gravity waves found

[david lambright]

tomorrow

bruce should get his mail tomorrow...i hope he has been following these past few days...we will see what he sees, and feels......david

[john_g]

beautiful work...my last video shows a lot more...i hate to ask but could you enhance my last vid ....it shows lots more.....excellent stuff....david

Hi David

Glad to help and will do this evening - just about to start work. Can you give me some time slices as I can only work on a frame at a time which is time consuming.

Regards

John

[sucahyo]

I can only see glow preceede and folowing the magnet. Here is a modified video showing whats changed/move.

YouTube - motion detector of david lambright experiment

[Bruce_TPU]

bruce should get his mail tomorrow...i hope he has been following these past few days...we will see what he sees, and feels......david

Hi David,

I have been traveling, but I have returned and I am caught up. I hope to receive the device today, and I am hoping to see what you and others have seen. I am hoping very much so, that the wave is not locational, due to proximity to the Oregon Vortex. We will know soon enough!

Cheers,

Bruce

[witsend]

I can only see glow preceede and folowing the magnet. Here is a modified video showing whats changed/move.

sucahyo - many thanks indeed for doing this. It's just so much clearer when one's sight is not that good. Very clever and many thanks

[thekubiaks]

To simplify

From an objective, neutral observer....

To simplify this discussion, are we arguing that there may or not be some type of optical aberration and that that constitutes the discovery of gravity waves??

[david lambright]

heres the thing...

its not just the aberration, that just shows 1 facet of what this is...there are visual distortions in the visible as well as IR wavelengths...there is only 1 thing that i know of that would cause these distortions to that degree, of course that would be heat...but there is no heat..there is something else at work here ...swing a bucket of water over your head fast enough...it stays in the bucket ...artificial gravity... like opposite of how real gravity works right...so any spinning object is making artificial gravity ...the distortions are just the visible portion of what this is.....david

[david lambright]

many thanks

sucahyo - many thanks indeed for doing this. It's just so much clearer when one's sight is not that good. Very clever and many thanks

i know you guys are busy, thanks for taking the time to do these things much appreciation.....david

[Cloxxki]

From an objective, neutral observer....

To simplify this discussion, are we arguing that there may or not be some type of optical aberration and that that constitutes the discovery of gravity waves??

If I may summarize, David?

David reports to notice a change in feel of weights held in promity to the device in magnetic lock, and footage of the device turnings brings the oddest circular distortion on photographs: uneven spacing and elongation/shrinking of segments.
The observed change in feel of objects held in proximity of the device, seems (to me) to be inertial in nature, as a scale or balance does not register a chance. In one of David's outdoor video's, a 13lb geode turns most peculiarly in his hands.
Color distortions and purple-ish streams can be observed on video, albeit not easily.
Replicators have thusfar found some interesting polarity changes and magnitization of aluminum, but not yet the mass/weight feel or visual anomalies.

Anyone please correct or elaborate.

[Harvey]

From an objective, neutral observer....

To simplify this discussion, are we arguing that there may or not be some type of optical aberration and that that constitutes the discovery of gravity waves??

I too am a neutral observer and participant. Like Arthur Conan Doyle's fictitious character Sherlock Holmes, I prefer Deductive Logic rather than the much less reliable Inductive Logic. This comes from many years of observation and experience where a narrow view of perception often leads to wrong conclusions. I much more prefer to get as much data as possible and then eliminate all the possibilities to arrive at the truth. This is also very similar to the scientific method where a hypothesis is stated, a falsifying experiment is devised to test the hypothesis, the experiment is performed and the results are analyzed to see if the hypothesis is true or false.

