Anti-Gravity Experiment

[Einstein]

Well, I was in my lab trying out a new coil design. It is a clockwise winding with a counterclockwise winding wound on top. It didn't take to long to make. So I decided to see if there was any gravity output from the coil. I connected the coil with opposing coil in parallel and hooked that to my experimental gravity generator. I expected to see the magnetic fields cancel, just leaving the electric field present. There was no indication on the accelerometer at all. So I decided to position the coil inline with my pendulum weights that I have hanging from the ceiling. Still no gravity motion was detected. I was a little disappointed. So I decided to hook the oppositely wound coils in series instead of parallel. I turned on the generator and noticed a slight deflection of the pendulum weights. I wasn't sure so I pulsed the power on and off. Sure enough, with each pulse of power the pendulums swing increased.

Now I thought about this and decided that this should work with just a standard coil. So I hooked it up to a standard coil that I had originally made for use with my gravity field generator. It works. With power on the pendulums stay deflected by a small amount. Check out this small movie clip I made.

Anti-Gravity

Now if you notice, there appears to just be a repulsion type of motion. That would indicate that space was expanding. Which is why I am calling this phenomena anti-gravity like. Also it doesn't matter whether I use the magnetic north pole side of the coil or the magnetic south pole side of the coil. The motion is always a repulsion away from the coil. Also there is no recorded indication of an acceleration present on my accelerometer. This repulsion type of acceleration appears to be entirely generated by a collapsing magnetic field. The acceleration sensor I am using does not detect any influence from magnetic fields.

I do see a way to directly link this observation with sticky space. I have been going on an assumption that the electric, magnetic, and gravity fields behave the same way. But the flow of time is different in each field. Time may flow either in the positive or negative direction in each field. The rate of flow is also probably different as well. But if you recall, I built the gravity field generator based on a capacitor discharge circuit I designed. It just runs on 12 volts. I have it set to charge up a capacitor and discharge it around 250 times a second. Here is the basic schematic if you want to build one:

Please note that you don't need the metal plate as depicted and also I was getting accelerometer readings using two coils. You only need one coil to duplicate this experiment.

So lets look at my analysis and comparison to sticky space:

The magnetic field is collapsing 250 times a second resulting in a linear spatial expansion field.

In my unified field theory concept a curvilinear field changing in intensity will accompany a linear spatial force field. This should work visa versa as well.

But in the sticky space experiment there just seems to be relative linear acceleration. Thats the clue. The linear acceleration of the magnetic field I suspect is changing the intensity of the magnetic field. And the changing magnetic field intensity is generating a linear spatial force field. The only thing is that the spatial force field happens to be causing the aluminum disc to accelerate in the same direction as the intially applied relative acceleration.

So there it is. Finally a cohesive theory that even accounts for sticky space. But there is something I noticed. A collapsing magnetic field causes an anti-gravity like field, and a collapsing electric field causes a gravity like field. The flow of time appears to be in opposite directions between electric fields and magnetic fields.

But I think this information is what is needed to successfully design a time machine. Mother nature puts electric and magnetic fields together in a configuration that opposes each other. But if the fields are separated and controlled independently I think its possible to recombine the fields to enhance each other. The possibility of making a machine that just allows time to flow one way is starting to look like a reality.

 

[The_Doctor]

It's an interesting idea but to be blunt, how would thi accuratly get you when you want to be and where?

 

[Einstein]

It's an interesting idea but to be blunt, how would thi accuratly get you when you want to be and where?

I think you want the finished product. I don't have it yet. Just the knowledge to get there. And I must admit the knowledge is gained by trial and error. In the medical community trial and error is what its all about. But in the scientific community it seems as if that approach has been abandoned, at least in the publics eye. So I will be using the tried and true proven approach that has worked throughout the ages. Trial and error. It seems to be working so far. Actually its like a big puzzle to me. A challenge. My kind of game.

Now I do have a base theory I have been working toward all along. My time machine blueprint. And it still amazes me why I get so little responce on my experiments into gravity. But anyway, lets talk about gravity for a bit. It has been shown that time flows at a slower rate within a gravity field. So a stronger gravity field would cause time to flow even slower. Black hole intensity fields actually stop time. So it occurred to me that if you could change the intensity of a gravity field, you could also change the speed time flows by. Now I don't know if you are aware, but a changing speed is viewed by the science community as an acceleration. A different kind of acceleration applied to matter (sec/sec^2). In this instance the Time Force! So I have known all along that creating a machine that could produce gravity would eventually lead to a machine that could produce a Time Force field.

Lets go a little deeper into how to change a gravitational field intensity. At the earths equator you actually weigh less do to the centrifugal force of the earths rotation. In fact if the earth was roatting faster your weight would become even less. At some critical speed you actually become weightless. That would be orbital velocity. Any speed above this and you would be repelled from the earth. Now I like to look at things from the other side of the coin when I analyze. So instead of rotaing the earth, lets rotate the gravity field instead. By varying the rotational speed of a gravity field, a time force is present. As long as you don't rotate the gravity field too fast to the point of repulsion, the time force will just go in one direction. Now there is a point in the gravity field called the orbital radius where the time force is zero. That orbital radius moves inward as the rotational rate of the field increases. Outside that radius a repulsion field exists. Or anti-gravity. If time flows slower in a gravity field then it flows faster in an antigravity field. So while this rotating gravity field is spinning up, whats on the inside of the orbital radius experiences a time force going in one direction. The space on the outside of the orbital radius experiences a time force going in the other direction. So I guess this would satisfy Newton's laws of motion. Whats on the inside of the changing orbital radius goes one way in time and whats on the outside gets pushed the other way. This is just a two dimensional model of moving through time. It occurred to me that if I introduce a second rotating gravity field at right angles to the first, the two orbital radiuses would combine to create a kind of Time Force bubble. Whats on the inside is completely cut off from the universe.

