gravity waves found

[witsend]

I just read that through. I'm trying to point to the possibility that light is simply interacting with an invisible force field comprising particles. If this was purely electromagnetic then I think this would have been widely evident in photographic techniques such as kirlian photography and that number that sucahyo does. But we only know how it shows up in sucahyo's photos. And there is no real difference in the 'glow' that sucahyo has in most of the objects in his photos. Definitely not specific to the rig. Nor is the Lambright glimmer evident in any objects other than is directly associated to the rig. So it may be the same field - it may have an electromagnetic source of some sort - but clearly it has a different construct of some kind. Perhaps it has a wider reach. Or perhaps it is more dispersed?

[witsend]

Hi again Adie.

Here's the thing. Say we have a camera that is able to detect a particle. The shutter is left open and it points to some arbitrary position in space where particles whizz past and can be photographed. It takes a significant number of photographs so that it can reproduce a reasonably fair reflection of these events and the continuity of these events. Rather like an extended exposure on moving car lights. They all tend to stream together in long lines.

Under such circumstances one can assume that photons will be depicted as long lines of light and anything outside of the visible wavelengths remain undetected. Then - under these circumstances IF the particle that exceeded light speed were within the visible frequency range the camera would be able to pick them up. None such ahve ever seen.

However, if there were particles that somehow influenced by photons within the visible or near visible light spectrum and these were reflected - refracted - whatever - off those particles - then, just as happens in an atom - the angle of that refraction would determine the photon's new frequency and - if this was 'big' enough - that resulting frequency from that interaction would be visible.

My take on sucahyo's photos and kirlian photography - is that this is precisely what is happening. Photons are bouncing off invisible particles and these are then captured - not by the eye - but by the camera that is now adjusted to pick up these more subtle frequencies. And as sucahyo argues, there are those who can see these interactions with the use of their natural sight.

Now when it comes to the Lambright Glimmer - we have a similar event. What I saw was a glitter - or glimmer of lights that must have exceeded the average shutter speed - obviously. In other words there is an evident transition or movement of lights from one position to another showing a distinct 'directional' flow. No question we are looking at lights that are moving, and are moving through space, As photons they must also be moving at extraordinary velocities. But it tells us very little about the particles that they are interacting with if this is, indeed, what is happening. Are those particles held in a fixed position or are they also moving? Do they stream out of the rig continuously - or do they simply form a force field of some sort that is located in and around the rig itself?

In as much as a permanent or an induced magnetic field has a prescribed boundary where it can influence other particles - then I would say that this latter option is feasible. But what is frustrating is that the interaction of photons - or the glimmer itself - does not show that shape. Just the general area where the force is evident. Nor does it tell us more about the particle except that the 'glimmer' is variable - indicated by the different colours that emanate from it.

[Adie123]

Quite apart from which - how does one measure anything that exceeds light speed? Think about it. If light travels at plus/minus 300 000 kilometres per second - then that's the limit on gauging the speed of an object. Which is why we need to use light to determine an object's velocity. If we had anything faster than than light speed to use as a measure then we'd effectively be measuring a 'future event'. Something that is SO fast that light itself is 'outpaced'. In effect it would be rendered invisible. So. Light is simply the boundary limit on what we can measure. It's therefore also the boundary limit on our tangible universe. Which is not to say that light speed cannot be exceeded. Just - anything faster - and it's definitely in another time dimension separated from our own.

Its funny cos i was pondering this after i posted. If something is travelling or spinning faster than the speed of light, then there would obviously be a delay in the light getting to us, or at least it would seem that way.

a decent experiment could be to see what happens when one spins a disc at 98%-99% the speed of light and then time the deceleration to a stop after turning off power. Then time it again when you have it at the proposed max speed (which always seems to be close to light speed. Like the Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia reports close to speed of light), but im betting they have got them particles travelling faster but they cant register it properly. Timing this deceleration to a stop, they may find that there is a disproportianate difference in time it takes to slow to a stop. Which would indicate they are going faster than the speed of light and only timing a deceleration would be the only thing to calculate faster than speed of light.

May even be better to just use the Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Seeing as they got it setup to do speeds required.

So to recap- Speed faster than light needs to be calculated in decelerate time and to not try to calculate velocity while its going faster than speed of light

EDIT: Just had another thought. If it were to be possible to setup a camera/detector to follow the particle on its travel around the Hadron. Then they could calculate the speed of the particle moving away from the camera/detector and add that to the speed of the camera/detector. Trouble would be to get the camera at a decent speed. But if they are getting the speed of the particle at a supposidly 99.9% speed of light and they get the camera/detector to a speed of 1% speed of light then surely the calculation would show 100.9% speed of light. Vuala, faster than lightspeed calculated

Regards
Adie

[witsend]

I think that for those of us who have been subjected to ridicule, vexatious litigation, threats of vexatious litigation, and the rest - take heart. It seems that truth does out - albeit that it first has to struggle against some considerable odds. To resolve gravity would be to resolve perpetual motion which is the holy grail of physics research. Anyone, such as Dave, who has found any evidence of this will be subject to ridicule. Just too many competing interests out there. And it is my opinion that it will only actually be found by mavericks and outsiders. What's needed is different concepts from different foundations. Mainstream have definitely not got the answers yet.

