Erasing concepts of gravity

[Armagdn03]

Next on the list is...

Electric field:
"Can be attractive or repulsive"

Gravitational Field
"Always attractive"

Here is our first major deviation between the two. I believe however that it is all in how one looks at the situation.

Everything seems to want to sit in a zone of equal potential, this seems to be universal. If you move out of an equal potential area, work has been done and a force appears which brings you back to equal potential.

let me take this interesting quote from a tutoring website.

"If you follow a path along an equipotential, your Ep doesn't change. Therefore you don't lose or gain energy. No work is done.

That's the theory behind why satellites can remain in space without always using energy to stay there. They follow equipotentials. It also applies to the Moon orbiting the Earth and the Earth orbiting the Sun. They all follow equipotentials (almost!).
In fact, it can be shown that:

Potential gradient = gravitational field strength, g.

Or, for the mathematicians amongst you:
"



This would imply that if the moon were brought out of its area of equal potential, it would experience a force to return it. If we moved it further from the earth, it would experience "gravity" and fall back into place, if we moved it closer, it would experience...opposite gravity, and move outward radially, much like buoyancy.

The problem that gravity leaves out, is that its ALL about environment (which will be talked about below concerning charge). If you have a centrifuge, and have various materials of various densities, the spin, gives an acceleratory force which as we showed earlier is essentially the same thing as gravity which is also an acceleratory force. The materials inside will separate out, less dense heading in one direction, more dense heading in the other. Here we have an acceleratory force moving things in TWO directions. The earth does this as well, This is why hot air balloons go up. Because they are in an acceleratory field, all the materials of earth have separated out in their giant centrifuge, with dense materials on one end of the spectrum, and voluminous materials on the other end. Heavy materials want to move towards the center, others towards the periphery until an equipotential zone is found!

Put in other words, Buoyancy can be thought of as an effect of gravity, and so, things depending on their density, can move in both directions.

Now we can see that electric field and gravitational field can both push or pull.

This gets even more interesting to go off on a little tangent.

We say that like charges repel.

This is true, with one HUGE caveat that is never mentioned. The charges must be "alike" WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT. This may seem obvious for some, but it makes a huge difference, and play perfectly into this conversation.

For example, say we have a charge of +20culombs and another at +40. These would have very strong repulsion to one another because they are both positive WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT. Say you bring the local zero up so that all the ambient area is now charged to +30.

Now one sphere appears to be -10 and the other seems to be +10, and now they want to attract! and we have not changed a thing about them, all we have done is change the environment they sit in!

This means that when we are looking at particles like earth, we would think from the "like charges repell" statement that their composition would all just want to push apart, therefore the nucleus is not possible. Therefore we need to incorporate the "nuclear" forces to account for the adhesion.

However looking at it from my bent, the nucleus exists because like charges do not necessarily attract or repel, in reality they just try to get to a place where all charge from the local environment around them is equal, so they have not net force. Very Dense material, (which should have high energy density)will not push apart from other high energy density material, rather it will try to surround itself with it in an acceleratory field.

To re-iterate the question. What is the difference between an acceleratory field and a potential field?

I believe looking at this from an electrical standpoint can do away with the nuclear forces

[bboj]

Could you explain the relation MAS - CHARGE --- MASS = ENERGY.
Isn't it MOVING MASS = ENERGY = MOVING CHARGE?
If the mass is stationary, does it posess energy?

[sucahyo]

Centripetal force is stronger for the fact that the object clings to the surface. If the centrifugal force was stronger, it wouldn't be possible for mass to hold itself together as anything tangible and an object wouldn't sit on the surface of the planet.

I still think there are force stronger than both. Thing like cohesion, adhesion or the reason for why an atom look round or keep that shape. I see atom skin resemble earth atmosphere, although it may have different force entirely. The atomic skin protect something inside to stay inside and something outside to stay outside even when it's pulling or pushing other atom.

[sucahyo]

Could you explain the relation MAS - CHARGE --- MASS = ENERGY.
Isn't it MOVING MASS = ENERGY = MOVING CHARGE?
If the mass is stationary, does it posess energy?

It is called potential energy.

In a pendulum, when it swing at the most bottom it has max kinetic energy. When it reach almost swing back again it has max potential energy.

Next we have the "Nature of the field"

For the Electric field we have:
"Depends on physical quantity of electric charge"

For the Gravitational field we have:
"Depends on physical quantity of mass"

What do you mean by physical quantity? power/current/voltage?

