gravity waves found

[david lambright]

axicon lenses

my re-discovery of this energy [Leedskalnin] goes hand and hand with spin field theory...there is plenty of stuff about it online....think about why i could not measure it, but could SEE it with my eyes ..this is not something i made up, this is just as real as you and me and the Earth we live on....the russians were using ferrite magnets....i am using a ferrite core , energized like a PMH, and getting the SAME type of results!...this tells me that the force responsible for the effects DOES NOT reside in the permanent magnets but in the deeper force, the force we KNOW exists, orbiting inside the core of a PMH....we know it is magnetic in nature, but gravitic also....one might argue that it is an electric force, but we also know that electricity is not a fundamental force.....i was reading about axicon lens properties and i think that might be KEY in utilizing this energy....if you have a PMH, and a couple of binocular prisms, try this...hold the prisms, widest side facing each other, start about 1" apart and bring them together, with the charged PMH nearby.....i wont even say yet what i feel till a little later after you have been able to try this...interesting....i assure everyone who reads this, i do not have anything to sell, i urge you to find out for yourself, there is more than meets the eye, and deeper things still, than we could ever believe, the only limits we have are ones we place upon ourselves......david

[gravityblock]

You might want to re-read that Wiki entry. The scientific community has decided that .9999 carried to infinite decimal places is equivalent to 1 by rounding, not exactly equal to 1 as you contend.
cheers

Solrey,

Can you divide an apple into three pieces, where each of the three pieces are equal to each other and add up to 1 apple (1 apple divide by 3 = 0.33333....., does not exactly equal 1 apple)? If yes, then please elaborate. If no, then I will show you how it can be done mathematically. Rounding and infinite decimal places isn't allowed. I contend the 3 pieces can be equal to 1 apple without rounding and without using infinite decimal places.

Thanks,

GB

[solrey]

Harvey wrote:
The problem is, you are thinking in very simplistic terms. You can see the kind of wood on the tree but you have no idea how big the forest is.

Not all 'flames' are directed by buoyancy or electric fields.

The flames in a solar flare for example leap well beyond any atmospheric lift or electric field or atomic blast push. Instead they are shown to clearly follow a magnetic field.

The flames of a torch are directed by pressure.

Harvey, you start with saying I'm being too simplistic then you describe the hot, fully ionized plasma of solar flares as flames. Do you see the irony in that?

btw, electric fields might be responsible for accelerating the plasma in a solar flare but there's still much data to collect on that subject.

Anyhoo, I was merely responding to David's statement regarding open flames/heat going up so I limited my response to address that specific idea. I didn't want to muddy the waters by bringing up nozzles and flame velocity and stuff.

You could learn something from him.

Are you sure I haven't?

David wrote:
FIRST
does not buoyancy imply gravity? Wikipedia/buoyancy, i looked it up, and sho nuff, gravity CAUSES the buoyant force! Harvey explained that [i thought] is that proof? it seems that if someone were to read the Wiki definition of buoyancy, they could find out for themselves!
[..]
The idea of buoyancy was summed up by Archimedes, a Greek mathematician, in what is known as Archimedes Principle: 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....i copied that part, but the word WEIGHT...that implies gravity? can we say there is a force opposite of gravity? without using the word Buoyant?

Fluid physics was a big part of my aerospace courses so I learned about Archimedes and buoyancy long before Wikipedia was merely an idea in Jimmy Wales' head. Archimedes principle applies to any fluid, which could be a liquid or gas. A difference in density (i.e. pressure) is the cause of buoyancy. Gravity attracts gas molecules/atoms (or any fluid) to the surface which produces atmospheric pressure/density resulting in buoyancy. It's not gravity itself that causes buoyancy, it's the atmospheric pressure produced by gravity that causes buoyancy.

Now consider the moon. The moon has gravity but no buoyancy in the ultra diffuse exosphere because the "atmospheric pressure" is pretty much zero.