Sounds like science fiction. But at the time I thought up this theory of time travel, I didn't have a clue as to how to produce a gravity force field. So now that I do, you can put money on it that I probably will try to implement this into a time machine.

P.S. I already know I succeed. But that's another story.

 

[RainmanTime]

Einstein,

But in the scientific community it seems as if that approach has been abandoned, at least in the publics eye.

That is simply not true. There is a great deal of trial and error still going on in independent research labs and universities. The reason you may not recognize it is because the standard has been raised such that simply showing what you find in trial and error is not enough. The scientific community wants to see that you have at least developed some form of theory (and yes, that includes math) to explain it.

And it still amazes me why I get so little responce on my experiments into gravity.

I've given you indications why. No offense, but you seem to think it is acceptable to discuss your theories behind what you are observing in a prose-only format. While you may think it is acceptable, this is non-standard, and can be highly non-specific when viewed from the point of view of people trained in the realms of math and sciences. As I am sure you know, there are a great many crackpots out there selling snake oil, and they use prose. And they can even make their prose explanations of their "new findings" sound fairly plausible. But math is where crackpots are separated from real science... where skim milk is separated from full cream, as it were. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Lets go a little deeper into how to change a gravitational field intensity... Sounds like science fiction.

Everything in this paragraph is a perfect example of what I am speaking about above. On the surface one might find it reasonable. But can you convert this into math? If you could you would see where your prose deviates from scientific understanding. I can show you where one of your limiting assumptions is...

At some critical speed you actually become weightless. That would be orbital velocity. Any speed above this and you would be repelled from the earth.

This is incomplete, and that is what makes it misleading. By reading only what you have here, someone who does not understand orbital dynamics might miss a lot of assumptions you are not stating here. What you are implying here is if I could travel at "orbital velocity" (which is not a constant speed, BTW) 5 feet off the ground I would be weightless. This is not only untrue, but it ignores the reality of aerodynamic forces that would make it extremely difficult to reach such a speed at this altitude. What I think you might mean is "escape velocity", which is a constant for the earth, and you still must be outside the atmospheric effects of the earth (i.e. no aerodynamic drag) before your momentum overcomes the gravitational pull of the earth.

Again, not meaning to offend, but since you have avoided the math in our previous discussions, I am left to one of two conclusions: (1) You do not know how to do the math, which is why you resort to prose-only and you feel it is good enough, or (2) You simply do not wish to do the hard work that is the math (admittedly it is not as fun as trial-and-error lab experiments). However, as a practicing engineer, a professor of engineering at a major California university, and a person who interacts with scientist doing pure research, I guarantee you will get the same lack of response for your experiements (as interesting as they may be) until you can present your theories in a mathematical framework.

Best Regards,
RMT

 

[newbie_0]

If you had a longer video with a cool song in the background with some narration that would impress more too ;-)

Why do you need the timers and rectifiers? Do you get the same effect with the coil & power source alone?

 

[Einstein]

RMT

I must say your reply does alarm and surprise me.

But in the scientific community it seems as if that approach has been abandoned, at least in the publics eye.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is simply not true.

Pons and Fleischman - Cold Fusion. Maybe you heard of them. A couple of researchers that seem to have some anomalous data suggesting the possibility of cold fusion. This is what I mean by "In the publics eye"

No offense, but you seem to think it is acceptable to discuss your theories behind what you are observing in a prose-only format.

I use a form of communication that is intended to get others to understand and see what I see.

But math is where crackpots are separated from real science... where skim milk is separated from full cream, as it were.

We disagree completely. I am well schooled in using math to describe the geometric visualizations I decribe. Its a waste of time. I've already gone down that avenue. The reality we live within has not yielded itself to an acceptable mathematical interpretation. A lot of the math I was taught is pure fiction. Many mathematical operations have no justification in reality at all. My instructor used to call it pulling rabbits out of the hat. Imagine that. We do magic when we do math. So I am well aware of the inadequacies of mathematics. But I am surprised that you don't seem to be.

Lets go a little deeper into how to change a gravitational field intensity... Sounds like science fiction.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything in this paragraph is a perfect example of what I am speaking about above. On the surface one might find it reasonable. But can you convert this into math?

A trap! I think you are well aware that this is fringe area mathematics. I doubt you would find a mathematician anywhere on the planet willing to convert that visualization into math. In fact I would probably trash Einstein's metric tensor approach completely and start from scratch. Of course you could introduce tensors that change in sort of a holographic projection method. Be forwarned that it is not going to be off the shelf tried and true trim to fit equations. But in a nutshell you just need some mathematics to show how time length and mass change at each point in space relative to your stationary time traveler.

If you could you would see where your prose deviates from scientific understanding. I can show you where one of your limiting assumptions is...

