gravity waves found

[david lambright]

Again. As discussed, we have strange distortions resulting in both the static and the moving condition of Dave's rig. One proposal put forward was that it is fairly common for light to 'bend'. If this is true then Dave's apparent 'distortions' on his rig are trivial and easily explained. This may very well prove to be the case.

However, perhaps we should first consider what we know about photons. They're neutral. They are not affected by a magnetic field. They are not affected by an electric field. They have no preference to move towards or away from the positive or the negative charge of any particle. And being neutral, they do not obey the 'exclusion principle'. They can and do 'share a path'. Irradiated light can be seen as 'streaming' out from its source in clearly shared paths. Photons have no rest state and no single photon has ever been held in a fixed location in space and in time - as has been achieved with electrons, protons and for some limited periods, even neutrons.

It is my understanding and, as explained by TeslaProject - the path that light follows is always in a straight line. Dave's rig has no special material to enable light to be continuously changed to enable it to 'bend' through space and in time. He has nothing between the camera and the rig except air. The distortions persist - at least as long or longer than his camera shutter speed. So it is unlikely to be due to vagaries of his equipment. It is also unlikely that the objects actually do expand and grow or shrink to a smaller relative size. So any distortions are probably due to light.

So then, and rightly so, it's proposed that changes in the air pressure - due to sharp gradients between hot and cold - may account for this distortion. If so, then then the simple test would be to open your fridge door and film it. If there is a resulting distortion to the size and shape of the objects in the fridge then this thesis would be proven. Conversely if there is no distortion then the thesis will be disproved. If the exposure depends on a more isolated evidence of hot and cold, then film an ice tray in free space. Personally I'm inclined to predict that no such distortions will be evident. But that's only my opinion. I'll try this tomorrow - in any event.

I have never heard of light being influenced by 'heat'. What I know is that light will deflect off the molecules and atoms in the air. Given a hot atmosphere there may be some distortions resulting from that heat - a kind of turbulence. But this would 'obscure' the image rather than enhance it as is seen in a heat wave. I am not talking about the 'long range' effect of a heat wave. Just the space between Dave's camera and that rig.

Again, I am of the opinion that the distortions in Dave's videos are the result of some gravitational anomaly that also requires more investigation. I personally do not see it as a trivial event due to vagaries related to environment or atmosphere around the rig. But I will do my own tests to see if I can help hone in and clarify this effect.

wit, you are too kind. many thanks to you ....your posts are clear and to the source....we will talk soon....also i do not know which languages for skype...you read about the demo---nobody came..LOL...i had a feeling!!..this saturday will be wayway better i promise ....also.. the shadow gram works.....perfecting my low budget tecnique now.video soon.........david

[thekubiaks]

David are you available

David,
I have been following this thread since it began as well as those that have attempted to duplicate your findings. I can fly into Portland on Wednesday or Thursday of this week and then drive to Salem either day to take a look at your device. Are you available either of those days. I will have the entire day available.

[Aromaz]

Photons = "Particle" ? ? ? Even in conventional science that is not true.
Well at least the biggest protion of them, though gamble safe with Wave-Particle.

Who can argue with that? I will lift out two key phrases:

"Albert Einstein" - Everything we have today was build on the maths of Albert instein; and all of mainstream science 'worship' him like God. Forget the issue that most of his 'knowledge' are now found to be that from other "lesser minded" (or funded) people before his publications.

IMHO Compatriot Tesla was way out more correct - and proven so in reality. And Tesla's thoughts of Einstein with his theories are reflected in my attitude.

"mainstream thinking" - well according to the mainstream thinking COP>1 nevermind COP>17 is not possible. Above all; everyone thinking of possible alternative energy like this forum are crazy.

Albert Enstein = Conventional Mainstream Thinking.
Nikola Tesla (and others) = Alternative (practical) experimenters.

I yield, both have value!

Back to photons: If photons have no charge, then why is it that light does bend around heavenly bodies; where we could see it in real life?

[witsend]

With all due respect, I do not believe that photons are neutral. To be
neutral they need to be static - no movement, no spin. If they are neutral
they would also not be attracted to or repelled from any other item
like 'electrons or protons'. Nothing in the current universe can be neutral,
maybe temporaly balanced; which photons are not.

