Erasing concepts of gravity

[Armagdn03]

Several points can be covered.

One is that whether there is a push or a pull, if it is in the same direction, and the magnitude of the force is the same, there is no difference between pushing and pulling. When dealing with forces we are concerned with vectors, which have magnitude and direction. If we push a ball forward with 10N of force, or we pull it with 10N of force, mathematically we have the exact same situation. Therefore what we are interested is two vectors in opposite directions which somewhat cancel out, to give a net weight.

Second I think there are misconceptions about so called aether. Due to mass energy equivalence, we know of only one substance, energy. Its density and other characteristics mold it into various forms such as matter and space. All that there is is only energy. Energy always manifests in equal and opposite or inverse states. If there is equal and opposite, then there must be a meridian line, an equipotential plane, or a "Bloch wall" if you will between the two opposite conditions. This equal zone is equivalent to a fulcrum on a lever like a teeter totter. No matter how far in you zoom on the fulcrum you will never find a point of stillness. One could never be able to see the point of stillness from which the equal and opposite motion sprang, yet without it the equal and opposite movement could not exist. This is the problem of the aether. It refers to the zero state from which equal and opposite conditions can arise. Therefore It, is not physical at all in the sense that we think of.
It cannot be. Thus we cannot talk about it like a physical entity which can push, alter or change anything, because once it is endowed with these properties it ceases to be the nothingness you began with.

Again this also brings up the point of quality of zero. We may sit in a uniform 1 billion Tesla field. Because of its uniformity, to us it would be zero. We cannot tell that it is one billion Tesla because we have no benchmark on which to gauge. One could see how this could lead to the idea of a fundamental aether. If we lived in and knew only of the ocean, we may think we floated in similar aether. To us the pressure around and in us would be equal and we would note our environment to be zero, when we are really surrounded by immense crushing pressure. Personally, I think more philosophical thought needs to go into defining the true essense of zero, aether, and what some might call the "voidance principle".

[sucahyo]

This is an incorrect assumption. According to modern theory, what keeps rotating objects together or in place is centripetal force, to balance the centrifugal. This is a force pulling inward towards a center while centrifugal pushes out from a center.

That is wrong and can not be simulated. There should be other unaccounted force greater than both.

[sucahyo]

Second I think there are misconceptions about so called aether. Due to mass energy equivalence, we know of only one substance, energy. Its density and other characteristics mold it into various forms such as matter and space. All that there is is only energy. Energy always manifests in equal and opposite or inverse states.

Heat is a form of energy. They say it is a losses. Lost to where? To environment? What environment do to give something in return? Nothing? This is one example of energy manifest without inversing, there is no energy equivalence. From aether perspective then heat is the sign of energy being converted to aether, and thus lost from this world forever.

We move something, got friction and produce heat. We use electricity, got resistance and produce heat. Can we expect cold to move something for us or produce our electricity?

[Armagdn03]

That is wrong and can not be simulated. There should be other unaccounted force greater than both.

I said according to modern theory, and it is known that centripetal force is not a real force per say.

Also, if you have something to add....do just that, don't make statements with no reference, or explanation.

[Armagdn03]

Heat is a form of energy. They say it is a losses. Lost to where? To environment? What environment do to give something in return? Nothing? This is one example of energy manifest without inversing, there is no energy equivalence. From aether perspective then heat is the sign of energy being converted to aether, and thus lost from this world forever.

We move something, got friction and produce heat. We use electricity, got resistance and produce heat. Can we expect cold to move something for us or produce our electricity?

This really has nothing to do with the thread. However... really, heat is what we term a particular band of the electromagnetic spectrum to which we are biologically sensitive. Heat in a with respect to loss could actually be seen as loss of any frequency, even ones outside the so called infrared spectrum. Either way, a wave is a wave is a wave, and what that means is alternations between two conditions, usually kinnetic and potential in their simplest states. And if there are these inherent alterations then heat also manifests in equal and opposite ways. How is heat created? through exothermic reactions? through various manipulations of the ideal gas laws.. PV=nrT ??? Through using a battery? all of these examples have cycles of heat and cold, and are equal balanced equations which prove the equal and opposite reality. Even a standard car battery exhibits this. Charging heats the battery in an exothermic reaction. Discharging cools in an endothermic reaction, while the load heats. If you discharge a cylinder of air, it will cool, while the charging environment will heat. Joule heating is not a proof that there are no such relationships.