...when i hear the word buoyancy, i think water, float, boat, etc. , not the image i am trying to portray.

Well it's just a simple fact that gases (like the atmosphere) are fluids too.

the math, i stated that .999 = 1, i also said that .333 = 1 and 3.14 =1 and .314 = 1.......wikipedia, .99999999999....read that for a while.....david

You might want to re-read that Wiki entry. The scientific community has decided that .9999 carried to infinite decimal places is equivalent to 1 by rounding, not exactly equal to 1 as you contend.

As for those other numbers equaling 1? Huh?

cheers

[david lambright]

video links

YouTube - niteshot and UV led lighting and YouTube - maybe this one i hope these help...david

[david lambright]

[david lambright]

hi

Thank you David, but I assure you I am no one to be bowed to. I appreciate your respect and humility. There is only one who is deserving of being bowed to and He is higher than those who are higher than angels.

Revelation 4:11
1 Cor 6:3

But of course! there is only ONE .....i bow to you in OUR sphere of existence, for your knowledge and insight....thanks

[Harvey]

Harvey, just so you know, i have ALWAYS bowed to you ...david

Thank you David, but I assure you I am no one to be bowed to. I appreciate your respect and humility. There is only one who is deserving of being bowed to and He is higher than those who are higher than angels.

Revelation 4:11
1 Cor 6:3

[david lambright]

PS

Harvey, just so you know, i have ALWAYS bowed to you ...david

[gravityblock]

David, I sent you a PM.

GB

[david lambright]

or did i

David,

You missed the "pine cones" in the images you posted. Think "Project Looking Glass", "pineal gland", "the Vatican", "fullerenes", etc.

GB

...i need to find out if lens could be cut, Fresnel style, into that pinecone shape....a kindof inside out spherical lens.....look close at the cut on the 'cone.......just a thought.....david.....GB ...i bow to you, thanks.

[david lambright]

?????solrey

So much nonsense I don't know where to begin even if I had the time so I'll just highlight one glaringly obvious falsity.



Nope. It's called buoyancy. We've gone over this before but you just refuse to listen or learn. What was that your chemistry teacher said again...they'd rather quit than have you in their class? Yes, I concur.

The rest is a copy of my comment on the "pi paradox" thread:



I couldn't have judged what you're saying based on those facts because you didn't divulge them until recently. Even if I had known, I'm judging what you're saying based on the fact that you've presented not one shred of real evidence to back your claims. You have also demonstrated that you don't actually understand the concepts of the terms you've cobbled together and yammer on about.



I admit I was wrong about that. Upon reflection after reading the following:



Your understanding of math appears to be LESS than I originally thought.
Any number divided by itself equals one...basic, basic, basic kid stuff.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, David. You say the Julia set applies to your "theory". Here's the base form:

f(z)=z^2+c

What is the initial value (or function) of z and how did you obtain that value (or function)?
What is the value of c and how did you obtain that value?
What do those iterations describe in your theory?



Ummm, possibly because he was only 16 and didn't study for the exam on his first attempt.



Are you trying to compare yourself to the likes of Tesla or Einstein?


cheers

FIRST
does not buoyancy imply gravity? Wikipedia/buoyancy, i looked it up, and sho nuff, gravity CAUSES the buoyant force! Harvey explained that [i thought] is that proof? it seems that if someone were to read the Wiki definition of buoyancy, they could find out for themselves! NEXT; the math, i stated that .999 = 1, i also said that .333 = 1 and 3.14 =1 and .314 = 1.......wikipedia, .99999999999....read that for a while.....david

[gravityblock]

YouTube - Mystery force baffles NASA

NASA doesn't take all of the forces into account and has their terminology mixed up. Herschel and Newton mathematically proved the existence of our magnetic field, within which the Sun and the planets move, when they discovered that the point of equilibrium of the solar system lay at a distance from the Sun equal to three times its diameter, due to the proportion of 1 to 700 in the relative mass of the planets to that of the Sun. It is round this point of equilibrium that the Sun moves. While being attracted by this point, the earth is being repelled by the light from the Sun. It's orbit round the Sun represents the balance between these two actions of attraction and repulsion.