I propose that photons has a very low polarity charge - due to slow spin
speed;
which allows them to travel fast because they can mostly 'ignore' influence
by other more polarized material.

But then, this is my crackpot opinion and not to be taken seriously!

[Aromaz]

With all due respect, I do not believe that photons are neutral. To be
neutral they need to be static - no movement, no spin. If they are neutral
they would also not be attracted to or repelled from any other item
like 'electrons or protons'. Nothing in the current universe can be neutral,
maybe temporaly balanced; which photons are not.

I propose that photons has a very low polarity charge - due to slow spin
speed;
which allows them to travel fast because they can mostly 'ignore' influence
by other more polarized material.

But then, this is my crackpot opinion and not to be taken seriously!

[witsend]

Again. As discussed, we have strange distortions resulting in both the static and the moving condition of Dave's rig. One proposal put forward was that it is fairly common for light to 'bend'. If this is true then Dave's apparent 'distortions' on his rig are trivial and easily explained. This may very well prove to be the case.

However, perhaps we should first consider what we know about photons. They're neutral. They are not affected by a magnetic field. They are not affected by an electric field. They have no preference to move towards or away from the positive or the negative charge of any particle. And being neutral, they do not obey the 'exclusion principle'. They can and do 'share a path'. Irradiated light can be seen as 'streaming' out from its source in clearly shared paths. Photons have no rest state and no single photon has ever been held in a fixed location in space and in time - as has been achieved with electrons, protons and for some limited periods, even neutrons.

It is my understanding and, as explained by TeslaProject - the path that light follows is always in a straight line. Dave's rig has no special material to enable light to be continuously changed to enable it to 'bend' through space and in time. He has nothing between the camera and the rig except air. The distortions persist - at least as long or longer than his camera shutter speed. So it is unlikely to be due to vagaries of his equipment. It is also unlikely that the objects actually do expand and grow or shrink to a smaller relative size. So any distortions are probably due to light.

So then, and rightly so, it's proposed that changes in the air pressure - due to sharp gradients between hot and cold - may account for this distortion. If so, then then the simple test would be to open your fridge door and film it. If there is a resulting distortion to the size and shape of the objects in the fridge then this thesis would be proven. Conversely if there is no distortion then the thesis will be disproved. If the exposure depends on a more isolated evidence of hot and cold, then film an ice tray in free space. Personally I'm inclined to predict that no such distortions will be evident. But that's only my opinion. I'll try this tomorrow - in any event.

I have never heard of light being influenced by 'heat'. What I know is that light will deflect off the molecules and atoms in the air. Given a hot atmosphere there may be some distortions resulting from that heat - a kind of turbulence. But this would 'obscure' the image rather than enhance it as is seen in a heat wave. I am not talking about the 'long range' effect of a heat wave. Just the space between Dave's camera and that rig.

Again, I am of the opinion that the distortions in Dave's videos are the result of some gravitational anomaly that also requires more investigation. I personally do not see it as a trivial event due to vagaries related to environment or atmosphere around the rig. But I will do my own tests to see if I can help hone in and clarify this effect.

[david lambright]

shadowgram works!

there is no heat being generated...the distortions are made by this energy wave...that is why i was asking about the heat....the heat from a torch can be seen in a shadow or ....i saw a video about this screen... you have seen this setup before,i will bet.....people at saturday market were saying it looked like gas fumes or heat.....i will bet that "screen" setup will be revealing........david

i tried this using a hi-power led...it works..... i am waiting for sunshine to do the video!...david

[david lambright]

candlegraph

there is no heat being generated...the distortions are made by this energy wave...that is why i was asking about the heat....the heat from a torch can be seen in a shadow or ....i saw a video about this screen... you have seen this setup before,i will bet.....people at saturday market were saying it looked like gas fumes or heat.....i will bet that "screen" setup will be revealing........david

candle shadowgraph...i will try this and possibly video.....david......shadowgram...sorry

[Harvey]

has john seen any of this?......

