig to help you isolate the effects attributed specifically to magnetic flux interaction, just let me know.

After you put the Ink Cross on the HDPE, have you filmed that contraction effect again? I would be very interested in knowing if the line bends to align with the elements or if it simply shifts position in time.

It is interesting that the Lorentz Contraction will not be visible on circular or spherical objects and this may be why your device holds its perfect shape during the distortion. But the line on the circle does not have to conform to that rule and therefore could be bent (assuming of course the snapshot could properly frame it )

As I said in Post #7 "You definitely have our attention "

getting this all setup is tricky....i will get this,......schlieren,thanksand to cargille.com for his "bare bones" method.....david