Next on the list is...

Electric field:
"Can be attractive or repulsive"

Gravitational Field
"Always attractive"

...

For example, say we have a charge of +20culombs and another at +40. These would have very strong repulsion to one another because they are both positive WITH RESPECT TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT. Say you bring the local zero up so that all the ambient area is now charged to +30.

Now one sphere appears to be -10 and the other seems to be +10, and now they want to attract! and we have not changed a thing about them, all we have done is change the environment they sit in!

I don't get electric field attraction and repulsion. What electric field do when repulsing? Isn't there experiment in other thread about intermixing two flow of two opposing circuit trough the same wire do not enhance or reduce each flow?

Isn't electric field work in potential difference?

Explain what is attracting and repulsing nature of electric field, or what device show them.

[Aaron]

centripetal and centrifugal

I still think there are force stronger than both. Thing like cohesion, adhesion or the reason for why an atom look round or keep that shape. I see atom skin resemble earth atmosphere, although it may have different force entirely. The atomic skin protect something inside to stay inside and something outside to stay outside even when it's pulling or pushing other atom.

I was talking about just between centripetal and centrifugal and the mass.
Or I should say, after their own losses, which one has the net movement
in its favor? The centripetal - or nothing would stick to the planet.

[sucahyo]

I was talking about just between centripetal and centrifugal and the mass.
Or I should say, after their own losses, which one has the net movement
in its favor? The centripetal - or nothing would stick to the planet.

I see. So centripetal gravity pull mass and centrifugal inertia push mass? Can you describe it with object in earth and how these two different force change the way object behave? I understand gravity pull mass, but how inertia do it? Or man in the moon is a good example?

inertia produce anti gravity?

I read some more about mass vs inertia and it seems very complicated:
Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Aaron]

perspective w/aether

I see. So centripetal gravity pull mass and centrifugal inertia push mass? Can you describe it with object in earth and how these two different force change the way object behave? I understand gravity pull mass, but how inertia do it? Or man in the moon is a good example?

inertia produce anti gravity?

I read some more about mass vs inertia and it seems very complicated:
Inertia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is how I personally see it with my "aether" perspective.

Centripetal is the downward push ONTO an object FROM the aether.

Centrifugal is the outward push FROM an object TO the aether.

Gravity is a word assigned to the net force the object receives passively
from the aether. As the object is sitting having the aether move into it.

Inertia is a word assigned to the net force the object delivers actively
to the aether. As the object is moving into the aether.

[Armagdn03]

Revival

I wanted to revive this thread, because as time passes, more and more of my conscious thought has led me to the concepts dealt with here.

One of my correspondents is Aaity Olson, Scribe of the Alchemanual.





Below is parts of a conversation I had with Ms. Olson which were in response to my asking her to read a thread I had started. This is just to give a little background on my involvement with this text, and to encourage others. I really dont think she would mind my posting.

Aaity Olson April 21 at 4:19pm
You do good work!! Sure, you know what is going on. I have an article on TIME for you. Contact me at alchem@starfieldfound.com and I will send it to you email. This article can show you exactly how it happens that a potential energy point reverses itself with periodicity.
I like your articles on energetic forum. I admit I am thrilled that someone has read and understands about the Lenz experiments.
Many people have read and downloaded the Manual, but when they write to me they want to see it "work". Of course it works all around them but they are blind to S Field ??? They want to levitate aircraft or make home generated electricity. All good, but they dont get the theory. We are ready for another type of energy output and energy use...

I dont understand all that is given to me to write. But I have told the star people that if they want someone to know this work it is up to them to make the contacts. I guess they are available for people who are dedicated to truth. Think about some way to show that the S Field really is there. People just dont see what is all around them. I would encourage you to write. There are a lot of idealist out there, but few people who "tell you how to do it".

Thanks for the praise Aaity, however my understanding is still very limited. I have read over this work many times and learn a great deal each time. It is impossible to grasp giving it only a bit of your attention.


With this intro, I would like to start again with this quote from the Alchemanual:

[Armagdn03]

alchemanual, Volume 1 chapter 3 Page 25

alchemanual, Volume 1 chapter 3 Page 25

"You are cognizant of the presence of gravity every moment of every day. You are aware of its downward pressures, with falling bodies and with weight. Gravity shapes the earth, all that is in it and on it. You have chosen to ignore the fact that gravity also pushes upward, and that gasses are constantly rising. Therefore your formulations of the mechanics of GST Fields has not included the equal and opposite effects of rising space."