I make lots of assumptions. For instance I am assuming conditions within a rotating gravity field are symetrical with a rotating body within a stationary gravity field. But somehow I kind of know there are subtle differences. For instance an object at the earth's equator does experience an additional time dilation calculation due to its rotational speed at that radius. Would that time dilation be present if the gravity field were rotated instead? Do you honestly think I could get the answer from a mathematical calculation first before actually creating such a situation? Oh! Let me add some more. I don't just want to rotate the gravity field at a constant rate. I want to accelerate the rotation rate. In short repetitive pulses.

But go ahead and show me where you see one of my limiting assumptions.

At some critical speed you actually become weightless. That would be orbital velocity. Any speed above this and you would be repelled from the earth.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is incomplete, and that is what makes it misleading. By reading only what you have here, someone who does not understand orbital dynamics might miss a lot of assumptions you are not stating here. What you are implying here is if I could travel at "orbital velocity" (which is not a constant speed, BTW) 5 feet off the ground I would be weightless. This is not only untrue, but it ignores the reality of aerodynamic forces that would make it extremely difficult to reach such a speed at this altitude. What I think you might mean is "escape velocity", which is a constant for the earth, and you still must be outside the atmospheric effects of the earth (i.e. no aerodynamic drag) before your momentum overcomes the gravitational pull of the earth.

I must admit I did condense it just a bit, and it appears that I mislead you to. In the course of my visualization I happened to notice that the orbital radius moves inward as the speed of a rotating gravity field increases. Outside the orbital radius the gravity field acts like a repulsion field. I want you to understand that I am treating the gravitational field as a separate reference frame. But this situation is completely hypothetical. Did you happen to notice that this situation could be applied to an electron in orbit about a nucleus. Inside the atom the electron is in an attractive state. But add some voltage and it goes into a repulsive state. So I have a force field model here that tends to connect the behavior of the electron with a hypothetical behavior of a rotating gravity field.

Again, not meaning to offend, but since you have avoided the math in our previous discussions, I am left to one of two conclusions: (1) You do not know how to do the math, which is why you resort to prose-only and you feel it is good enough, or (2) You simply do not wish to do the hard work that is the math (admittedly it is not as fun as trial-and-error lab experiments).

You're giving too much credit to math. At present our understanding of math and how to apply it to the universe we exist within is sorely lacking. The concept of zero and infinity doesn't have a place in our universe. So you seem to be giving credit to a tool that we can't seem to get to fit. Somebody has to fix the math. So you are right about the math being the hard work. The math that I need to apply to the visualizations that I see does not exist yet.

However, as a practicing engineer, a professor of engineering at a major California university, and a person who interacts with scientist doing pure research, I guarantee you will get the same lack of response for your experiements (as interesting as they may be) until you can present your theories in a mathematical framework.

Your plain flat out wrong on this. I would get zero interest. My mathematical description would sit on a shelf for 500 hundred years. If I started right here, the first thing that goes out the window is integration. One rabbit out of the hat down, and a thousand more to boot. But surprising as it may seem, I think relativity applied to mathematics might help resurrect a derelict tool. I told you before I wanted to put it together with three two dimensional planes. The link between planes is where a lot of mathematical skill is needed. I'm starting to formulate a model that allows a force to translate into a right angle direction But I don't have all the rules yet in order to parallel the model.

 

[Einstein]

newbie_0

Why do you need the timers and rectifiers? Do you get the same effect with the coil & power source alone?

I was familiar with those components when I constructed this device. I was attempting to parallel the behavior of my tesla coil on a low voltage scale. I built this device from scratch. The timer is used to open and close the window where the capacitor is charged and discharged. Those aren't rectifiers. They are high power mosfet transistors. The transistors open and close oppositely in unison.

You will not get any motion at all from just a straight powered coil. The magnetic field is not constant from the coil. The magnetic field is constantly going from a strong to a weak intensity. On the scope it looks like chopped segments of the discharge cycle of a capacitor.

 

[RainmanTime]

Howdy Einstein,

I must say your reply does alarm and surprise me.

Oh well, sorry 'bout that. Perhaps this reply may have more surprises (pleasant?) and will be less of a cause for alarm. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Pons and Fleischman - Cold Fusion. Maybe you heard of them. A couple of researchers that seem to have some anomalous data suggesting the possibility of cold fusion. This is what I mean by "In the publics eye"

Understood. But you do know that cold fusion research is not "dead", but rather, as you imply, it is mostly "underground". I am friends with Dr. Jack Sarfatti, a theoretical physicist who keeps his eyes on many research activities. You may be interested to know that he is encouraging several people who are still looking into cold fusion. And the precise reason that many people are remaining "underground" is because they want to be able to release a theoretical mathematical model alongside any research results. This is something Pons & Fleischman did not have a good handle on, and it was the source for a good part of the ridicule they received as a result. Something to take note of.

Its a waste of time. I've already gone down that avenue.

No, it is not. And perhaps it may just be that you took a wrong turn down an inappropriate avenue. You may find in what follows that I somewhat agree with your position, and that I have some proposals on how to handle those "inaccuracies".

So I am well aware of the inadequacies of mathematics. But I am surprised that you don't seem to be.

I've identified several of them myself, certainly. But my own review of history tells me we have had our greatest successess in continued refinement of older models. Evolution, not revolution. More on this below.

In fact I would probably trash Einstein's metric tensor approach completely and start from scratch.