Also you cannot say there is no mass energy equivalence without any sort of justification behind yourself. If your justification has to do with gravity, please continue to contribute in this thread, otherwise I suggest you start your own thread correcting A. Einstein and giving us your interpretation of his famous equation.

[Aromaz]

Water for instance, healthy water make a good crystalin where bad water do not form it. We go nowhere if we treat different kind of water state as same.

@sucahyo: Not fully correct. Water is H2O - and it will always react the same. When you refer to dirty water it is still water - but with other polutants; H2O + Fe +Ca +????? - a mixture; however if you remove all impurities and remain with H2O only - it will again form interesting crystalines.

The biggest problem with science (and medicine) is in fact the practice of separation.

When you have Brass it has certain properties. If you separate it back into Copper and Zinc neither of the two metals has the same properties, effect or use as brass. So if you study the Copper and the Zinc and know all of that; you will still know almost nothing of brass.

[Aaron]

centripetal force

Several points can be covered.

One is that whether there is a push or a pull, if it is in the same direction, and the magnitude of the force is the same, there is no difference between pushing and pulling. When dealing with forces we are concerned with vectors, which have magnitude and direction. If we push a ball forward with 10N of force, or we pull it with 10N of force, mathematically we have the exact same situation. Therefore what we are interested is two vectors in opposite directions which somewhat cancel out, to give a net weight.

Second I think there are misconceptions about so called aether. Due to mass energy equivalence, we know of only one substance, energy. Its density and other characteristics mold it into various forms such as matter and space. All that there is is only energy. Energy always manifests in equal and opposite or inverse states. If there is equal and opposite, then there must be a meridian line, an equipotential plane, or a "Bloch wall" if you will between the two opposite conditions. This equal zone is equivalent to a fulcrum on a lever like a teeter totter. No matter how far in you zoom on the fulcrum you will never find a point of stillness. One could never be able to see the point of stillness from which the equal and opposite motion sprang, yet without it the equal and opposite movement could not exist. This is the problem of the aether. It refers to the zero state from which equal and opposite conditions can arise. Therefore It, is not physical at all in the sense that we think of.
It cannot be. Thus we cannot talk about it like a physical entity which can push, alter or change anything, because once it is endowed with these properties it ceases to be the nothingness you began with.

Again this also brings up the point of quality of zero. We may sit in a uniform 1 billion Tesla field. Because of its uniformity, to us it would be zero. We cannot tell that it is one billion Tesla because we have no benchmark on which to gauge. One could see how this could lead to the idea of a fundamental aether. If we lived in and knew only of the ocean, we may think we floated in similar aether. To us the pressure around and in us would be equal and we would note our environment to be zero, when we are really surrounded by immense crushing pressure. Personally, I think more philosophical thought needs to go into defining the true essense of zero, aether, and what some might call the "voidance principle".

"what keeps rotating objects together or in place is centripetal force, to balance the centrifugal. This is a force pulling inward towards a center while centrifugal pushes out from a center."

That is specifically saying that centripetal force has its source from the center of the mass. You say it is a force pulling inwards to the center. If it is pulling inwards to the center, the pulling perspective is from the center, therefore you are saying centripetal force is simply from the center of the mass. Your quoted sentence says that but to clarify, am I reading that
right?

[Armagdn03]

"what keeps rotating objects together or in place is centripetal force, to balance the centrifugal. This is a force pulling inward towards a center while centrifugal pushes out from a center."

That is specifically saying that centripetal force has its source from the center of the mass. You say it is a force pulling inwards to the center. If it is pulling inwards to the center, the pulling perspective is from the center, therefore you are saying centripetal force is simply from the center of the mass. Your quoted sentence says that but to clarify, am I reading that
right?

