gravity waves found

[DavidE]

David Lambright

Earlier in this thread I noted that Aluminum, if subjected to a strong enough magnetic field, could take on magnetic properties. Accepting that Aluminum may be made up from many different alloys - I still don't know if the effect is based on Aluminum specific or the amplified effect of a fractional component.

What I did prove though was that the foil did not have to be subjected to a PMH device, to produce the same effect. Now having said that, the PMH field may be strong enough to produce the same effect. And that in of itself is a very interesting question.

Strength of field would seem to be the common denominator - but I am open to other possibilities.

Secondly, I would like to see more objective data than "seeing" or "feeling" effects. Example: Ed Leedskalnin set up many experiments to demonstrate unseen but fundamental forces. A good example can be found at this link.

YouTube - Leedskalnin experiment that reveals the double helix: The True Structure of Electricity

I applaud your enthusiasm and willingness to share - it helps prod us all on, to discover real solutions, that may elevate quality of life.

[witsend]

DavidE - Hi again. If you're dogpaddling - I'm drowning. LOL

I notice that you're looking to measurable evidence. My own take is that the anomaly is proven now that Bruce sees it as well. So. No longer strictly an anomaly. In my view we need to name this. My first proposal is that we call it the 'lambright glimmer' or LG which, hopefully will lead to the lambright oscillation LO. I suspect that this latter effect may be useable and I do think that both effects - though small, of themselves, could be advanced and concentrated to produce something more significant. The question is actually - what is it that we see?

So. Here's a grandiose sweep - which I really do not expect anyone to take seriously - apart from myself that is . If this is - as I suspect - two opposing magnetic fields - and if, as I've deduced, the surface of our earth has only 1 such magnetic field (nothing opposing) - then the two cancel out and leave just one exposed field. That's the field in the rig and, probably in the 'loops' or 'legs' as Bruce sees it. I'm reasonably certain that the only thing that can resist one magnetic field is another magnetic field. If so. Then what we're actually looking at is something akin to a monopole - but it's a full on monopolar 'field' structured into a three dimensional rig.

Then. Again, I'm not expecting anyone to 'buy in' - if photons do indeed interact with gravitational fields, and if also a magnetic field IS a gravitational field - then they would, indeed, interact with that field. The particular properties of that magnetic field (always supposing that there is a magnetic field) is that it has it's own localised position in space - in this case, being Dave's rig. In which case, they would follow the curvature of that space and this would render their frequency distinct from the frequency of the surrounding photons. Therefore would they 'glimmer' out of phase with the surrounding photons.

Anyway - that's what I suspect we're seeing. The use of this is profound. If this is - indeed - proving that magnetic fields and gravity are one and the same thing - then surely? We have wasted many hundreds of years in ignoring the interplay of magnetic fields. Somewhere there is some combination of polarities that may induce - not only limited effects - but real effects such as antigravity - perpetual motion - the whole catastrophe. As I see it - we need to define the actual properties of the rig that is enabling this evidence. I think Dave's holding out on us. The truth is that he did a variation of Leedskalnin's number and I'm inclined to think that there's an intuitive reach there that led him to the variation. You'll need to tell us so much more Dave.

Personally I'm delighted with this. I feel priveleged to be a part of this early evidence - the more so as it is very much in line with my thesis. But I'm realistic enough to know that - at this stage - NOTHING is proven. Just that we've got an LG - POSSIBLY and LO and both fall outside classical prediction. That's always a good start.

[Cloxxki]

Brainfart, working on hypotheses of Witsend above.
It may indeed be vital to use an even number of segment to get this effect. I'd be most interested whethet taking one segment out would render the device "dead". I am thinking on various cancelling forces and vectors being split by the lack on an uneven equalizer of sorts.
If with 23 (or 25 if easier) sections it works just as well or better, more thinking will be needed by smarter people.