I find it amusing that you outright reject some very good work done by your chosen namesake! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I would say Einstein's metric tensor approach just needs some tweaking, not wholesale trashing... keep reading...

Be forwarned that it is not going to be off the shelf tried and true trim to fit equations. But in a nutshell you just need some mathematics to show how time length and mass change at each point in space relative to your stationary time traveler.

Agreed on both counts. Not tried and true, off the shelf. But we can take what it on the shelf, and tweak it with some new understandings from complex dynamics and (IMHO) it will do just fine. And on count #2, this is precisely what I have been able to do with my own Massive SpaceTime tensor theory.

So I have a force field model here that tends to connect the behavior of the electron with a hypothetical behavior of a rotating gravity field.

Sorry. I need to see the equation expressed in an evaluatable (equation) form before I can accept what you say.

You're giving too much credit to math.

That's funny, because I think you are selling it much too short and not giving it enough credit. Certainly there are errors in some mathematical approaches, but we are learning how to address those areas. And again I will point out that the greatest advancements in this area have been due to Chaos and non-linear dynamics. This area has opened up a great many people's eyes...mine included.

At present our understanding of math and how to apply it to the universe we exist within is sorely lacking. The concept of zero and infinity doesn't have a place in our universe.

This may be an example of where you have failed to look in a specific mathematical area before coming to your conclusion. In point of fact, chaotic dynamics (an extension of control system dynamical analysis that has been around for years) has as its most prominent features the concepts of "poles" (infinite divide-by-zeros) and "zeros" in how energy (which is comprised of Mass, Space, and Time) is modeled. All of my work in control systems has been in complex plane analysis, and other areas of science are now just catching up to this form of mathematics as a result of the popularity of Chaos Theory and Chaotic Dynamics. I assure you, this is precisely where the "tweaking" of our existing mathematical knowledge lies that will help us realign our math models with what we percieve as our reality.

So you seem to be giving credit to a tool that we can't seem to get to fit. Somebody has to fix the math.

That is what I have been doing, and this is where I have had a fair amount of success. The key involves the intersection of closed-loop theory and information theory.

The math that I need to apply to the visualizations that I see does not exist yet.

What if I told you that it has actually existed for a very long time, but that it has been "encoded" in such a way that many people could not see it, and therefore were not aware of it? Have you been paying attention to some of the discussions I have here with the likes of OvrLrdLegion and Zerubabbel? Within the qabalah are forms of mathematics that many hard-line scientists used to dismiss as "nothing but religious mysticism". However, as time ticks by, more and more evidence is surfacing that shows that such a dismissal of this knowledge is incorrect.

My mathematical description would sit on a shelf for 500 hundred years.

As I say above, it has been on the shelf much longer than that already! It is time to dust it off and explain it in SCIENTIFIC terms to people... peeling away the mysticism.

If I started right here, the first thing that goes out the window is integration.

Oh no. No, no, no. That simply will not do. You are going to throw out the baby with the bathwater if you do that, sir!

Because if you throw out the integral, you must also throw out the derivative. And if you do that, the entire foundation of differential equations would necessarily crumble. Again I implore you to think "evolution not revolution". I have a feeling I know what some of your "issues" are with integration, and they may very well be the same ones I had which lead me to tweaking these elements of calculus with the techniques of complex (non-linear) dynamics. My Massive SpaceTime model validates differential calculus and shows where it comes from in terms of the orthogonal metrics we call Mass, Space, and Time. One of the "problems" with the current, classical teaching of integrals is related to the "initial condition". When you add closed-loop dynamics to the mix, the concept of the "initial condition" essentially goes away. Or, to explain it better, the concept of IC becomes inherent to the timelines (worldlines) of any dynamical system that is described by a set of tensor differential equations that have inherent feedback loops within them.

We have been throwing away the essential "secret" of this form of math for at least a century now. The "secret" is that all of those higher order differential terms, which we have usually said are "insignificant", are really the piece of the puzzle that will allow us to achieve non-linear, controllable responses of any dynamical system. In the world of control systems, we have always developed linearized control laws to control an inherently non-linear system. In doing so we are neglecting the true power of closed-loop systems, and this is where most (if not all) of the "wasted heat energy" derives from in such systems. I can give you many examples of recent advances which, once we included the non-linear, higher-order derivative terms in our designs, we have been able to achieve much higher efficiencies. Let's start with your cell phone. They have gotten smaller, use less power, and have a greatly improved signal-to-noise ratio in their performance. How? It's all thanks to employing non-linear terms into the design, rather than throwing them away as if they were a nuisance.

I think you should reconsider your harsh stance on math. And perhaps look into the material I have discussed above because, as I say, it has been around a LONG time, and we are just now uncovering the science behind the mysticism.

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

I do like a good healthy debate.

Lets start here:

So I have a force field model here that tends to connect the behavior of the electron with a hypothetical behavior of a rotating gravity field.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry. I need to see the equation expressed in an evaluatable (equation) form before I can accept what you say.

Sorry, no equation available. I found a better tool to use along the way and have been using it ever since. The art of visualization. Actually I learned it from my namesake. Einstein uses visualization descriptions to the max in describing lots of mathematical situations. I read them all with tremendous fascination. So I started looking at the universe from that kind of perspective. I personally think it is superior to any form of math in existance. After all the math originated from visualization in the first place.