For example, I hypothesize that since light is considered to be an electromagnetic particle, that the particle trajectory can be bent by electromagnetic means. A falsification experiment to prove this would be to use polarized light (so all N sides are oriented on the same side of every photon when it reaches a certain distance from the source with no axial rotation along the path) and electromagnetic plates along the photon path. By energizing the plates at a subharmonic of the photon frequency, in phase and both plates of the same polarity, the particle will be pushed away from one plate and pulled toward the other. Consequently the trajectory will change because an MMF has been used to alter the path. Therefore the photon will not strike the target, but will deviate from its normal course in local space and time. The plates must be pulsed because photons shift their poles at their color frequency. And the plates must be in phase for the same reason. Polarization is easy, we already have filters for that. But in addition the photons must be coherent so that the plates can properly act on them at the proper time.


So now there is a hypothesis and an experiment and my challenge to the world is to perform the experiment and prove the hypothesis true or false. I don't have the resources to perform the experiment at this time so it will have to wait unless some enterprising group chooses to do it.

Now, this is where deductive logic outshines inductive logic:

Inductive logic states that since we have not seen light bend except in the presence of a gravitational field, that we can jump to the conclusion that any new observation of bending light must be a gravitational influence.

But Deductive Logic says "wait a minute, there are other possibilities that have not been eliminated and discarding those without due process is very presumptuous and can lead to wrong understanding". Therefore, as long as the possibility exists that light can be bent by electromagnetic influence we cannot state unequivocally that our observations are the result of gravitational influence.

Inductive Logic is fine for ball-parking trends but really should never be used for solid conclusions. Some examples I see in this thread where such logic has been employed to arrive at definite conclusions are:

"Since the effect has been 'sensed' by psychics in Latvia and seen in Salem Oregon, we can rule out any geographical significance"

"Since the path of light is only changed by gravity we can rule out any other cause"

"Since Ed's generator used V magnets and Davids uses hyperbolic pipe, we can rule out element shape dependence"

"Since the wheel is spinning very slowly we can rule out any Lorentz Contraction as a possible explanation for the recorded contractions"

"Since some people cannot see the effect in person or on video we can rule out the effect as real"

"Since pixel changes in monitors all over the world are observed by those with good and bad eyesight it must be gravity waves that causes the effects"

I have a problem with all of these conclusions because they are incomplete and have not evaluated all the possibilities.

As my video shows, I have all the same effects that David's videos show so how do we separate the compression algorithm fluctuations from the real stuff? This is why I recommended early on the use of real photographic film. But even a 10M Pixel digital will give better results than 19,000 grain film as long as we do not re-sample the data and present it in its raw form (which exceeds You-Tubes limits).

As a neutral observer, I think David has a trained eye to see some type of differentials there in person, and I think perhaps others in that area also see it. There may be a synchronicity involved that helps them see it. But also, there is some type of compression local to the device and not the camera (at least that is what I observed on the motion video) and a 360° walk around would prove that conclusively. Even if the compression is an interaction with the image stabilization features of the camera, the fact that it is local to the device tells us that the camera is picking up a differential on one side of the device that is not on the other. I find nothing in photographic aberrations that describe this particular effect other than perspective zooming (where close is big and far is small) and that is not the case in this video where David walks up from one side and then rotates the camera 90° (first 14 seconds) but the compression appears as though it stays local to the device. It would really be nice to get more footage of that rotation in a 360° manner to prove that conclusively (that the compression is device dependent, not camera sensor dependent). This would help prove David's case.

[IndianaBoys]

and a 360° walk around would prove that conclusively

Harvey,

Thanks for your attention to details!

David, can you film the 360 degree walk around with lots of footage?

It would also help if you can annotate the video with where you see the distortions or at least tell us the time sequence and quadrant they are occurring in to help us better locate it.

Thanks,

IndianaBoys

[david lambright]

hi

Harvey,

Thanks for your attention to details!

David, can you film the 360 degree walk around with lots of footage?

It would also help if you can annotate the video with where you see the distortions or at least tell us the time sequence and quadrant they are occurring in to help us better locate it.

Thanks,

IndianaBoys

i will try to borrow that camera again and shoot the 36o walk...until then we wait for bruce......thanks

[witsend]

From an objective, neutral observer....