Isn't perspective fun??? The way I described those two forces is was supposed to be in line with modern thinking....Here is another way of saying it which is just as valid.....Centrifugal force pulls you away from the center, and centripetal force pushes you towards a center.

Which is exactly the same as saying centrifugal forces pushes out from a center, and centripetal pulls in towards a center. Mathematically both descriptions are exactly the same. Its just how we as humans have chosen to look at things.

In reference to the Sucahyo and water crystals, I believe he is referring to the work of Dr. Masaru Emoto in the field of dark ion microscopy. The experiment was to observe the progression of crystal growth under the influence of human emotion, or human induced environmental energy changes. The experiment is very very interesting, however it takes into account how we as observers can affect our surroundings, and does not prove or disprove anything on this particular thread or chat. As explained earlier, there is only energy, therefore water, and us (being made almost entirely of water) can affect each other.

YouTube - Positive & Negative Energy Effects on Water Crystals

Here is an interesting video depicting this.

Again though, this water issue is interesting, but has no place here, because nobody decided to make a logical argument for it being here. If we are going to contribute to threads, put up links, locations where you gleaned information from.... your train of logic which led you to this..etc...Please don't just write a one sentence blurb about an effect you have seen in passing which supposedly helps people here in some undisclosed way.

[Aaron]

Gravity

I'm very well aware there is the innate reality of something and then
there is our perspective.

But if there is the aether that pushes back to where it was displaced
from and that is responsible for centripetal force, the source of the force
is outside moving in. That is pushing and it isn't a matter of perspective.
From the outside, it would be pushing towards the center.
Someone in the center couldn't say they're pulling it, they are being
pushed upon. If something is active and something is passively receiving
the action, it is the acting thing that is doing the pushing or pulling and
not the passive thing.

If you sit a cup on the table, the cup is placed on the table. The table
isn't grabbing the cup and pulling it to the table.

A glass can be half full or half empty, that is a true matter of perspective
but in some cases, it can be a matter of perspective like water in a glass
but in some, there is the common sense reality of something that has
nothing to do with perspective.

If you walk up to someone and push them, it is irrational to say they
pulled you to them. It isn't a matter of simply perspective, the common
sense reality is that they were pushed from one direction to the other.

Yeah, mathematically as you say the result would be the same but
it doesn't tell the path, only the destination if you're only interested in
the net result.

For example, "mathematically", if one person was murdered by a bullet
and one person died from cancer. Both are dead. The mathematical
calculation on this is the exact same net result. However, the common
sense reality is that they are far from being equal regardless of the
net result and it isn't a matter of perspective. One person is murdered
and the other died of cancer.

The argument for water could be that the Emoto
experiment points to an intangible or virtual medium that is used to
communicate information. This is action at a distance as gravity is
"action at a distance". Remote viewing absolutely proves non-empirical
mode of communication at any distance and through any time, past,
present or future.

If you say all there is - is energy, then that is like saying all there is -
is crystallized water completely dismissing the thought potential (aether)
that organizes the morphic field that influences the crystallization pattern.

Energy is an effect. It is not a thing or a substance. It is potential moving
from one potential to another. The stuff or substance is potential and
is not abstract as most people think. It is the energy, that is abstract
as it is not a thing but an adjective to describe the movement of potential.
The dictionary definition is wrong as is the classical belief about what
energy is.

It is self evident by the fact that it is declared that energy is the capcity
to do work. Capacity is declared as a potential, therefore, the dictionary
says energy is potential while also calling energy work, it is a contradiction.

Water in a tub is potential energy. Pull the plug and the water moves.
When we see water move, we can see that the water is energetic.
Movement isn't a substance, it is what happens to substance.

Anyway, centrifugal force is local force from inside out. Centrifugal force
is simply mass' momentum carrying the mass in the same direction that
it is already moving in and if attached to an axis of rotation it will obviously swing
in a circle while its trajectory is constantly outwards with a trajectory
influenced at a particular angle. I'm sure you can repeat that in
mathematical format.

Centripetal force is from outside moving in against the centripetal force.