I don't think so - but you could invite him:

YouTube - johnkhutchison2008's Channel


As regards your rig, heat and light bending:

As I have stated, different air pressures can create boundaries between them. When light passes between these two boundaries it will be BENT i.e. refracted. When we use the term "Bending" light, we are referring to altering the path of the energy we call light. To bend a photon itself would be a difficult (but not impossible) task, but to alter the path the photon is moving along has been well known and used even before Newton wrote his works called OPTICKS .

In your rig, when it spins, there is definitely air density changes surrounding it. This is why both you and I feel that cool effect near the machine. Mine is just a mock-up, but it still exhibits the cooling effect. Also, their is a low pressure zone above (and probably below) the moving elements and a high pressure zone off to the sides. My experiments also show that these result in vortices, like little whirlwinds spinning off from the sides. Place your smoke under the elements while it is spinning and you will probably see them also. Generally we would need a relatively high differential between the material density (like glass to air, water to air, etc.) to get refraction, so I don't know if you are getting high enough pressure differentials to do this even though they are most definitely present.

Light also follows its medium - this is how fiber-optic piping works. While some of the light will bounce off the walls, the majority is routed via the lattice stress at the molecular level. Just like a lens that causes the light internal to it, to follow a path to the surface and exit on a different trajectory.

Scintillatorsusually travels in a straight line - but not always. Imagine you have a spinning apparatus that presents a charged surface at a particular frequency and the rest of the time it is zero. So it goes from zero to charge and back to zero. Now imagine that this occurs synchronous to a laser light beam of a specific single frequency and polarization. Some of the light in the beam that is synchronous to the charged surface, will bend because of the uneven attraction. the charge could be magnetic or electrical, either will work the same way - it simply has to be in phase.

So there are many ways to alter the path of a photon - some conventional, some unconventional. Some require physical interaction, some do not.

You asked how much heat it would take to bend light - but you did not quantify the question. I think what you were asking was how much heat is required to raise the air pressure to a point that refraction occurs between the hot air and cool air. And that my friend is an extremely variable thing contingent upon particulates, humidity, temperature and ambient pressure.

I hope this helps to clarify the issues cut off any arguments that members here seem to want to start with partial comments. You need all views to get a good picture of the reality and saying "Light can't bend" is only one narrow view.

Cheers!



ETA:
Bending light

[witsend]

you are funny! ....... and intelligent too

LOL I wish. I'm addled and old and suffer from mental arthritis. It's a rare condition that afflicts the really aged.

[david lambright]

wit!

you are funny! ....... and intelligent too

[david lambright]

hi...

Not much at all really. What is needed is a density differential in a material, such as air. When light moves between the boundary of those two densities, it bends. theoretically, you could setup a density bubble with air of the same temperature but different pressures and get the same result.

See refraction here:refraction: Definition from Answers.comthis video.

The large round ball that levitates on Johns video is probably the most dramatic. On a coast to coast radio show, John stated that this was a 6 to 8 pound cannon ball - but later, on an internet radio show with Bill Alek he said it was between 70 and 80 pounds. I asked for confirmation to see which was correct, and John indicated it was the later. I never did do a dimensional comparison between that ball and its environment to see if we could see what size it was for a mass comparison, because it wasn't important to me. But electrostatically elevating 8 pounds or 80 pounds is just as impressive in my honest opinion. One theory suggests that an interruption of space and time in that vicinity by the intersecting of two different radio signals in that zone, contributed to the levitation.

Of course getting levitation and controlling it are two different things

has john seen any of this?......

[witsend]

what?..............

LOL. I've been trying to work this out. I think the name is an anagram of senile ogres. Not sure if we're seeing cryptic messaging? Who knows. Very strange Dave. I think you need to alert admin. I'm tempted to try and crack a code but it probably doesn't exist.

[david lambright]

skype?

what languages?.....david

[david lambright]

let people know what God can do when you believe," he says. "I don't care how low you go, there's an opposite of low, and as low as I went I wanted to to avoid early evaluations when listening to a person with whom you disagree. When listeners begin to disagree with a sender's message, they
SABRA ALDA ANASTACIA BECKIE AJA MARITA MELLIE DORIE VICKEY

what?..............