What bugs me...why do PMH's hold charge? If current flows around, why doesn't resistance reduce the charge over time through heat and other losses? Is this type of current is static rather than travelling at E? Who knows, a PMH may potentially be an aether-sucker, truly OU. Unless David knows of ways to extract energy from one which eventually disengages the lock, other than through mechanical means.

[DavidE]

witsend

In which case, they would follow the curvature of that space and this would render their frequency distinct from the frequency of the surrounding photons. Therefore would they 'glimmer' out of phase with the surrounding photons.

[DavidE]

PMH - Magnetic Resonance > Zero Resistance

Magnetic resonance tied to superconduction

R. Colin Johnson
(07/17/2006 9:00 AM EDT)
URL: EETimes.com - Magnetic resonance tied to superconduction

Portland, Ore. -- Researchers believe they have unlocked the mystery to what makes high-temperature superconductors tick. According to a team from Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the University of Tennessee, the reason these materials superconduct at such high temperatures may be a magnetic resonance that causes their anti-ferromagnetic lattice to oscillate opposing-spin orientations in synchronization with the opposing-spin orientations of the so-called Cooper pairs passing through the superconductor's molecular lattice.

"This has been the most important problem in condensed-matter physics," said University of Tennessee professor Pengcheng Dai, who collaborated on the work with National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) physicist Jeffrey Lynn and UT doctoral candidate Stephen Wilson. The team worked at the NIST Center for Neutron Research in Gaithersburg, Md. "The magnetic resonance we observed is a spin excitation that is intimately related to superconductivity," Dai said. "It's when a layer of anti-ferromagnetic molecules begins switching their spins back and forth. This may be the glue that binds the Cooper pairs, since it begins just below the critical [superconducting] temperature and intensifies as superconduction progresses.

In a nutshell, "What we are reporting for the first time is that magnetic resonance is universal in both major classes of high-temperature superconductors," he said. "We have observed it in electron-doped superconductors and others had already observed it in hole-doped superconductors."

"If these researchers have found the key mechanism for high-temperature superconductors, the significance goes beyond being just a theoretical breakthrough," said Elie Track, a senior partner at Hypres Inc. (Elmsford, N.Y.), a specialist in fabricating superconducting microelectronics. "Because once we really understand how high-temperature superconductivity comes about, we can start predicting how new materials can be synthesized to raise the transition temperature even higher."


Magnetic-resonance excitation within an electron-doped high-temperature superconductor is believed to be the mechanism that generates Cooper electron pairs in high-critical-temperature superconductors. Recent experiments at the National Institute of Standards and Technology have confirmed the theory in the superconductor called praseodymium lanthanum cerium copper oxide.

The Oak Ridge-UT team also reported a universal law governing all high-temperature materials--their magnetic-resonance energy is proportional to their superconductivity transition temperature. If the researchers are correct that magnetic resonance serves the same function as phonon lattice vibrations in low-temperature superconductors, then room-temperature superconductors could be on the horizon. "Our ultimate goal was to understand why these high-temperature materials become superconducting in the first place," said Dai. "If we can understand what makes it superconducting, then we can potentially design materials that have those desired features at even higher temperatures."

Since the discovery of a high-temperature superconductor (bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide, for which IBM received a Nobel Prize in 1987), researchers have been trying to understand why these materials superconduct at such a high temperature, in hopes of designing materials that superconduct at even higher ones. Earlier this year, IBM researchers confirmed that pairing in high-temperature superconductors has a distinct wave-function symmetry, indicating that the pairing mechanism must be different than in low-critical-temperature superconductors. But the mechanism responsible for condensing the Cooper pairs remained a mystery until now.

Low-temperature superconductors were discovered in 1911 by Dutch physicist Heike Kammerlingh Onnes. Since then, they have achieved unrivaled feats, such as levitating entire trains with billion-dollar superconducting magnets.

In 1972, University of Illinois researchers John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer received the Nobel Prize for discovering the mechanism that causes superconduction. As a result, researchers understand that low-temperature superconducting does not involve magnetism; rather, it is electron-lattice interactions that cause a net attraction between electrons that normally repel one another. These bound electron pairs--called Cooper pairs--can flow in a loop in synchronization with the lattice forces, and consequently do not collide with any other atoms. Thus, they support current flow without any resistance.