Saying that there is centrifugal force and centripetal force sourced
from the local area of the mass is like saying you can spin a wheel in two directions at the same time. It appears to be a logical contradiction.

If we look at a piece of mass. Let's just say it is any object with mass
and it is right next to the center of the earth. Like 1 inch from the direct
center. As it is spinning around the axis very fast and as the mass is
moving, it of course has momentum and tries to continue in the direction
it is moving but can't leave because it is attached and gravity helps to
keep it in place. The centrifugal force from this mass is from its local
area outwards. That mass tries to maintain its movement on its trajectory.
How is that same mass causing centripetal force by helping to pull more
mass to the planet at the exact same time?

If you're interested in the 2 canceling vectors, the push on the mass
keeping it external. That is this: earth---><----aether (3 centrifugal
and 4 centripetal = net 1 in the direction to mass
That is 2

If both are sourced from the body of mass, it is this:
<----mass---> it's a pushamapullet
it's like molecular cognitive dissonance or schizophrenic matter

Just to let you know, I think you've shared some incredibly enlightening
concepts in the forum and you obviously have some advanced experiences
with electrical circuits, etc... and a good friend of mine speaks highly
of you so please don't think I'm being dismissive of what you're sharing
in this thread. I'm just obsessed with gravitational concepts as probably
are many of the members here and I'm giving you train of thought that
I have about it in relation to what you have posted so far.

Anyway, I'm trying to explain my train of thought on why I have a
different perspective. If I go off topic, let me know.

[Armagdn03]

I'm very well aware there is the innate reality of something and then
there is our perspective.

But if there is the aether that pushes back to where it was displaced
from and that is responsible for centripetal force, the source of the force
is outside moving in. That is pushing and it isn't a matter of perspective.
From the outside, it would be pushing towards the center.
Someone in the center couldn't say they're pulling it, they are being
pushed upon. If something is active and something is passively receiving
the action, it is the acting thing that is doing the pushing or pulling and
not the passive thing.

You misunderstand what I mean. Say you are in a vehicle on the right hand side, going a good speed and then begins to bank to the left, you now feel an acceleratory force outward and you push against the door of the car. However the force experienced by you is the same for every particle of your body, you cannot say that you are being pulled towards the door, or pushed towards the door and mathematically it does not matter all you know is that you want to go that direction with X force...the very definition of a vector. With your with your frame of reference you CAN say that you are pushing or pulling against the car door. I will expand upon that point as we go.

If you sit a cup on the table, the cup is placed on the table. The table
isn't grabbing the cup and pulling it to the table.

As I stated earlier, all things come to rest when the forces all equal zero, And there is no net force. With the cup and the table, the cup has net force called weight downward, and the table with its structure pushes back with equal and opposite force, the structure of the table acts as a surface tension that the cup cannot break so they come to an agreement with all vectors adding to zero, thus you have no movement. If the bonding structure of the table were weaker. but the density the same, you would find that the cup would break or sink through the table, here the net force downward (neglecting push or pull) is greater that the net force upward, and you have imbalance and now have a new resultant vector which is the cup moving downward till it finds a new place of equilibrium

What we want to get to the heart of is what is gravity, and how do we manipulate it. I believe this is a BAD GOAL. I believe that what we should be looking at is the NET tendency of an object to move in a particular direction with a particular force with respect to its environment. To bring up centrifugal force and the car again, you could place a scale in between yourself and the car and measure a net force in one direction, you would call it centrifugal force, but it acts EXACTLY the same as gravity in all respects.

That is why I believe this is all an electrical arena...