So lets do a little visualization with a gravity field. Start with an object in orbit. At some specific altitude an object in orbit has a two hour orbital period. At that altitude the object is weightless. Now I am treating the gravity field as the base frame for the orbital period. So the question I now pose is: is the object rotating through the gravity field? Or is the gravity field rotating through the object? Is there a difference? The situation is entirely hypothetical, but lets just suppose that we could rotate the gravity field instead. If that were the case then the object would appear to just hover at the orbital altitude. Now if we increase the rotational rate of the gravity field, the altitude of the object then experiences a force in the opposite direction of the gravity field. The object seems to go from a hover position to being pushed away. Depending on how fast the gravity field is rotating would determine how much force of repulsion would be felt by the object. Suppose the gravity field was now rotating at a period of only 90 minutes. The orbital altitude for a 90 minute rotation period is much closer. But because the gravity field is rotating, the altitude would just be looked at as the hoverpoint altitude. Anything on the inside of the hoverpoint altitude is still held in place by gravity. Anything on the outside is pushed away. This is a way to turn a gravity field into an anti-gravity field. If the earths gravity field were to start rotating, the earth would leave the solar system. This is where I seen the similarity to an atom subjected to voltage. With enough voltage an atom will release electrons. Of course then when viewed this way it becomes apparent that the charge on the electron is undergoing reversal when subjected to voltage. A slight modification to current electrostatic law. Is it right? Is it wrong? Its just a visualization with an interesting outcome.

The math that I need to apply to the visualizations that I see does not exist yet.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What if I told you that it has actually existed for a very long time, but that it has been "encoded" in such a way that many people could not see it, and therefore were not aware of it? Have you been paying attention to some of the discussions I have here with the likes of OvrLrdLegion and Zerubabbel? Within the qabalah are forms of mathematics that many hard-line scientists used to dismiss as "nothing but religious mysticism". However, as time ticks by, more and more evidence is surfacing that shows that such a dismissal of this knowledge is incorrect.

I will agree that I am very harsh on the use of math to describe our reality. Its like asking me to go saw a log in half and then you give me a screwdriver to do it. We're using the wrong tool! Learn to use your mind instead. Its the best tool you got. I will agree that I would like to use math. But I don't think we are ready untill we know all the rules to abide by. There may be some mathematical operations yet to be discovered that we don't even have a clue yet as to their existance. Of course I know somebody has the math all worked out. Have you heard about TAW-50? Classified. So the only way I'm even going to find out about the math to do it is to figure it out on my own. But I think even that is presenting itself to me.

Yesterday afternoon I made an interesting observation that does lead to some startling conclusions. Experimenting again. I put my Tesla Coil ouput terminal inside my Anti-Gravity coil and turned them both on to watch what would happen. The two aluminum discs actually touched and stayed attached while being repelled from the Anti-Gravity coil. After a bit I turned off the setup. The two aluminum discs were still sticking to each other on the edge. I gave a little flick with my finger. They separated and then moved about an inch apart. That was interesting because normally they hang just 1/4 inch apart. They were experiencing some kind of repulsive force. Kind of like they had been charged up with anti-gravity. This is with the coils off. I have seen something similar with just the Tesla Coil making the discs stick together also. Trying to separate them by pulling them apart doesn't work. They just go back to being stuck together. A couple of days ago I found out that passing the flame from a blow torch across the stuck discs makes them let go. So I tried the same thing with the anti-gravity charged up discs. It worked. After passing the flame over the discs, their repulsion to each other stopped. They now were hanging normally just 1/4 inch apart. I tried it again. Same thing. The experiment is repeatable. But what gets me is that the discs actually start out sticking together in the presence of the repulsive force. It's like the gravity and anti-gravity make two different kinds of space. Both are present but independent of each other. A short range attractive force and a long range repulsive force. That sounds familiar. But anyway I start thinking about the independant nature of the two forces. It's like the quantum length for each force has different parameters. And both kinds of length were acting along the same direction. Then it occurred to me that mass produced gravity also may have its own quantum length parameter. So we could have three kinds of quantum length acting in one direction. Three directions of 3-D space adds up to nine total when counting the different quantum length states. But thats six more than we currently think we have. Or is it? Isn't there supposed to be six curled up dimensions?

The thing that I notice is that magnetic gravity and electric gravity may not always be in the on state. But when they are, it would definitely contribute to non-linearity. Does this sound interesting to you? It does to me, cause it looks the the answer.

If I started right here, the first thing that goes out the window is integration.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh no. No, no, no. That simply will not do. You are going to throw out the baby with the bathwater if you do that, sir! Because if you throw out the integral, you must also throw out the derivative. And if you do that, the entire foundation of differential equations would necessarily crumble. Again I implore you to think "evolution not revolution". I have a feeling I know what some of your "issues" are with integration, and they may very well be the same ones I had which lead me to tweaking these elements of calculus with the techniques of complex (non-linear) dynamics. My Massive SpaceTime model validates differential calculus and shows where it comes from in terms of the orthogonal metrics we call Mass, Space, and Time. One of the "problems" with the current, classical teaching of integrals is related to the "initial condition". When you add closed-loop dynamics to the mix, the concept of the "initial condition" essentially goes away. Or, to explain it better, the concept of IC becomes inherent to the timelines (worldlines) of any dynamical system that is described by a set of tensor differential equations that have inherent feedback loops within them.

