gravity waves found

[witsend]

it is a concern of mine that any claims to get nearer to the 'source' or the actual properties of gravity would be an enormous threat to those who are most anxious to withhold discovery of its properties. The reasons for this are that - if better understood and possibly even shown to be useable - then we will, unquestionably, have the means to circumvent its constraints - which would, at its least, result in new and exciting uses of that energy. There are those who prefer the status quo - relating to energy - and those who are paid to frustrate this knowledge. We're all aware of them. There is no real reason for our energy monopolists to forgo their control if they can manage it.

By the same token it would be unfair to accuse anyone who argues against effects relating to gravity - to fall into either of the two camps listed. it may well be that the questions, or arguments are volunteered in a sincere effort to better understand the 'facts' - to get to the essential truths of the matter. But any such opinions are not - of necessity - a fair reflection of the facts. To me the litmus test is if the counter arguments conform to known physical effects. Or indeed if they were to simply conform to common sense. Were they to do so I would be inclined to support them.

As mentioned, it is my opinion that the Lambright Glimmer is the result of light being 'bent' by some anomalous juxtaposition of opposing magnetic fields. This is perhaps even better and more clearly evidenced by the shape distortions of the rig. Perhaps we can group this evidence under the general banner as the Lambright Effect. But the effects are strange. The more so as the only thing known to bend light is gravity. To prove any and all of this one would need to transcend the small evidence and make it 'more' evident - more repeatable. Hopefully Bruce can help us out here. What is of interest is that there is actually no known precedent of this glimmer to the best of my knowledge. And both this glimmer and this distortion are only evident in connection with the rig itself. Therefore I'm inclined to believe that this rig of Dave's deserves our full attention. I'm also inclined to see this in the nature of a discovery that properly belongs to Dave. But that opinion is based on the fact that I know very little about Leedskalnin's theories and even less about his work. Only what I see in the coral castle and his extraordinary feats of impeccable engineering. But I'm reasonably satisfied that he did not point us, the public, to such subtle visual effects from any of his experiments. I am open to correction.

But back to the point. It seems that all discoveries are also accompanied by critical counterclaims - some valid - some not so much. And the hope is that if this is a discovery - that it survives this. Meanwhile I will wait patiently for Bruce's skills and experimental know how. Always happy to learn more especially as it relates to Dave's rig.

All's good guys. It would be a shame to let this impeccable thread relapse or this interesting subject be killed by counterclaim before it's thoroughly explored.

[Harvey]

This is NOT Gravitational Lensing:
YouTube - Weather phenomenon - Halo/ Sundog/ 5. suns

This IS gravitational lensing:
YouTube - Abell 1689.mov

This is near infrared Fluorescence:
YouTube - Operation Green Light

This is sonoluminescence:
YouTube - Sonarluminescence- is this nuclear fusion?

This is chemiluminescence:
YouTube - Chemiluminescence

This is electroluminescent:
YouTube - systm - Demystifying Electroluminescence



Now, I don't know how any person here misunderstood my comments regarding the photon ATOMIC reaction and confused that with gravitational bending, but it just goes to show they don't read.

So . . . when light REFRACTS or REFLECTS what is the photon action at the first ATOMIC layer of the material (as in galvanized pipe)?

[witsend]

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

Hi Cat. I did not get this. I'd video it but it could be discounted as 'proof'. I'm inclined to think that perhaps you have 'tin foil' and I have aluminium? Maybe?

But since your foil - whatever it is - allows a signal - why not try the whole of that experiment? It would only cost you 6 batteries. It would be really good to see it replicated. And Dave's already hinted that it's a worthwhile test. When it's light again I'll go and check on the manufacture of my own foil. If there's a way of finding out its constituents I'll let you know.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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..

[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

[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?

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.