Gravity - just pure plain GRAVITY

[Peter Lindemann]

Latest Gravity Data

Hi Guys,

Here is an article from the BBC discussing the latest data received by the European GOCE satellite. It doesn't discuss what gravity IS, but it does discuss the latest data about how non-uniform the gravity field is over the globe. Enjoy.

BBC News - Europe's Goce satellite probes Earth's gravity

Peter

[Aromaz]

Hi Guys,

Here is an article from the BBC discussing the latest data received by the European GOCE satellite. It doesn't discuss what gravity IS, but it does discuss the latest data about how non-uniform the gravity field is over the globe. Enjoy.

BBC News - Europe's Goce satellite probes Earth's gravity

Peter

@ Peter, Thanks for this heads up. Very interesting indeed - and very related too. First thing I noticed is the GRIT! Long and much talked about - and stated to be "Pseudoscience" by those who knew better!
For the first time there is now physical prove of an old concept with gravity lines intersecting - Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer. Quite strange these lines!

OK, here is a take form me; based on the theory I promote; pushing gravity. Very exciting indeed. Take a geographical map i.e. Google Earth. Not the blue areas - they are all located over mountains or major ridges. The red areas are in valleys; The mountain areas block more 'gravitons' passing through the earth, but can not absorb them, so these are re-directed and come out on the side of such mountain - thus you have very high gravity fields along the edges of the mountains.

Another interesting thing - knowing the sea bed formation; under the deep waters it seems the gravity is more 'balanced' except for the gravity grit lines. So water disperses the gravity fields. Much more to look and wonder about here.

Studying this map - NASA and other space agencies can relocate to 'blue' areas and have less gravity for launching; will also be higher up from sea leavel, shorted distance to exit ....

[Cloxxki]

Studying this map - NASA and other space agencies can relocate to 'blue' areas and have less gravity for launching; will also be higher up from sea leavel, shorted distance to exit ....

Would it not be easier to relocate to the top of a mountain in a climate with low winds, to make launch easier? That tiny bit less gravitational pull...the slightest variance in ambient atmospheric pressure negates that. 1- because air drag ramps up as you'll know 2- because there is much more variance in sea level air pressure. It would make sence if rockets were dependant on air intakes and slow speed excape.

I never understood why after 40 years of moon landings, the pay load of a rocket is still less than half a turkey, and launches can only coincide with blue moons for weather reasons. If it's that hard, how did we manage before flat screens and PC's?

Just messing with you a bit Aromaz, you're posting excellent stuff, this was probabaly just tongue-in-cheek on your part. I'll keep reading your posts, as I'm sure you're on to someone, or will spark someone else's Eureka moment regarding gravity.
Happy Christmas, to those into that sort of thing.

[jtstatic]

Coats & Schauberger - Living Energies (2001)

I was just reading this and noticed how certain questions appear in the book that were proposed here. Regarding mountain tops and sea for example..

Page 14 in the orginal book (page 20 in e-book).

Although I guess most of you have already probably read this, I think it's worth digging up in this context.

[Aromaz]

@Cloxxki;Sounds like we are sharing at least one more item: I do not belive in Xmas at all and even feel somewhat agrevated by this wrong-wrong day.

Anyway, though you are joking: There is no valid reason for not launching from mountains - Anyway - China does form high alt plateau. Landing on the other hand is better near sea just for the incase.

I hope I will be my own Eureka creator. Now my new place is 'open door' I am already fiddling and think I am onto the right track.

[Aromaz]

Coats & Schauberger - Living Energies (2001)

I was just reading this and noticed how certain questions appear in the book that were proposed here. Regarding mountain tops and sea for example..

Page 14 in the orginal book (page 20 in e-book).

Although I guess most of you have already probably read this, I think it's worth digging up in this context.

THANKS ! I wish I had the whole book on my shelf!

My kind of man - one who looks with a look that see what he is looking at.

Only: where are the answers? At least some of them seems to be answered in the mean time - and if we do accept pushing gravity; many more does make sense.

[CloudSeeder]

What Energy Wants => The Ground

1. Electricity seeks the ground.
2. Lightning seeks the ground.
3. Aether seeks the ground.

Most people think the ground pulls the aether.
Perhaps we still want to think we're the center...

[CloudSeeder]

Low Mass Energy Draws a Bead on High Mass Matter => Reverse Bullets

Low Mass Energy Draws a Bead on High Mass Matter is a difficult concept because it's backwards => we think in terms of atomic explosions beginning with a small bead and spreading outward. It's like bullets reversing their course and returning to the barrel. But, it is similar to lightning. Both lightning and electricity give us two precedents to know the third has to also exist.

The grab is we can see lightning but cannot see aether energy. We can't see electricity but we sure can feel it, proof enough. We made a baby step forward by making so many motors and gadgets so we know the invisible electric is undeniable.