OK, I agree integration has its place. But it just might not be needed in figuring out basic spacetime parameters. You're probably using extremely complex mathematics to calculate outcomes when you could be creating the non linearity from some basic definable quantum length parameters.

I think you should reconsider your harsh stance on math. And perhaps look into the material I have discussed above because, as I say, it has been around a LONG time, and we are just now uncovering the science behind the mysticism.

I don't think it's such a harsh stance. I just took a different path. Probably a shortcut. But seriously, I really don't think there is just one path or one solution. In my quests for understanding I find it to be quite advantagous to have a variety of ways to comprehend something. So I suppose there probably is a way to make a metric tensor do what it needs to do in a dynamic situation. There probably is a way to apply integration to spacetime. And it's starting to look like ten dimensional spacetime is also an unexpected avenue to explore for me.

Well that was fun. I have to go wind a spiral flat coil and see what new surprises await to be discovered. I was analyzing the dynamics of an electron traversing the spiral in my mind the other day. There is an additional secondary magnetic field that I am very interested in investigating.

 

[Good_Scientist]

(The physics student cracks his knuckles) All right lads!

Good Scientist

 

[MadIce]

You know that the both Einsteins look very alike?

(Maurice Solovin, Einstein’s close friend during the period just after he graduated from the ETH - the Zürich Polytechnic, remembers that "Einstein... often spoke against abusive use of mathematics in physics. Physics, he would say, is essentially a concrete and intuitive science." "I do not believe in mathematics", Einstein is reported to have affirmed before 1910 - see Pyenson 85, p.21, and references cited there.)

Einstein and Hilbert: The Creation of General Relativity by Ivan T. Todorov.

When I read this thread it made made me think of the above paper. Of couse Einstein later changed his mind.

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Einstein,

I found a better tool to use along the way and have been using it ever since. The art of visualization. Actually I learned it from my namesake. Einstein uses visualization descriptions to the max in describing lots of mathematical situations.

Certainly visualizations are a key part to any person's inquiry into and understanding of a phenomenon. However, there is much that can be lost in transforming a visualization into prose. And not only can information be lost, but it can be skewed and distorted, if not simply left to give incorrect denotations by one who would read the prose to get an idea of the original visualization. This is, and always has been, the mainstay of the tools of both mathematics and diagramming. They are standardized languages that eliminate a large part of the variability of prose for conveying visualizations.

I personally think it is superior to any form of math in existance.

Not if it can obfuscate or distort information. See above. One of the theories I have been pursuing, and for which a great deal of existing scientific inquiry is beginning to support, is that information is an equivalent to energy. Transformations of energy and information not only realize "losses" (i.e. information and energy going to places and having effects that were unintended by the transformation), but they also distort the "reality" of the original phenomenon. It has been well demonstrated that free-style prose, without strict rules for encoding/decoding such transformations, is a great deal more "lossy" than standardized languages, such as mathematics.

So lets do a little visualization with a gravity field. Start with an object in orbit. At some specific altitude an object in orbit has a two hour orbital period. At that altitude the object is weightless.

This is why I avoid prose as a means to define a dynamic state of any body... as it will take me much more time and energy to dissect your statements, in order to understand what you are truly saying, than it would by seeing free body diagrams with their associated mathematical relations. Why do you say the object is weightless? It has mass. And just because it may coincidentally have no measureable\ acceleration with respect to an arbitrary frame of reference does not mean it's acceleration vector vanishes in all other frames of reference. I could waste much more of my own prose in asking you questions about this one, little, seemingly innocuous statement you have made. But why should I? Again, without meaning to offend, it is not worth my time to dissect your prose, as it is not codified in an orthogonal set of information.

Incidentally, this is a large part of my theory for how information and energy interact. I am working on a book in systems engineering which deals with how we can specify a system's information in an orthonormal set (called the Operational, Functional, and Physical design domains). Doing this with the requirements for a system (its information) will therefore allow a minimal loss transformation of that information in converting these design requirements into the energy processing system itself. And this system engineering method I am developing is based upon tensor mathematics...go figure!

Orthogonality is important in all quantifications of science. And this is why I do not engage you in any of your prose descriptions. It appears they are "lossy", and non-orthogonal in the way they transform your visualizations into information. Besides your prose, what do you think of free body diagramming? You know that this is the first step in analyzing a problem and being able to select the appropriate maths to help quantify it.

Its like asking me to go saw a log in half and then you give me a screwdriver to do it. We're using the wrong tool!

I do not agree that your analogy is correct. In other words, I think your analogy and the successful use of math are non-orthogonal to one another.

Math is one tool, a very powerful one, but not the only tool.

Learn to use your mind instead. Its the best tool you got.

I certainly do not disagree with this statement. However, see my discussion above about energy and information transformations from your mind to the extant world. It might be another factor in why it seems that people are not taking notice of your lab work. Math is a language that all people of science speak. It allows the closest means to achieving orthogonal information transmission from one to another. While you may not want to have to codify your work in math, you may very well have to in order to help others understand. Do you understand? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Does this sound interesting to you?

There are tidbits in the prose that appear interesting. But what we do next seems to be where we diverge. You seem to either want to continue the visualization in your mind, or discuss it in prose. Whereas my initial step is to wish to quantify what you are saying more rigorously, and that means FBDs and maths.