Now, a body in space can only be in a state of equilibrium if two contrary forces meet to support it. If there were only a force of attraction without a corresponding one of repulsion, the planet would move towards the point of attraction. If the repulsion were caused solely by centrifugal force, the planet would slowly spiral in, towards the source of attraction. Without the repulsive force of the Sun, there would, however, be no circular movement. There would be neither axial rotation nor orbital revolution. A body impelled in one direction only does not move in another direction. How could Earth move in orbit in a different direction to this repulsive force? Surely a thrust from one direction cannot give rise to another at right angles to itself?

If the magnetic centre lies between a planet and the Sun, the force of attraction is predominant and the planet is drawn in. However, if the Sun is between the planet and the centre, the force of repulsion predominates and the planet moves out, its path disturbed. As the position of the Sun changes in relation to the "point zero" centre, each successive aphelion and perihelion of a planet occurs in a different position.

Nobody can equate problems without weighing all the factors which lead to their solution. Scientists forgot, when dealing with the movement of planets, that energy must have been used up as a result of solar attraction working against the two centrifugal forces mentioned. If no explanation was given as to the source of power necessary to sustain the movement, then it is because the problem was based on false premises. In the theory which I contend is the correct one, this force is derived from difference of energy potential which sunlight sets up by illuminating one face of the planet while leaving the other in darkness. A body which is balanced between two opposing forces (attraction and repulsion) has no weight and moves like a stone whirled round on the end of a string, the radius of its orbit being represented by the string.

GB

[Harvey]

Unknown

YouTube - Mystery force baffles NASA

[Harvey]

Solrey,

The problem is, you are thinking in very simplistic terms. You can see the kind of wood on the tree but you have no idea how big the forest is.

Not all 'flames' are directed by buoyancy or electric fields.

The flames in a solar flare for example leap well beyond any atmospheric lift or electric field or atomic blast push. Instead they are shown to clearly follow a magnetic field.

The flames of a torch are directed by pressure.

The flame of my plasma puzzle (which is not thermodynamic as some may believe) interacts with gravity on a fundamental level rather than the much stronger electrical force involved.

What David is doing here is going through the known and unknown and questioning if we truly have it right. And he is humble enough to accept our input in his quest. From what I can tell, you think perhaps that you are teaching him something he doesn't already know. He has already looked at the wood on the tree and is now stepping outside to see the whole forest. You could learn something from him.

[solrey]

all i was trying to show in that picture is that a flame, heat, has a component that moves AWAY from gravity.

David, that's incorrect. Hot air is less dense than the surrounding cooler air. The force of gravity acting on the denser cooler air displaces, or pushes, the hotter diffuse air upwards. Ultimately it's the force of gravity acting on the surrounding air that causes hot air to rise. It's a matter of density which is why oil floats on water. It's called buoyancy. Why is this not getting through?

How Hot Air Balloons Work

Combustion Experiments in Microgravity

Solrey in the image he sent, has shown also that this force has a direction in a electric field.

Wrong again, David, because the "force" you describe is only a product of your imagination. A flame is slightly ionized, thus electrically conductive, which is why it's influenced by an electric field. In order for a flame between two conductors to be directed horizontally, the force of the electric potential, or electric field, acting horizontally on the flame must be greater than the vertical force of buoyancy.

question; does polarity in the electric field dictate the flow direction of the flame?

Yes.

Anyway a flame on the surface of Earth burns away from the center of gravity? Do we agree on that?

Not exactly. A flame is pushed upward away from the surface by the atmosphere being compressed at the surface by the downward force of gravity.

Harvey, GB...microgravity is used to describe an object in free-fall with zero drag. Remember the Vomit Comet?

cheers