Low-temperature superconductors are formed from a single element. For instance, lead atoms near absolute zero will bind with each other in a highly repetitive symmetrical pattern. But a copper-oxide-based high-temperature super- conductor has layers of copper and oxygen atoms bonded together in planes separated from one another by other elements such as yttrium, barium, lanthanum and cerium.

For low-temperature materials to superconduct, they must be cooled to a temperature of less than 5 Kelvin. The material IBM discovered that superconducted at 33 K was considered a high-temperature material. Since then, super- conducting materials have been reported at temperatures as high as 135 K, and today high-temperature superconductors are all operating above the boiling point of nitrogen: 77 K, or –195.79°C. Since liquid nitrogen can be used to cool high-temperature superconductors instead of the much more expensive liquid helium (boiling point 4.22 K, or –268.93°C), high-temperature superconductors promise to be more economical to use. However, theoretically the electron-lattice coupling that enabled low-temperature superconduction begins fading at about 23 K and completely ceases at about 50 K, which makes it impossible for high-temperature superconductors to use the same phonon mechanism as low-temperature superconductors.

"We needed another explanation for why high-temperature superconductors form Cooper pairs," said Dai.

To solve the puzzle, Dai's group studied the commonalities among the high-temperature superconductors, focusing on the fact that all high-temperature superconductors today have one thing in common: They employ copper oxide sheets that are ordered anti-ferromagnetically. "To us, this suggested that perhaps magnetism was the agent that binds together the Cooper pairs," said Dai.

The team used neutron probes to observe the magnetic resonance in an electron-doped high-temperature superconductor called praseodymium lanthanum cerium copper oxide. The results showed that the magnetic resonance previously observed by other researchers for hole-doped high-temperature superconductors was also present in electron-doped high-temperature superconduc- tors. This commonality led the researchers to postulate a universal law governing all high-temperature materials: that their magnetic-resonance energy is proportional to their superconductivity transition temperature, suggesting that magnetic resonance in high-temperature superconductors serves the same function as phonon-lattice vibrations in low-temperature superconductors.

The researchers are hoping that other labs worldwide will independently verify their results. In the meantime, they plan to characterize high-temperature superconductors further in hopes of understanding them even better. "We want to do doping-dependence studies," said Dai. "We want to apply a magnetic field to see if we can prevent superconductivity. We want to use different instruments to study their internal structure. We have a lot of follow-up research planned."

______________________________________________

Now if we can figure out how to make a really good Brownie at room temperature - then I can prove Zero Resistance to eat it. Again and again, replication will be bliss...

[IndianaBoys]

any ideas would be gladly accepted.

Bruce

Bruce,

Thanks for your reports!

What came to mind was a "mind motor". Take a sewing needle and stick it into a piece of Styrofoam or something similar. The sharp point of the needle will point up vertical. Cut a small strip of aluminum foil and fold into the a "V" shape. Place this "V" shape on top of the needle so it can spin. This will be sensitive to movement. In the past their have been people who would place a clear glass over this and sit and focus on the aluminum foil and it would begin to turn/spin. Thought was that this sensitive device placed in the vicinity of your PMH may bring forth a visible reaction.

IndianaBoys

[witsend]

Hi DaveE. That's an interesting article on magnetic resonance and superconductivity. I have long considered that a magnetic field is a primary force - and that it's potentials have been somewhat overlooked. If you think about it - with permanent magnets one can get a magnet on magnet interaction and without any evident electric field. But - conversely - one cannot generate an electric field without some magnetic field resulting. To me that's significant.

But hey. I'm just happy that we're able to ask these questions. It's when being a member of these forums is simply a pleasure. And again. Thank goodness Dave chose to share this - probably knowing that the evidence is subtle. That usually leaves one very exposed to disclaimants and general denial. Calls for courage - in my opinion. It's also a tribute to our members that the claim is fully explored rather than discouraged. All just so nice.