Note: GST = Gravitational Space Time fields

[Aromaz]

. . . [B]"You are cognizant of the presence of gravity every moment of every day. You are aware of its downward pressures, with falling bodies and with weight. Gravity shapes the earth, all that is in it and on it. You have chosen to ignore the fact that gravity also pushes upward . . .

I read, I closed, I think and suddenly I am back. It did not strike me immediately that someone else (above) is talking of Pushing gravity.
A wonderfull expression and so correct; Pushing down and pushing up,
towards the earth and away form the earth! Eureka, I am not so stupid and maybe the world is not so lonely after all!

[Armagdn03]

I read, I closed, I think and suddenly I am back. It did not strike me immediately that someone else (above) is talking of Pushing gravity.
A wonderfull expression and so correct; Pushing down and pushing up,
towards the earth and away form the earth! Eureka, I am not so stupid and maybe the world is not so lonely after all!

Glad you enjoyed, hopefully this line of thought provokes some more thought.

[Armagdn03]

thought this to be a interesting quote to comment on, as it pertains to this discussion. I am sorry If I am delving too far off into the weird here, as my sources are not traditional, but hey where is the fun in playing by the rules?

• THE FORCE OF EMF
9-65 our measurement of EMF {electro-motive-force(s) = voltage(T)} is none other than the expansive perpendicular activity and pressure of S Field predominant tori around a T Field flow or particle in circulation. The expansive nature of tori (force) is always present relative to total energy in expression. Tori diameters always expand forcefully outward perpendicular to the active flow. Tori also carry two circulations within their donut shaped body; one encircling the action of flow, one perpendicular to that circulation. The totality of a torus in diameter, speed and pressure matches the totality of the primary potential point action. The torus picks up the harmony and information carried in the active flow. Any analysis of forces needs to determine the degree of S or T Field predominance relative to its environment in any given circumstance.

Here are a few notes to help understand.

"Our measurement of EMF {electro-motive-force(s) = voltage(T)} is none other than the expansive perpendicular activity and pressure of S Field predominant tori around a T Field flow or particle in circulation."

The perpendicular activity of S field is referring to the B field as noted in traditional texts. It is referred to both in this text and those by Walter Russell as the Kinetic expression, or the spherical system, which is consistent with modern descriptions of B field.

“The expansive nature of tori (force) is always present relative to total energy in expression. Tori diameters always expand forcefully outward perpendicular to the active flow.”

This is noting that the B field “energy” is always “expressive” of the total energy of the system. For example, by taking a reading of B field, we can know the quanta of energy involved with the “electrons” whose flow they are associated with. Again it notes the 90 degree relationship between B field and A field, or the spherical and radial system.
Another way to think about these systems is by using the Pythagorean theorem and the unit circle, I will expand upon this in another post.

Here is the part I believe pertains to this….

“Any analysis of forces needs to determine the degree of S or T Field predominance relative to its environment in any given circumstance.”

Imagine for a second the structure of matter. Observation of particles planets etc, tells us that they have two components at 90 degrees to one another. One the spherical B field, the other the radial A field. The Ratio of these two components yields the total energy in the system. The kinetic energy squared, plus the potential energy squared, equals the total energy squared, this is the Pythagorean theorem, and it should be apparent to someone who has studied LC circuits, Resonance, Power factor, vector analysis etc….

It can be assumed due to its perpendicular nature, the potential of a particle rests in a point, or nucleus, and gets more dense towards the center. The opposite of this is the spherical or kinetic system which pushes outwards. Each is an expression of the other, and you can see that you can have differing ratios of each, which yield the same total energy in the particle. For example, you could have 3 units of kinetic energy, and 4 units of potential energy for a total of 5 units of total energy. (3^2) + (4^2) = square root of 25. Or you can have 4 units of kinetic energy, and 3 units of potential, (the reverse of before) and STILL have 5 units of total energy!

What does this mean? Well first we have to imagine what kinetic and potential equate to in terms of volume. A kinetically predominant particle (S field, B field, Spherical system predominance) will be expansive, and voluminous. A potential predominant particle (T field, A field, radial system predominance) will be concentrated and dense.

Thus, if a we can have particles which express the same amount of energy (Pythagorean example above) with differing qualities in terms of volume.

“Any analysis of forces needs to determine the degree of S or T Field predominance relative to its environment in any given circumstance.”

Now we need to understand that force (gravity or levity) correlates to how a particle interacts with its environment!