A person can take a point particle (could be large as a tenis ball hanging in air), it is a whole spherical field of energy with layers of surface tensions that mark less and less density as you move further from it. You can note its density gradient as you move away from it,taking potential readings and even take barometric pressure readings moving further away from it, what you would find is that both potential and pressure wise, there is an organization to the atmosphere around it. Do The particles around the point charge sort themselves out and find rest in a zone of equal potential. If the surrounding area is not of equal potential then it will exert a force in finding it. We call this net force weight, but have such a limited concept of what that means. We should only be thinking in terms of what is the force exerted by the particle, or on the particle in seeking this zone of equal potential. If you want to become weightless, you should make yourself be a charged particle which is out of its potential zone, and you will feel an accelerator field either pulling or pushing (however you want to look at it) you towards your zone of equal potential. Notice that the very definition of a gravitational field is an acceleratory field. 9.81Meters per second squared, which is acceleration. Gravity or acceleratory fields or tendencies may all be electrical in nature. This can happen regardless of rotation.



A glass can be half full or half empty, that is a true matter of perspective
but in some cases, it can be a matter of perspective like water in a glass
but in some, there is the common sense reality of something that has
nothing to do with perspective.

If you walk up to someone and push them, it is irrational to say they
pulled you to them. It isn't a matter of simply perspective, the common
sense reality is that they were pushed from one direction to the other.

This was covered above. If you walk up to someone and push them you can say they were pushed, and now have direction and magnitude. But If every particle of your body has a tendency towards one direction, can you say you are being pulled or pushed there? there is no way to tell, and even if one could, it doesnt matter, because mathematically it is described in the same way. Are you being pushed toward the ground? or pulled? all you care about is that you have a tendency to move in that direction.


Yeah, mathematically as you say the result would be the same but
it doesn't tell the path, only the destination if you're only interested in
the net result.

I think you have missed this. I have been talking all about vectors, which is magnitude and direction. Magnitude is "how strong" and direction is the "path" This entity called a vector which contains both those pieces of information IS the net result, not "the destination"

For example, "mathematically", if one person was murdered by a bullet
and one person died from cancer. Both are dead. The mathematical
calculation on this is the exact same net result. However, the common
sense reality is that they are far from being equal regardless of the
net result and it isn't a matter of perspective. One person is murdered
and the other died of cancer.


I cannot respond to this.

The argument for water could be that the Emoto
experiment points to an intangible or virtual medium that is used to
communicate information. This is action at a distance as gravity is
"action at a distance". Remote viewing absolutely proves non-empirical
mode of communication at any distance and through any time, past,
present or future.

Why assume a virtual intangible medium??? a more likely explanation would be that we are electrical creatures, in an electrical world, and we cannot escape the sea of energy in which we float, and so even the energy between you and the water we call atmosphere, with its inherent electrical properties, permittivity permeability, resistance etc... would be the perfect transmission path for any "action at a distance" These exotic explanations don't follow the norm, but they are many times not accurate themselves.

If we call the center of a planet a point, and note the electrical properties of all the elements in all their strata as we move out, we find that all raw materials in their respective ores and salts organize in overal strata that is solely dependent on density. The further you move out from this point the larger particles become volume wise. Now think about the electrical characteristics of this progression. Dense materials in the center are metals, all in the same region share the same electrical properties. As you move outward conductivity decreases, resistance increases, from heavy metals through the alkalies, through the upper atmosphere. There is a ordered progression, and perhaps, mass has a potential and that potential defines both its DENSITY and electrical characteristics AND its location with respect to the potential center, any movement from this zone of equal potential, causes a force to appear to make it move back to a place of equality

If you say all there is - is energy, then that is like saying all there is -
is crystallized water completely dismissing the thought potential (aether)
that organizes the morphic field that influences the crystallization pattern.



Energy is an effect. It is not a thing or a substance. It is potential moving
from one potential to another. The stuff or substance is potential and
is not abstract as most people think. It is the energy, that is abstract
as it is not a thing but an adjective to describe the movement of potential.
The dictionary definition is wrong as is the classical belief about what
energy is.

Please explain nuclear decay. As a heavy metal is removed from its potential zone, it begins to radiate energy, as it does so, it looses mass. This is a direct conversion of mass to energy, be it through alpha beta or gamma decay. It can be shown that all discrete energy units have mass, and all mass has energy, You could say that energy is just an effect, but you could also say that mass is part of that effect, one of the many states of energy, much like water can appear as vapor, solid or liquid only difference being energy level.