[witsend]

Hi Jet, for when you get back here. Please take time out to read that link from Tishatang. It may give you some ideas on testing your earlier rig. It seems to be some combination of Dave's rig and what was written in that 'voltage from thin air' thread - and a whole lot of other correspondences as well. Maybe? Just another angle.



EDITED. Sorry - I should have added the link. Here it is.

Roy J. Meyers: Absorber (Atmospheric Electrical Generator)

[witsend]

I did notice he placed a pic of a whirelpool type effect at 6:14 and then later about thinking inside the box for quantum physics at 7:11 lol

Hi Adie. The 'cat in the box' is Schrodinger's cat where the question is posed as to what actually transpired. It focuses on the possible outcomes - while acknowledging that all consequent outcomes can only be theorised - never known. The cat may have been poisoned and is therefore either dead or alive. In the context of the AlienScientist's use of this analogy I think he's using this experimental reference amusingly, to remind us of the need to 'think outside the box'. But I'm open to correction.

I dont beleive that there is a cap on speed. Faster than lightspeed should be possible ... (math and calculations arnt precise, only a rough guesstimate to paint a picture)

Quite apart from which - how does one measure anything that exceeds light speed? Think about it. If light travels at plus/minus 300 000 kilometres per second - then that's the limit on gauging the speed of an object. Which is why we need to use light to determine an object's velocity. If we had anything faster than than light speed to use as a measure then we'd effectively be measuring a 'future event'. Something that is SO fast that light itself is 'outpaced'. In effect it would be rendered invisible. So. Light is simply the boundary limit on what we can measure. It's therefore also the boundary limit on our tangible universe. Which is not to say that light speed cannot be exceeded. Just - anything faster - and it's definitely in another time dimension separated from our own.

Now picture this- Light is said/proved/theorised to bend around large masses in space, light cant escape black holes etc. Why is this?... The reason/answer/my theory, is that mass in space is traveling and/or spinning closer or faster than the speed of light which is a sizeable percentage of light speed. The mass that is traveling is causing a gravity well or centripetal/centrifugal pull around it at high speed. This causes the light to bend.

I have no problem visualising this. But then that mass must be exceeding light speed so that it pulls objects in its wake. That's the puzzle. My proposal that this is precisely our aether fields. And their velocity is precisely 2C.

K finished. hehe. Did i go off track there and/or was there something else i should commented on about alienscientist's video?

LOL. I think we're all on track to comment on whatever is applicable. Unless Dave objects and it seems he's supporting this.

BTW Hawking proposed that black holes in fact need to be emitting virtual particles. I think that was required to balance out the equations. This sort of argues that photons must be particles as opposed to pure wave phenomena which AlienScientist proposes. Unless they become those 'virtual particles' somehow - maybe in that the photon itself may be a composite of two or more fundamental particles. Which would make it a boson.

EDITED

[david lambright]

hi

sorry for the absence....gremlins are the cause i am sure of it!...i just got back online and was reading the article tish posted...I AM FASCINATED...i never even heard of this before today...i fell a bit behind and will catch up ...i too have wondered what has happened to bruce, i trust he will pop up soon...BUT not to worry, even if he for some reason does not return, i will build a #3 to be sent to matt, jet, cat, and so on....no worries....wit, i just got this thing working again and will check my email as soon as i am done posting this...thank you again rose, you really are awesome and we will talk soon!....and about thunderbolt....well, those guys are funny!....and just a thank you to everyone who even took the time to read, post, replicate etc...all of you will look back on these times and say i was right there!.....just words cannot convey my emotion...i am humbled....david

[john_g]

Hey CatLady,

I've been wondering the same thing ..... looked around and found this .....

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - gravity waves found

I hope David is "ok" ..... the Open Source community does have some brutal people out there that don't care about anyone but themselves ..... that thread is locked .....

Best Wishes,
Glen

I hope Dave is OK to. Seems some forums have some nasty posters.

Regards

John

[Adie123]

And interestingly - especially for you Adie - is that this effect was shown and proved through rotating ceramic discs over super conductors that evidenced a velocity close to light speed.

Adie - you may want to look through his videos. I think it'll resonate. He's brilliant. I edited my earlier comments on this.