But it just might not be needed in figuring out basic spacetime parameters.

I can show you (of course, mathematically) that it is not only required, but it is a necessary outcome of any orthonormal set of basis metrics. The orthonormal basis metrics that we discuss and use in physics are Mass, Space, and Time. Visualize these metrics as forming a triangle. the links that connect the vertices of this triangle represent differential operators. The link that connects the Space and Time vertices represents dS/dt in one direction, and dt/dS in the other direction. This is how the concept and metric of velocity (Motion) arises from these two elements of the orthonormal basis metrics that I call Massive SpaceTime.

You're probably using extremely complex mathematics to calculate outcomes when you could be creating the non linearity from some basic definable quantum length parameters.

You'd be surprised how simple the maths are that describe this. No, you are incorrect in your supposition here. Remember my discussions of closed-loop, recursive phenomenon? This is what permits accurate modeling of non-linear effects using simple, linear equations as the basis. And what you say about a quantum length parameter is partially true. But it cannot all be boiled down to ONLY a quantum length. Because length is only one of the three orthonormal basis metrics (Space). Length is a one-dimensional component of the metric we call Space. You are omitting the other two metrics of Mass and Time. Our reality is an interwoven 3x3 matrix of Massive SpaceTime. And I am able to show this by starting with existing maths, and simply adding a powerful new feature (closed-loop, self-referential recursion) to describe this interwoven matrix.

And it's starting to look like ten dimensional spacetime is also an unexpected avenue to explore for me.

Or perhaps nine dimensional Massive SpaceTime, which gives rise to our perceived reality...which we might be able to Visualize as a tenth dimension?

Laying aside our disagreement on math vs. prose, what are your plans for greater instrumentation of your experiments? It is good you are using an accelerometer, but as I had mentioned before, I think you are going to need things like accurate position sensing, and rate control devices such as a rate table. If you do not wish to embark upon mathematically defining a model for what you are seeing, then you will have to take high-quality empirical data to be able to show to others before they are going to potentially agree with your visualizations, and beliefs that you have cracked the gravity nut.

Best Regards,
RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

Laying aside our disagreement on math vs. prose, what are your plans for greater instrumentation of your experiments? It is good you are using an accelerometer, but as I had mentioned before, I think you are going to need things like accurate position sensing, and rate control devices such as a rate table. If you do not wish to embark upon mathematically defining a model for what you are seeing, then you will have to take high-quality empirical data to be able to show to others before they are going to potentially agree with your visualizations, and beliefs that you have cracked the gravity nut.

Initially I knew using the accelerometer would definitely let me know if I had a very small gravity force present. Just recently I added a homemade high voltage probe to my arsenal. It helped me tune my tesla coil for maximum voltage output. But it turns out that the maximum voltage output is not where the maximum gravity output is. But now it is starting to look like I may have stumbled upon something that is just as basic as a gasoline engine. The anti-gravity force generator can be rapidly improved.

A couple of days ago I was thinking about the force field dynamics of an electron traveling through a spiral coil. Running the visualization through my mind, I happened to notice that the electron actually experiences an additional acceleration to its path through the spiral coil. As the electron approaches the center of the coil, its velocity toward the center accelerates. The direction of acceleration is at right angles to the direction it is moving through the spiral. That additional acceleration direction should give rise to a secondary magnetic field. The secondary magnetic field would be parallel to the windings of the spiral coil. The thing that I notice is that the secondary magnetic field isn't connected to the coil because there is nothing in the center of the secondary field. The field just briefly comes into existance during the electrons passage through the spiral. I reason that the additional field should create a push against anything present when it comes into existance. So I decided to make a spiral coil and check out my theory. I hooked the spiral coil up to my gravity field generator in place of the solenoid coil I had there previously. The anti-gravity force is markedly increased. Check out this little movie clip I made:

Anti_Gravity using spiral coil

Compare it to the first clip and you will see the amount of acceleration appears to be doubled. And I think I might be able to get more performance still by using three smaller spirals that add up to the same resistance as the larger spiral. And still even more output by using additional amplifier circuits feeding more spirals. I suspect it wont be long before my force output is well over one gee.

The spiral coil is what Nikola Tesla was experimenting with also. I suspect he was using it with an alternating current to create the longitudinal waves he was talking about over a century ago. He claimed the longitudinal waves traveled faster than light. And here I find out that by just using half the wave, I can make mass move.

I notice you didn't say anything about the TAW-50. What about the TR3-B? If these things are real, and I suspect they are, then it's likely nobody will get the credit for cracking the gravity nut. And the mathematical framework for what I am uncovering may already exist and be in place. But I don't think you quite grasped what I meant by quantum length. There appears to be three types of quantum length. Each type would have three dimensions of direction. That is how I got nine dimensions of length and one of time. I think I already introduced you to the idea that mass could be described as just compressed length. But the extra dimensions of length are only present when the other gravity type forces are present. The magnetic gravity I just uncovered is normally not present. The electric field gravity also is normally not present. I'm just saying that the quantum of length for each of these fields has a different parameter. That implies that each of these fields is like a different kind of space. So if all ten dimensions were present at one time, severe non-linearity would result. Chaos. And it does explain why we don't see the extra six dimensions. The conditions needed for the other six to exist are normally not present. And that does suggest that the four we do exist within, could possibly be turned off. By looking at the way the other six are turned on, clues may present themselves as to how the four we have, maintain their existance, and of course can be manipulated.