(thought it needed an emotional array) LOL

[witsend]

What bugs me...why do PMH's hold charge? If current flows around, why doesn't resistance reduce the charge over time through heat and other losses? Is this type of current is static rather than travelling at E? Who knows, a PMH may potentially be an aether-sucker, truly OU. Unless David knows of ways to extract energy from one which eventually disengages the lock, other than through mechanical means.

That's a really good question. Could it be that the magnetised state is 'stable' if not permanent - and that a stable field, like a permanent field - does not in fact induce an electric field? Perhaps the electric field is required with closed circuit conditions and 'changing' magnetic fields. Just a thought.

[Cloxxki]

That's a really good question. Could it be that the magnetised state is 'stable' if not permanent - and that a stable field, like a permanent field - does not in fact induce an electric field? Perhaps the electric field is required with closed circuit conditions and 'changing' magnetic fields. Just a thought.

This is where the superconductivity may come in. I believe a current can be measured while the device is in locked mode? Since it doesn't deteriate, can we say that APPARENTLY there are superconductor conditions present which the current is tracking on? I would bring in proof of conservation of electrical charge through the LEDs that people light when breaking the lock, but that small amount of energy may come from the unlocking itself, rather than being freed after shortly being energized?

Let's just say the Lambright Glimmer is a visual side effect of superconductivity enduced by magnetic lock within a segmented ring of specific composition and geoemtry. Perhaps is doesn't just super conduct elec/magnetricity, but also something else, something essential Leedskalnin understood, but didn't tell us about.

[witsend]

This is where the superconductivity may come in. I believe a current can be measured while the device is in locked mode? Since it doesn't deteriate, can we say that APPARENTLY there are superconductor conditions present which the current is tracking on? I would bring in proof of conservation of electrical charge through the LEDs that people light when breaking the lock, but that small amount of energy may come from the unlocking itself, rather than being freed after shortly being energized?

Let's just say the Lambright Glimmer is a visual side effect of superconductivity enduced by magnetic lock within a segmented ring of specific composition and geoemtry. Perhaps is doesn't just super conduct elec/magnetricity, but also something else, something essential Leedskalnin understood, but didn't tell us about.

Sounds good to me Cloxxki. Never understood that magnetricity bit - but maybe this is it?

[Harvey]

Ok, let me see if I have the logic correct here:

1. 100% the light that enters the camera and eyes is either reflected, refracted or is sourced by the objects being observed.

2. The only known deviation from 1 is gravitational lensing (of course in that case #1 is still true because the observed object is a light source).

3. Observations show changes in light frequency and intensity.


Conclusion: It must be gravity and nothing else that is causing the observed effect.


Anyone else see how grossly incomplete that conclusion is?

Come on people, I know you can think this through - what is really happening when a photon interacts with material in the very first atomic layer? Do you really think it bounces off some imaginary surface when it is refracted or reflected? I have already dropped clue bombs the size of Africa in here regarding fluorescence. Come on, reason it out. It doesn't matter whether the photon is considered a particle or a wave De Broglie all ready tied the energy of the two together and won the Nobel prize for that.

How does the light energy transform its frequency? I'm not talking about primary absorption and reflection that gives you 'green' for the grass from white light. I'm drawing your attention specifically to the energy transaction that occurs during fluorescence.

What was the light source for the IR imaging? Gravity? I think not.

Seeing that magnetism is well known to be a primary force by mainstream science for over 100 years now (and is fully combined as the EM force in standard theory), and acknowledging that light is electromagnetic radiation, why would we assume that the two cannot interact? If I observe a man in a row boat with a single oar moving in a straight line 99.9% of the time should I conclude that it is impossible to cause his path to curve? Perhaps it is because I am only looking at 15cm of his path at any given instant and it only appears to be a straight path. Granted, the photon cannot keep its 'oar' on one side and must flip sides, but nothing prevents us from interacting with that 'oar' only on one side.