It is self evident by the fact that it is declared that energy is the capcity
to do work. Capacity is declared as a potential, therefore, the dictionary
says energy is potential while also calling energy work, it is a contradiction.

Water in a tub is potential energy. Pull the plug and the water moves.
When we see water move, we can see that the water is energetic.
Movement isn't a substance, it is what happens to substance.

Water can release its energy in other ways also. In its state of rest in its equipotential zone it has no "capacity to do work" which is obvious because it is surrounded by an environment of equal potential. But take a cup of that water and change only one aspect, the pressure of the environment around it, keeping all else like temp the same. Because you have now brought it into a new potential zone, the water will begin to want to "release" its energy and begin to boil until it reaches an equal potential state with its new environment and once again it will have no potential to do work.Here it turns out water that was inanimate at sea level, can release energy when brought to a new potential zone....much like radioactive decay. Bring these super heavey metals to the surface, keep the temp high, and they will "boil" all right...

[/QUOTE]

[Armagdn03]

Anyway, centrifugal force is local force from inside out. Centrifugal force
is simply mass' momentum carrying the mass in the same direction that
it is already moving in and if attached to an axis of rotation it will obviously swing
in a circle while its trajectory is constantly outwards with a trajectory
influenced at a particular angle. I'm sure you can repeat that in
mathematical format.

Is it not possible that all of these effects and forces are electrical in nature? Bruce DePalma showed very convincing correlations between rotational forces and the electrical world, but he spoke almost like a poet, and people miss some of the gravity of his observations.

Centripetal force is from outside moving in against the centripetal force.

Saying that there is centrifugal force and centripetal force sourced
from the local area of the mass is like saying you can spin a wheel in two directions at the same time. It appears to be a logical contradiction.

all this talk about how I defined centrifugal and centripetal, I gave CURRENT THEORY, the concept of gyroscopes alone is noteworthy of study, and you are correct, modern theory has holes.

If we look at a piece of mass. Let's just say it is any object with mass
and it is right next to the center of the earth. Like 1 inch from the direct
center. As it is spinning around the axis very fast and as the mass is
moving, it of course has momentum and tries to continue in the direction
it is moving but can't leave because it is attached and gravity helps to
keep it in place. The centrifugal force from this mass is from its local
area outwards. That mass tries to maintain its movement on its trajectory.
How is that same mass causing centripetal force by helping to pull more
mass to the planet at the exact same time?

This thought experiment in no way relates to what I am trying to show. By placing this mass next to the center of the earth, it will have an environment around it which is as dense as possible as can be found on planet earth. If the object is less dense than this location, it will feel a net force toward a zone of equal density or "potential" in this situation humanity has chosen to call that force buoyancy.If it is heavier than the surrounding environment, it will fall that extra 1 inch(we call that gravity) and take its place at the very center of our planet as this would be the only area where the sum of all forces is zero. One cannot assume rotation, one cannot have a vacuum as the center of the earth either, this changes the environment from what is naturally there which negates the experiment.

If you're interested in the 2 canceling vectors, the push on the mass
keeping it external. That is this: earth---><----aether (3 centrifugal
and 4 centripetal = net 1 in the direction to mass
That is 2

If both are sourced from the body of mass, it is this:
<----mass---> it's a pushamapullet
it's like molecular cognitive dissonance or schizophrenic matter

I honestly have no idea what you are stating here.

Just to let you know, I think you've shared some incredibly enlightening
concepts in the forum and you obviously have some advanced experiences
with electrical circuits, etc... and a good friend of mine speaks highly
of you so please don't think I'm being dismissive of what you're sharing
in this thread. I'm just obsessed with gravitational concepts as probably
are many of the members here and I'm giving you train of thought that
I have about it in relation to what you have posted so far.

Anyway, I'm trying to explain my train of thought on why I have a
different perspective. If I go off topic, let me know.