 

[RainmanTime]

Einstein,

I notice you didn't say anything about the TAW-50. What about the TR3-B? If these things are real, and I suspect they are,

Immediately I would ask you: based on what evidence do you suspect they are real? When I first read your mention of TAW-50, I didn't think you were serious about wanting my opinion. If you had said Aurora I might have taken it more seriously.

So far, the only "facts" surrounding the TAW-50 story is that it is just that... a story that is being told by Dr. Richard O'Boylan. Note he is not a doctor of the physical sciences, he is an anthropologist. He is lucky enough to be able to put "Dr." next to his name and so this makes some people gullible enough to believe his stories. I can assure you not only that the TAW-50 as described by Dr. O'Boylan does NOT exist, but also that O'Boylan's "source" (if there really is any such source) is feeding the good doctor (an anthropologist) these wild stories for the purpose of disinformation... to feed the masses (through an anthropologist, what better medium?) the kind of far-out UFO story that gullible people are want to believe. In fact, simply BECAUSE he is an anthropologist does not make him above suspicion for cooking up this whole story on his own to see how it would affect the cultural fabric... in other words, as a research experiment. You know Carlos Castaneda was an anthropologist who carved out a nice living for himself doing the same thing, right? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

So here's the question for you about Dr. O'Boylan's story, Einstein: Why would you be willing to believe a story from him (an outsider with respect to the aerospace industry) over someone like me, who actually works for Northrop-Grumman? Perhaps it's because you would think I am more likely to be a disinfo agent than some harmless "country doctor" (anthropologist)?

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

So here's the question for you about Dr. O'Boylan's story, Einstein: Why would you be willing to believe a story from him (an outsider with respect to the aerospace industry) over someone like me, who actually works for Northrop-Grumman? Perhaps it's because you would think I am more likely to be a disinfo agent than some harmless "country doctor" (anthropologist)?

Not at all. I just have an open mind. I also have unlimited patience. Of course now you have my interest. I analyze everthing you know. But you never told me any stories about any ultra advanced aircraft now have you? I would love to hear about them. Especially about any new type of cloaking technology. I just can't seem to stop thinking about length quantums. I wonder if a length quantums size is adjustable? And if it is, are there negative length quantums? I can't even fathom what an object composed of negative length would look like.

 

[Einstein]

More Power!

I decided to see if I could get more performance out of my gravity amplifier by using smaller diameter spiral coils. That way I would have to use several spiral coils stacked together. I figured it would act like a battery with the multi-layered spiral coil. My target total resistance of all the coils combined could only add up to one ohm. So I chose a 4 inch diameter coil to start with. It turned out I needed four of them. The total resistance wound up being .97 ohms. Close enough. It took the better part of the day to complete. But my endeavor turned out to be very successful. Check out this small movie clip I made:

Improved Spiral Coil Design

The metal disc I am using is made of magnesium and weighs 36 grams. The previous discs were of aluminum and only weighed 2 grams. Another thing I might mention is that in the previous movie clips I was pulsing the power on and off to get the weights to swing. In this movie clip I didn't have to do that. I estimate that my force ouput is 100 times greater using this new spiral coil design.

 

[1122]

Einstein,

I keep waiting for you to lay one of these on the table and pulsate an object above it.

 

[Guest]

great, keep up the experiments. Just saw the videos, impressive. But still long to go. That looks like EM force, depends on how strong that coil is. It looks pretty big, is that a big heavy electro magnet? coil?

ive been observing smoke, its very light and ive observed smoke go close to solid objects.

 

[Einstein]

mavrix

That looks like EM force, depends on how strong that coil is. It looks pretty big, is that a big heavy electro magnet? coil?

It is magnetic. However the magnetic field is not static like it is in regular electromagnets. The magnetic field is turned on at a high value and allowed to decline in intensity. The cycle is repeated about 250 time a second. Surprisingly this is just a different version of something else you can read about. A mass launcher is very similar to this. Only thing with the mass launcher is that a very large charge is applied to a capacitor and then just one discharge occurs. The difference between this and a mass launcher is that I have toned down the initial size of the charge on the capacitor and made it into a continuous applied force. Lots of little pushes rather than just one big push.

 

[RainmanTime]

Hi Einstein:

But you never told me any stories about any ultra advanced aircraft now have you? I would love to hear about them.

I'm sure you would. And the fact of whether or not you get information on ultra-advanced aircraft, and HOW MUCH information you get, would be a good thing to use as a barometer as to whether the info is believeable. In general, if you see LOTS of detailed information (as in O'Boylan's missives) the odds are it is bogus. For example: I can tell you I am working on an advanced aircraft. The X-47B JUCAS. The more obvious advanced features are that it is unmanned and autonomous. It's also not a stretch to add stealthy to this list. Details beyond this (i.e. what is in the public domain if you google the above) you will not see coming from me, or anyone else involved who wishes to stay out of jail. While I applaud an "open mind", the first area where I would think you would want to discriminate claims such as O'Boylans would be with regard to who is going to risk their job, living, and freedom to give real details of a secret project to some anthro who is going to blab it all over the internet? Is it more likely that this information is real (coming from someone who really has the facts), or is it more likely it is coming from a source of disinformation (whether intended or not)?

RMT