If a particle is more T field (potential, A field, radially) predominant with respect to its environment, it is NOT in a zone of equi-potential! This means that it will feel “heavy” and will want to “gravitate” downward to a zone which has the same T field predominance, here it will be in an equi-potential zone and be weightless.

If a particle is more S field (B field, kinetic, Spherically) predominant with respect to its environment, it is NOT in a zone of equi-potential! This means it will feel “buoyant” and will want to “levitate” upward to a zone which has the same S field Predominance, here it will be in an equi-potential zone and be weightless.

Look again at these phrases by Walter Russell and notice the synchronicity!

"Weight is the sum of the difference between the two pressures that act on every mass."

"Weight is the measure of difference in electric potential between a mass and the volume it occupies."

"Weight is the measure of unbalance between any mass and its displaced environment."

"Weight is the measure of the force that a body exerts in seeking its true potential."

"Weight is the sum of the difference between the inward pull of gravitation, and the outward thrust of radiation."

Now realize that “weight” here refers more to force, since it applies to both upward and downward forces, gravity and levity.

[Armagdn03]

Here are a few other fantastic quotes found in Walter Russells Genero-Radiative Concept which apply perfectly to the above discussion.

I also contend that the electric force attracts or contracts, or compresses, or condenses, or generates energy into solids of visible matter, while the magnetic force repels or expands or disintegrates or rarefies, or degenerates energy into tenuous invisible matter.

and this one is also fantastic.

I have always contended that there is one gravitative point where every freely moving body in space has no weight nor has it any pushing power or pulling powering respect to any other mass.
No mass in the universe can keep such a position when it finds it for the impetus of its motion in getting there always carries it past that point. Also the point referred to is moving in unison with all other similar equilibrium points.
An additional reason for this constant motion is the fact that every mass is constantly changing its potential and is therefore, always moving in the continuous effort to find a true potential position in space where it can be “comfortable”.
By “comfortable,” I mean a position where the pushing and pulling of the various masses is equal.
If the moon or any planet could be pushed out of its position it would then have weight in respect to its primary (earth), but not otherwise.

[Raui]

Armagdn03,
Great work on this thread man, no surprises though. I have been meaning to post in here for a while as it's very thought provoking. I've read a little bit of Aaity's first volume and am slowly understanding it, it's certainly very interesting. I do have a few questions on what you've said but every time I read that post I'm taking more from it so I'll read over it a couple more times and think about it before I ask my questions. Keep up the great work

Raui

[Armagdn03]

Armagdn03,
Great work on this thread man, no surprises though. I have been meaning to post in here for a while as it's very thought provoking. I've read a little bit of Aaity's first volume and am slowly understanding it, it's certainly very interesting. I do have a few questions on what you've said but every time I read that post I'm taking more from it so I'll read over it a couple more times and think about it before I ask my questions. Keep up the great work

Raui

Thank you for the kind words Raui, I really appreciate it.

Id like to re-iterate on this video here and its importance to this concept.

YouTube - UFO TECH 8 Stan Deyo-AntiGravity explained and produced Amazing pt 3 of 8

If you imagine what Russell refers to as a primary "sun" this would be an all encompassing sphere only the center of which we recognize as a sun, or nucleus (while in reality the body of the sun would extend past even our last planet, we could consider the planets and beyond to be the "electron cloud"). In the video above you could consider the entire coke plane on which we run the experiment the sun. Notice that the inverse squared law is not consistent through the entire body of the sun. In fact, there are many "bands" of standing waves, in space these would have electric or magnetic predominance.

It would be in these bands that Orbits would be found, where mater of the appropriate density (S/T field, B/A field, kinetic/potential, Spherical/radial) will reside where it is weightless. Thus the earth is weightless with respect to the sun. If you move it further away, it will be moving into an increasingly Space field predominant area, and want to "gravitate" toward the sun. If we moved it too far toward the sun, it would also be entering an area of increasing space field predominance, and so would gravitate away from the sun. This may not make immediate sense, but think about this...If you have alternating bands of predominance, and T field predominance equates to increased density, then each T field predominant band is surrounded on both sides with an S field band. Movement away from its centering T field orbit in either direction, causes a Force back to its area of weightlessness.

This can definitely be seen in the video above, as the created "particle" finds a standing wave "node" to settle into. Movement to either side causes a force back to the center of the node.

I am in the process of creating some graphical demos to show more visually what I am getting at. I will also re-create the coke bottle experiment, I have acquired a very nice screw mount transducer to do so.