Thanks for the compliment, and I hope I do not come off as too harsh. I have spent a lot of reflection on the subject, and have found that it is highly probable that material properties are electrical in nature, from density, to conductivity, to where they are found in nature. It seems that removing anything from its zone of equal potential cases a force to appear which returns it to its place of equal potential. This even happens in battery chemistry. We find metals in ores and salts in nature. We use different processes to physically separate them into their base elements and this takes energy. We remove them from a stable state (ores and salts are generally non reactive if they are perfect pairings of elements) and move them into a reactive state and create batteries out of this. The new elements in the battery want to return to their stable state, and so a force appears as they begin their return to a peaceful state. As this new force flows through our circuits, the elements recombine into salts and stability. It would seem this principle of the apparition of force in conjunction with removal from a zero state is a universal concept. One could say that Force is a tendency towards a peaceful state.

[Armagdn03]

Lets make use of my theory, and see if we cannot defy gravity and build ourselves an anti gravity device....

The following from a book written by a man named Dino Kraspedon who clamed to be in contact with an extraterrestrial. The entity described to Dino the principles on which his ship worked. Lets see if they have any validity.

"We use the natural atmospheric pressure to give us the necessary propulsive force in our ships...If we have low pressure on one side the other side is subject to full atmospheric pressure and any object can be moved when this difference in potential is created....Cathode rays have the strange property of decomposing the atmosphere in which they pass. Under this action the elements of the atmosphere decompose and ionize.... We achieve this by using high voltage and current. The entire rim or outer edge of the craft acts as the cathode ray emitter. These rays are deadly and are only projected outwards and are capable of destroying human cells and in causing lethal burns."

This is very interesting. It would seem from this description that the entire rim of the craft is a cathode emitter. This causes a decomposition of the atmosphere around the craft. This causes a decrease in pressure around the craft that is now an inherent electrical property of the craft. This decrease in pressure can be manipulated in various ways to steer the craft. Since the cathode rays are only projected outward its almost as if the ship were the dense nucleus to this artificially non dense atmosphere around the craft. In essence we have created an electrical hot air balloon around our craft.

Stan Dayo talks about this exact effect even bringing up Dino Draspedon on his talk about anti gravity here at 4:45 YouTube - AntiGravity explained and produced!! Amazing! pt. 5 of 8

Stan also gives several examples as to how a hot air balloon is a great example of anti gravity. He also talks about charging the air around the craft with large resonant structures.

The basic effects of this have been well documented with ionic lifters both in and out of vacuum environments.

Besides, what better way to accomplish net force in one direction for a craft than to have it behave as a highly charged particle wanting to push away from its local environment?

This is rarely seen as a result of most of our resonant coils because we alter their polarity about the ambient potential Because of this, the poles alternate with respect to the earth, and we alternately push then pull against the earth. Figure a way around this and you have what you are looking for.

[Aaron]

net force

Maybe some of these things don't personally matter to you for your
specific purpose - I get what you're saying but...

The person being moved to the door by turning around a corner is being
PUSHED to the door. The door is NOT attracting it. This is the simple
reality of it.

The person's mass is exhibiting a "centrifuge" force and the inertia this
mass encounters is the push against this mass by the pos "charge" of
the virtual potential that fluxes in and out...it pushes against the
protons in the mass of the person and imparts "inertia" in my opinion
and that push is the analogy of centripetal force.

Now if you want to use mathematics to analyze this reality, you will
come to the conclusion that mathematically, something is moving in
one direction with a certain net force.

So there is the nature of the incident, then there is the mathematical
analysis of that reality. For the purposes of the math, perhaps what
is pushing or is pulling isn't relevant but that is only for the purposes of
the math but discounting and overlaying the idea that the other reality
of what is pushing or pulling doesn't matter is purposefully choosing to
see it in one way and not both and both matter and relevant to the
broad view of the entire picture.

A sitting object is sitting because 100% of the gravitational potential
pushing down on an object is 100% dissipated by the opposite "force".
This is why it is a fallacy that an object resting at any height is
"storing potential" when it is not. The gravitational potential is only
usable when the downward push is not neutralized.

With the 'electrical creatures', yes, we're electrical but where do you think
the source charge comes from?