If our eyes could see aether energy that's all we would see. This invisible quality is why it's such a tough sell. Floyd Sweet "saw it" in his mind as having to be there, developed his Triode Vacuum Amplifier based on what he accepted -and therefore knew- was there. He treated the invisible as being visible. Whoever does that again has to be willing to do the same thing. Very few people are able to do that.

Aether is spread real thin as energy sources go. Yet with the extremely insignificant Mass we know how abundantly thick it must be. So this abundant but individually thin energy has to be gathered, collected like wheat waving in a field. So a "honey pot" is needed that attracts it <> some sort of antenna-behaving system connected to the weak side of a circuit that allows this waterfall of energy to pour into a micro step-up transformer process that bumps it up to the heavy 60 Hz current we need it to be.

Floyd Sweet did reverse backwards somersault thinking to engineer and build a collection system for the invisible-thin energy to pour into because it wanted to, not by forcing and controlling it to do so (which is the way most engineers think: force and control). He set out a pot of honey circuit the aether could not resist. Sweet provided aether pressure a place to call Home like the other two energies. The aether wants a Home <> the aether wants to be used.

Aromaz, I think you and your new lab are the right place at the right time. My guess is that Sweet may have made a vacuum tube that acts as a step up transformer. It might have pulled the electrons off one of the plates at intervals and, as his system pulled the electrons OFF the plate the aether was shoving more electrons on the plate. If you can get as turned around backwards as Sweet was, you can do it. The aether is begging to be used.

This is not an a,b,c or x,y,z trick. Write the equation backwards starting with what you want coming out (60 Hz) ='s an assumed extremely weak variable exists on the other side, then fill in the middle with whatever electro~mechanical device makes it happen. Sweet's machine. Once his machine is replicated and onboard a craft that needs the electricity you have anti-Gravity Power and Space Travel and enough power to power up Aaron's energy hog space warp system. It takes aether@Power to defeat aether@Distance.

[Vortex]

found something.
Breaking the Law of Gravity By Charles Platt
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6...ravity_pr.html

A Eugene Podkletnov story can be found here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post49388

Worth noting:
Institute for New Energy Web Sites

[Shamus]

Thinking is VERY dangerous

In the mean time: I was thinking (dangerous!) today about this gravity and all these potential variables and actions we got so accustomed to see. Amongst I pondered the LIFTER for much over past week or so; How and what exactly;

My Question #1: Why did NOBODY ever tried to expand on it; beyond the lifter design? A complete different kind of design?

Secondly I ponder this HV COIL GUN. I wondered how come this force is not only effective on electrical or magnetic material; but even on plastic, fruit, vegetables - just anything whatsoever. That is a VERY strong explosive force; repulsive and severe. Now I started wondering ….

My Question #2: Is it not possible that the coil gun is in effect a sort of counter gravity device. ...

Yes Corrie, thinking is very dangerous and is no doubt behind the push to make teaching one's own children illegal.

I think the answer to #1 is that JLN was exploring different designs. As to why he either quit or remained silent on further exploration of those ideas is anyone's guess.

As to #2, I think you may be right--especially when you take Aaron's quote about the object going through the roof. If gravity is a pushing force, then nullifying it in a small area would do what you describe.

Now my question for you is, where can I find instructions for these HV coil guns that shoot non-magnetic projectiles? My search-fu seems to be weak these days as all I can find is instructions for magnetic projectile HV coil guns.

[Aaron]

gravity

found something.
Breaking the Law of Gravity By Charles Platt
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6...ravity_pr.html

A Eugene Podkletnov story can be found here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...html#post49388

Worth noting:
Institute for New Energy Web Sites

That wired article is interesting. I posted somewhere in this forum
about a rotating superconductor and having something above it
lose weight but can't find it.

This is opposite of shielding gravity from the top but with the
effect of the "column" going upwards might be related to the object
at my friend's uncle's shop going straight upwards.

That article mentions the van de graff effect of knocking over objects,
etc... that sounds like some variation of what Hutchinson does... something
like mixing van de graff with another hv coil and aiming it at object causes
them to move and do funny things.

[Aromaz]

@Shamus;

JLN = I heard/believe: Had disagreement with his financier who withdrew, then they run out of money and shut down. Was in fact quite a large setup with number of employees.

Now my question for you is, where can I find instructions for these HV coil guns that shoot non-magnetic projectiles?

It was not COIL GUN in the full sense like long barrel with spaced electromagnets. It was a series of experiments on YouTube some time ago (I am trying to find those video copies amongst my 10,000') but in this the bloke used 'supercharged' pancake coils. He shot copper, aluminum, steel, rubber, plastic, glass, orange, tennis ball etc. some things like watermellon just exploded. Sometimes he also exploded his pancake coils.

What stuck with me is when the environment gets so densly charged with the elctricity, anything goes.

[Inquorate]

Explosive force from abrupt release of aether, causing electrons to spin so violently that the atomic bonds are annihilated...