To simplify this discussion, are we arguing that there may or not be some type of optical aberration and that that constitutes the discovery of gravity waves??

Sort of. The facts are that there are visual distortions evident that are also evident on camera. Not sure of the cause. None of us are. But the facts are that the only known means to 'bend' light are gravitational influences. Photons are not KNOWN to be influenced by a magnetic field. Hence physicists attribute photons with a neutral charge and a 'spin' of 1. The fact is that the distortion is evident and also evident on camera.

Other subtle effects are evident in that various materials appear to be 'pulled' or 'pushed' towards or away from the rig. Again - that could be attributed to magnetic properties inside the material - but the material that is evidencing this is - in itself - not necessarily paramagnetic, diamagnetic or, indeed, ferromagnetic.

It must be noted that the rig does not need to be in motion for the effect to be detectable. Nor does it need to be in motion for the effect to be enhanced. There has been some proposal that this could be related to the Lorentz force where there was a prediction of 'contraction'. But such effects relate to motion at a significant fractions of light speed and Lorentz force itself relates to 'charges'. Since there is no evident current flow in the rig and since the effect is not 'motion dependent' then this suggestion may be questioned. It is my opinion that this is entirely incorrect - but I would be interested in an academic appraisal of this. It has also been repeatedly proposed that the effect is the result of some vagaries associated with the camera that Dave uses. But since it's evident with a range of such equipment - becoming ever more apparent as the equipment gets more sophisticated, and because the cameras are able to show what Dave and many others have seen - then this too, is obviously incorrect.

In as much as the only force 'known' to bend light is gravity - then it may be that we are looking at a gravitational effect. It is also notable that similar effects are evident in certain locations where there are known gravitational anomalies where similar visual distortions are evident over a fairly wide geographical area. While Dave lives near such areas, the fact is that these effects are localised to the area of his rig - not to dispersed locations outside the rig. At it's least we can 'deduce' that the rig is doing something similar to light as evidenced in those rare locations.

But to answer your question. I don't think anyone is 'claiming' that optical aberrations are thereby attributed to gravitational fields. That would be an absurd reach. We are trying to discover 'what' it is that Dave has uncovered and unless we're to 're-write' known physics, thus far the only reasonable explanation is that it may be something akin to gravitational fields. It would be as well to remember that no-one actually knows what causes gravity. I think our knowledge, thus far, relates to our being able to measure it.

[witsend]

If I may summarize, David?

David reports to notice a change in feel of weights held in promity to the device in magnetic lock, and footage of the device turnings brings the oddest circular distortion on photographs: uneven spacing and elongation/shrinking of segments.
The observed change in feel of objects held in proximity of the device, seems (to me) to be inertial in nature, as a scale or balance does not register a chance. In one of David's outdoor video's, a 13lb geode turns most peculiarly in his hands.
Color distortions and purple-ish streams can be observed on video, albeit not easily.
Replicators have thusfar found some interesting polarity changes and magnitization of aluminum, but not yet the mass/weight feel or visual anomalies.

Anyone please correct or elaborate.

I missed this. Indeed. Cloxxki's summarised this perfectly. IMHO

[witsend]

Off topic but of interest is any proposal that light is able to respond to any charge at all - negative, positive, north, south, on off - whatever. I think the first person to discover any kind of polar attribute in any photons at all - will have made one of the greatest discoveries thus far managed by our species. It would be a heretofore absolutely unknown property of light.

Photons are not known to respond to a magnetic field. The polarisation of glass is actually a misnomer. It applies to the cancelling of light waves at certain values. This is an entirely different thing. Photons themselves are absolutely not known to respond to magnetic fields. So. If Dave has generated a unique magnetic field and if light is, indeed, responding to that field - and if that field is then doing what a gravitational field does, then it may very well be that there is some similarity between magnetic and gravitational fields. But that's not conclusive. It's based on the premise that Dave has generated a unique magnetic field. So. It's an example of deductive reasoning. In fact it's a 'nested if'. LOL.