Do you think there are electrons flowing through our meridians like on
an electrical circuit? There isn't an electron flow through the meridians.
Look at the tracer migration studies - inject radioactive tracer into
acupuncture point and track with gamma camera downstream and the
tracer follows the meridian mapped out by the Chinese for over 4000
years. Popp showed these channels also channeled light energy even
in the visible spectrum. The potential or Qi, Ki, Life force energy" that
is transmitted through these meridians are NOT electrical. It gives the
electrical potential to any dipole in the body that is in a broken symmetry
condition.

Such as a sodium potassium pump...the electrical pump isn't powered by
a mysterious charge in these cells...the cells charges establish a potential
difference to break the symmetry and the light potential that is flowing
through the meridians on the surface of the skin and inside of the body
supply the source charge potential to those electrolytes in the cell in
order to give electrical action.

Anyway, this "intangible medium" appears to be the same medium that
fills time and space in a "vacuum" and is the same medium that is utilized
by consciousness and is the same medium that supplies the potential to
our electrochemical reactions in the body.

This potential can be stored in various capacitors of certain geometrical
design and can exert an influence on physical objects or living beings
and there is no measurable electrical charge in the capacitor, no voltage
potential difference measurable, no current. This has been strongly
evidenced by many years of psychotronic research in Russia, Hungary,
US, etc... If you like references, here is one:
http://www.esmhome.org/library/psych...hotronics1.zip
http://www.esmhome.org/library/psych...hotronics2.zip
The Egely wheel meter for example does not turn by infrared heat,
is is not electrical, there is no electrostatic charge, etc...
There is a lot of evidence to "aetheric" reality and I'm surprised you
dismiss it all, but to each his own.

It illogical to say mass is energy which is evidenced by the very
phrase of "mass energy equivalence" - that in simple terms means the
mass has an equivalent amount of energy if it were to undergo a
transformation from its current state of potential to another. Just a
proportionate amount of energy can be realized from a particular
amount of mass. And the energy in and of itself is not what made
up the mass - the energy is what is measured during transition
from one potential to the next.

So we can agree to disagree that you don't see this "intangible medium"
of potential.

"I believe that what we should be looking at is the NET tendency of an object to move in a particular direction with a particular force with respect to its environment."

Ok, I'm following you. What do you propose or are you going to propose
some way to have a vector with a net force in the upward direction
in relation to the ground? Electrical, mechanical, etc...?

Looking forward to see how this unfolds.

[Aaron]

breaking symmetry

Thanks for the compliment, and I hope I do not come off as too harsh.

It seems that removing anything from its zone of equal potential cases a force to appear which returns it to its place of equal potential.

Not too harsh.

I agree with the equilibrium/disequilibrium/back to equilibrium.
It is 100% consistent with a dipole breaking the symmetry
of the vacuum potential...it causes "energy" to appear",
then if the dipole is brought into balance, there is no more
potential difference and the energy stops.

But of course you're applying the exact concept to vectors
and forces.

[Aaron]

electric hot air balloon

With the electric hot air balloon, the explanation is almost a carbon copy
of what I wrote in my book for "superluminal flight", antigravity, etc...

Applying the same concept you just described - with an aetheric model,
HV is applied to the body of the ship. The positive and negative points of
this HV can be manipulated to different points of the shell.

Lets say the aether is in fact rebounding back towards the center of
Earth's mass from where it was displaced. Positive photon potential in this
flux exerts a push on the proton of any mass (the downward push).

Now, the hull of the craft is a super high voltage dipole that breaks the
symmetry of the aether. If the negative is on top of the ship and positive
on bottom, the positive photon potential is deflected around the shell
of the ship to the positive pole INSTEAD OF BEING ABLE TO MOVE
DIRECTLY THROUGH THE MASS OF THE SHIP. Therefore, the downward
push of the aether has no mass to push on and the ship lifts upwards
and can move without inertia since the aether is not moving through the
mass of the ship... a void is created on the negative side of the ship
and that vacuum (true vacuum with no positive part of the quantum flux),
and it literally pulls the ship into the vacuum at negative resistance.

Anyway, I 100% agree with what you say but I include the aetheric
"fluid."