I did notice he placed a pic of a whirelpool type effect at 6:14 and then later about thinking inside the box for quantum physics at 7:11 lol

I dont beleive that there is a cap on speed. Faster than lightspeed should be possible, and is because celestial bodies show to be travelling faster than the speed of light. i dont buy into the theory that 'space is expanding'. Objects are just moving away from one another. As for bending of light, try this example for size: (math and calculations arnt precise, only a rough guesstimate to paint a picture)

Your watching fireworks in the sky 1 mile away. The weather is calm and you hear the bangs from each firework 3 seconds after seeing it. Try this same thing on a windy day. Youll hear the sound sooner, later, muffled/wobbly or not at all, depending on the speed and direction of the wind. This is because the wind is blowing a sizeable percentage of the speed of sound but not of light and gives you what is known as the Doppler effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Now picture this- Light is said/proved/theorised to bend around large masses in space, light cant escape black holes etc. Why is this?... The reason/answer/my theory, is that mass in space is traveling and/or spinning closer or faster than the speed of light which is a sizeable percentage of light speed. The mass that is traveling is causing a gravity well or centripetal/centrifugal pull around it at high speed. This causes the light to bend.

A none spinning, none moving huge mass wouldnt have the same effect. There is no space fabric that the mass is sitting on to cause other matter to fall towards it. Its all down to a masses spin and travelling speed that draws other matter towards it.

K finished. hehe. Did i go off track there and/or was there something else i should commented on about alienscientist's video?

Regards
Adie

[witsend]

Hi Dave,

It is my opinion that there is absolutely no point in posting links to other forums that are SO awful that their own moderators have locked them. Not sure of the object in doing this. I see absolutely no value to it at all. Perhaps I'm missing something.

That you are getting attacked Dave - is a really good thing. It means that you're close to something. And the harder the attack the closer the truth. It's an inverse proportional relationship. LOL. I should know. Check out Tishatang's article. It's VERY INTERESTING. And ignore those horrors. There's nothing so jealous of a lateral thinker than a mind that cannot think outside the box.

Kindest regards,
Rosie

EDITED

[FuzzyTomCat]

Have we lost contact with David and Bruce?



TheTruthBeKnown
Dr. Darcy Babyola

Hey CatLady,

I've been wondering the same thing ..... looked around and found this .....

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - gravity waves found

I hope David is "ok" ..... the Open Source community does have some brutal people out there that don't care about anyone but themselves ..... that thread is locked .....

Best Wishes,
Glen

[witsend]

Forgot to include quote from articles.

"While there are some details of the device which the inventor refuses to make public, yet there are many general features that may be explained. It is planned that the machine, to be set up in Phoenix, will generate sufficient power to light the city, and will consist of a 200 foot tower upon which is placed the "absorber". The latter consists of a series of magnetized steel plates set in a circle (the manner of preparing them is kept secret) and this mechanism attracts the electricity from the atmosphere. This is carried by wires to a transformer in the engine house below and thence is applied to produce either power or light after the usual manner.

In an authorized statement Meyers says: "The flow of electricity is constant. When it emerges into the transformer it is in the form of a direct current. It will absorb the electricity day and night and will work whenever the wireless will work. I can put up a plant to supply such a building as the Adams Hotel for about $1500, and one of the principal items of the expense is the cost of the towers, the wires, the magnetizing of one set of plates, which is part of the secret of the treatment which makes it respond to the accumulations of the atmosphere.
"
***************
Could be describing the way Dave got magnetic lock?
Tishatang

Hi Tishatang. Such an interesting article. And SO MANY similarities to Dave's device. This is really cool. Maybe Dave et al just need to ground the device? WOW.

[witsend]

That's the inherent risk when playing with anti-gravity. You might be too late to be able to reach the off switch...
Will the device head for the skies, or all around it?

Hi Cloxxki. More about the Alien Scientist. He proposes that the antigravity effect is the result of atomic bonding - I think he called it parent bonding - that gets all atoms 'tuned' to a single - rather I should say 'sympathetic' frequency - (an interaction reliant on a 'phonon'? Not sure of the meaning of the this term). This then releases those atoms from their bound state with gravitational forces. He actually talks about something being released from the atomic nuclei. Not at all sure of what he means here. I understood that the strong force would not allow any kind of adjustment without resulting in some kind of fission. But I may have misunderstood him. He may have meant to refer to the electron orbits. There's a lot of facts crammed into that 10 minute video. But it is something like that. And interestingly - especially for you Adie - is that this effect was shown and proved through rotating ceramic discs over super conductors that evidenced a velocity close to light speed.

Adie - you may want to look through his videos. I think it'll resonate. He's brilliant. I edited my earlier comments on this.

[Cloxxki]

That's the inherent risk when playing with anti-gravity. You might be too late to be able to reach the off switch...
Will the device head for the skies, or all around it?

[Adie123]

Have we lost contact with David and Bruce?

Ive been thinking the same thing