Way cool.

2010 will be waaay cool.

[sucahyo]

This is a very small part of what Dr. Faraday said in "The correlation and conservation of forces (1864)", www.archive.org, page 363:

I will endeavour to illustrate some of the points which have been urged, by reference, in the first instance, to a case of power, which has long had great attractions for me, because of its extreme simplicity, its promising nature, its universal presence, and in its invariability under like circumstances ; on which, though I have experimented * and as yet failed, I think experiment would be well bestowed, I mean the force of gravitation. I believe I represent the received idea of the gravitating force aright in saying that it is a simple attractive force exerted between any two or all the particles or masses of matter, at every sensible distance, but with a strength varying inversely as the square of the distance. The usual idea of the force implies direct action at a distance ; and such a view appears to present little difficulty except to Newton, and a few, including myself, who in that respect may be of like mind with him.

This idea of gravity appears to me to ignore entirely the principle of the conservation of force ; and by the terms of its definition, if taken in an absolute sense, "varying inversely as the square of the distance," to be in direct opposition to it, and it becomes my duty now to point out where this contradiction occurs, and to use it in illustration of the principle of conservation. Assume two particles of matter, A and B, in free space, and a force in each or in both by which they gravitate towards each other, the force being unalterable for an unchanging distance, but varying inversely as the square of the distance when the latter varies. Then, at the distance of ten, the force may be estimated as one ; whilst at the distance of one, that is, one-tenth of the former, the force will be one hundred ; and if we suppose an elastic spring to be introduced between the two as a measure of the attractive force, the power compressing it will be a hundred times as much in the latter case as in the former. But from whence can this enormous increase of power come ? If we say that it is the character of this force, and content ourselves with that as a sufficient answer, then it appears to me we admit a creation of power and that to an enormous amount ; yet by a change of condition, so small and simple as to fail in leading the least instructed mind to think that it can be a sufficient cause, we should admit a result which would equal the highest act our minds can appreciate of the working of infinite power upon matter ; we should let loose the highest law in physical science which our faculties permit us to perceive, namely, the conservation of force. Suppose the two particles, A and B, removed back to the greater distance of ten, then the force of attraction would be only a hundredth part of that they previously possessed ; this, according to the statement that the force varies inversely as the square of the distance, would double the strangeness of the above results ; it would be an annihilation of force an effect equal in its infinity and its consequences with creation, and only within the power of Him who has created.


.....

That there should be a power of gravitation existing by itself, having no relation to the other natural powers, and no respect to the law of the conservation of force, is as little likely as that there should be a principle of levity as well as of gravity. Gravity may be only the residual part of the other forces of nature, as Mositi has tried to show ; but that it should fall out from the law of all other force, and should be outside the reach either of further experiment or philosophical conclusions, is not probable.
....

Returning once more to the definition of the gravitating power as " a simple attractive force exerted between any two or all the particles or masses of matter at every sensible distance, but with a STRENGTH VARYING inversely as the square of the distance," I ought perhaps to suppose there are many who accept this as a true and sufficient description of the force, and who therefore, in relation to it, deny the principle of conservation. If both are accepted and are thought to be consistent with each other, it cannot be difficult to add words which shall make "varying strength" and "conservation" agree together. It cannot be said that the definition merely applies to the effects of gravitation as far as we know them.

I omit a huge part of explanation. I assume these parts is sufficient to prove that Faraday do not force strict implementation of conservation of force theory ........, uh wait, after I read it again I am not sure lol.

The book also contain opinion of W. R GROVE, PROF. HELMHOLTZ, J R MAYER, PROF. LIEBIG, and DR. CARPENTER.

[Aaron]

Gravity papers

Yahoo! Groups

I posted online about 5 years ago for these documents but the only
reference I got was the library of congress reference. Here it is 5
years later, perhaps more is online?

Does anyone have these? English is preferable

The Library of Congress has both. [ catalog.loc.gov ]
Know anybody in Washington D.C.?

LC Control Number: 32005270
Brief Description: Hilgenberg, Ott Christoph.
Über gravitation, tromben und wellen in bewegten
medien, von O.C. Hilgenberg. 2 tafeln, 29 abbildungen.
Charlottenburg, O.C. Hilgenberg [c1931]
1 p. l., 78 p. illus., 2 fold. pl. (diagrs.) 21 cm.
CALL NUMBER: QC178 .H5
Copy 1
Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or Area
Studies Reading Rms

and

LC Control Number: 64048322
Brief Description: Hilgenberg, Ott Christoph.
Quantenzahlen, Wirbelring-Atommodelle und
Heliumsechserring-Aufbauprinzip des Periodensystems
der chemischen Elemente.
Berlin-Charlottenburg, 1959.
36 p. illus. 21 cm.

CALL NUMBER: QC173 .H47
Copy 1
-- Request in: Jefferson or Adams Bldg General or
Area Studies Reading Rms