So whether gravity waves are being demonstrated or light is being altered by some other mechanism it is silly to draw conclusions without proof. The simple fact is, we simply do not yet know what is being observed.

Since there has never been any evidence of earthbound gravitational bending of light should we conclude then that the effects are absolutely confined to non gravitational possibilities? No. There are two different forms of gravity known to us, inertial gravity and mass gravity. David L. has already alluded to the inertial gravity with his water in the bucket analogy, but . . . the data suggests that the effect occurs when the device is not rotating as well. This evidence seems to discount the inertial gravity as being the source of the effect. It could be argued that the device is in motion relative to other things terrestrial and celestial.

Which seems more logical?

1. Ambient electromagnetic energy is trapped in the geometry of the curved elements and reflects back and forth in that cavity until it reaches an energy level (different color frequency) that can escape and is observed as various subtle colors and atmospheric interactions

2. A gravitational vortex is formed that bends light around . . . . . . random locations in/on/around/about the vortex(es). Which would mean that some curvature of space is occurring in random places for some unknown reason.

Also, with approximately 28,547,481,600,000,000 possible locations on the planet (not counting different elevations) in which the device could be tested and only having identified two of those locations so far where the device does work, and one where it doesn't we can hardly jump to the conclusion that this is not location specific. So that still remains a very real possibility. We can add this also, that it would appear the performing the PMH lock at David's location is important since the very identical material was sent to Latvia and did not work the same when locked at that location.

@Cloxxki,

I did explain in an earlier post why the PMH stays locked but will briefly reiterate it here. The Weiss Domains in the ferromagnetic material align with the magnetic field produced by the coil when it is energized. David oscillates that field at least once, which essentially ensures the domains are as flexible as possible. Each element becomes an individual magnet and each connects to its neighbor NS-NS all the way around the circle to complete a circular flux path. As long as that path is not broken, the flux remains in tact, and that flux keeps the domains in alignment which in turns keeps the flux in tact.

This is due to the electric fields present in each and every atom caused by aligned orbits of electrons around the atomic nuclei. A long stack of atoms whose net electron orbits flow in the same direction constitutes an atomic solenoid. Many of these solenoids side by side constitute Weiss Domains. Those Wiess Domains physically turn to align with the magnetic flux induced by the coil and when they do, they stay that way. In HARD magnetic materials, they will stay that way by themselves without the need of any external flux, we call those permanent magnets and they take a lot of coercivity to change them back. In SOFT magnetic materials the domains revert to nearly their previous positions when the external flux is removed. The PMH David has fabricated is closer to the SOFT variety.

Much research has been done by many universities to try and detect motion in magnetic flux. To date, there is no evidence that magnetic flux carries motion or flow of any kind, but it does clearly follow the path of highest permeability. So there is evidence of lateral density shifts along flux paths, but no evidence of longitudinal motion in a static magnetic field such as is produced by the PMH. So technically, the 'M' is a bit of a misnomer here from the classical view.

But if we are to take Ed Leedskalnin's Theory of a Magnetic Universe into consideration where he hypothesized small tiny magnets smaller than light everywhere, then we can see how he may have fooled himself into thinking that there was some sort of motion involved. He imagined that these tiny magnets skimmed along the surface of the conductor in a bidirectional double helix with north monopoles flowing one direction and south monopoles flowing the other direction. He even imagined that he had created north and south monopoles in his experiments. So this is why he envisaged that these tiny little magnets were in constant motion in the PMH and why it has that name. Interestingly, one of his experiments actually disproved his theory but he didn't realize it. In that particular experiment, he would lay magnetized wires along a conductor to show that they would turn perpendicular to the conductor when it was energized. The did, but they turned at a true 90°. If the conducting wire actually had a double helix as he imagined, they would have aligned at the angle of the helix as something different than 90°. In his defense, his test was crude and nowhere is it stated how tightly that helix is wound. So to us, and his experiment, it may appear to be 90° when in fact is is some microscopic fraction different. Now that would be a Nobel Prize winning experiment, to prove scientifically that the field is not truly 90° to the current flow and to identify the angle of the helix . I find nothing in Ed's experiments that were not predicted by Maxwell 80 years before him. Likewise I find nothing new in any proposed magnetic universe models that were not predicted by Ed' Leedskalnin in 1945. From what I can see, if David does identify some magnetic relationship here, it will support Ed's hypothesis rather than any thesis proposed by us here and so the credit would definitely go to Ed

[Cloxxki]

Great post Harvey, thanks for that.

Regarding Ed's experiment you mention. If there is a double helix, would a wire align with one, or the product vector of the 2 opposing ones?

I think we can safely say that gravity waves are being considered in this discussion, directly due to the title. Of course, David was very much looking for anti-gravity effects in his research of Leedskalnin's PMH's (how could one not), and he thus associated the visual and mass feel effects directly into one, "gravity waves".
As effecs are seen and felt, without other main anomalous effects, logic does ask to at least consider a relatioship.

If you'd ask me, gravity waves would likely not be the right term. Lambright Glimmer is indeed a better desciption especially until better understood. Thusfar (static) scales and balanced have not been able to confirm gravital effects, where their readings directly tied to gravity in nowadays science.
Since David's glimmer/waves/streams have now been visually confirmed by a respected forum member, the "weight" anomalies gain in credibily as well, and may be more interesting to investigate than the visual effects however odd, until put to good use as waves/light/streams directly..

[CatLady]

Hi TP. I actually tested this. I put my cell phone inside a glass - covered it with foil and then dialled the number from the land line. You're absolutely right. No signal. Took it out the glass to check that it was working. It was. Put it back in the glass in case I dialled incorrectly. - NO RING. LOL

Something's not quite right with the levitating glass experiment - somewhere. But it looks good.

This is really a strange one. I did the same exact test and my phone rang just fine. Here's a video of my experiment.

YouTube - Testing Mobile Phone Inside Home Made Faraday Cage


TheTruthBeKnown

[Harvey]

Great post Harvey, thanks for that.

Regarding Ed's experiment you mention. If there is a double helix, would a wire align with one, or the product vector of the 2 opposing ones?

I think we can safely say that gravity waves are being considered in this discussion, directly due to the title. Of course, David was very much looking for anti-gravity effects in his research of Leedskalnin's PMH's (how could one not), and he thus associated the visual and mass feel effects directly into one, "gravity waves".
As effecs are seen and felt, without other main anomalous effects, logic does ask to at least consider a relatioship.

If you'd ask me, gravity waves would likely not be the right term. Lambright Glimmer is indeed a better desciption especially until better understood. Thusfar (static) scales and balanced have not been able to confirm gravital effects, where their readings directly tied to gravity in nowadays science.
Since David's glimmer/waves/streams have now been visually confirmed by a respected forum member, the "weight" anomalies gain in credibily as well, and may be more interesting to investigate than the visual effects however odd, until put to good use as waves/light/streams directly..

The principle of Ed's experiment was to show that there was a polarity associated with the current induced field whereby the specific pole of the magnetized wire would align with that field at its location. The principle would be that for a south pole on the magnetized wire, it would be repelled by the south helix on the conductor while being attracted to the North helix on the conductor thus it would be self centering in alignment with that particular flux on that end. Conversely, the opposite end was expected to align with the other helix in its location. At least that is what I ascertained from the experiment. To his credit, he was very cautious to include the Earth's Magnetic field in his tests and orient the experiment accordingly.

Evidently, he understood quite well that a circular magnetic field in a homogeneous permeability path nets itself to zero and thus in any case with that the Earth's field would be the only thing evident. But in the test above he was not working with circular fields in a single permeability, but there was a boundary layer between the metal and the air which represents a transition point for the flux path somewhat like hot air and cold air have that boundary where EM energy can be refracted. In simple terms, while the earth has an average magnetic vector which is oriented from the Geographic South Pole toward the Geographic North Pole, any closed magnetic path in that field will net to zero and the only thing left to consider is the Earth's field. Ed understood that the open loop of straight wires could interact with the Earth's field (like compass needles) and taint the results - so he attempted to neutralize that as much as possible.

[witsend]

I trust it's understood that in gravitational lensing photons are specifically NOT considered to 'bounce off' anything at all. They are neither reflected nor refracted. They simply 'bend' their path around a massive object and the degree of that 'bend' is consistent with mass of the object around which they bend. That they bend at all was predicted by Einstein and subsequently proved. One needs to think of it literally as streams of photons that describe an arc. If the light was reflected or refracted then we would not see the one galaxy positioned behind another as the light would change it's path in relation to us - the viewer. And I trust that readers here know that the surface of a galaxy is NOT an imaginary surface. Again. The light is proposed to literally 'bend' around the galaxy or object at an angle that is consistent with the mass of that galaxy or that object. That - in any event - is the intent of the term gravitational lensing. Nothing whatsoever to do with reflection or refraction. Again, if it did either, then we would never see the one galaxy behind the other. And we do. Or those with access to telescopes that are strong enough do. They see what 'goes on' behind massive objects in space. It's extraordinary.

Nor do I think that anyone is arguing that the photon manifests as a wave and yet it is, in fact, a particle. It is referenced everywhere in the forum and, I think, even on this thread. It's that self-evident that I'm not inclined to search for this. The fact that we are all well aware of the wave/particle duality. It's elementary physics, afterall. In fact it was the 'foundation' so to speak of quantum mechanics.

Fluorescence is something else. It is the emission of photons resulting from chemical mixes that emit those photons. This would be possible as an explanation for the Lambright Glimmer if, indeed, the glimmer were radiating directly within that rig. It's not. No light comes from the rig itself. It is 'around' the rig but in the air. Unless there's some unique attribute in the atmosphere itself that enables such a chemical reaction. If so, it seems to be uniquely associated with Dave's rig and to follow in the 'atmosphere' around that rig. In any event, there is no known chemical mix that could possibly account for the emissions of photons from that rig itself - any more than one could expect the average magnet to 'glow' - or indeed any material to 'emit light' unless it was heated appropriately or unless it had the appropriate chemistry. Nor do I think that anyone assumes that IR imaging is sourced by gravity. That would be a very strange conclusion to draw. As absurd as saying that any light is sourced from gravity. Light - as we all know - is sourced from photons.

That magnetism could be considered a fundamental force is interesting. I never knew this. This means that mainstream and 'everyone' acknowledge that the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear force and gravity are all varying manifestations of the magnetic field. I think not. The fact is that mainstream consider the forces as being entirely different to each other in scale, locality and effect. Latterly they acknowledge - or correctly - 'some' acknowledge that dark energy is also an independent force. Therefore my use of the term is based on the concept that the magnetic force is the primary or 'only' force. In as much as this constitutes a radical departure from mainstream thinking - it is NOT being argued here. I am only enlarging on the definition of the terms 'fundamental' and 'primary' - both terms used synonymously and interchangeably - lest they be generalised out of context and thereby, of any sense at all.

I also think we are all well aware of the dangers in imposing an explanation of this effect that David has uncovered. I have, myself, made explicit reference to this - as have other members. Therefore I agree that it would be premature to suggest the cause of the LG effect. What's fun is exploring that cause. But I must say that I agree it would be silly to draw conclusions without proof. It's just to be hoped that we also eliminate those explanations that are clearly erroneous. Else we would indeed be 'silly'.

Regarding locality. I think that there are an infinite number of possible locations on our earth and the vast majority of those locations are under water. The simple truth is that the effect IS locality dependent. It depends on the locality of David's rig. Else it would be discernible in places outside the rig and thus far none have been apparent. I'm of the opinion that with Jet's dedication to this - that he will, eventually see the effect. Certainly - at it's least - he'll know what to look for now - the more so as it's being seen by others and it's been so ably shown on video and even more clearly demonstrated by sucahyo.

This is a really interesting thread - on so many levels.