gravity waves found

[Harvey]

Hi Adie123,

That is some good work there in 3D Studio Max.

I've seen many illustrations of curved space that use the surface analogy and it works to give an approximation but is not really the way Einstein envisaged things. First of all, the model demonstrated requires gravity to work. So we are using gravity to explain gravity Second of all, Einstein knew that spatial curvature happens spatially, not just on a surface, even a 4D or higher dimensional surface. Instead the curvature is a spherical compression of space-time around any given mass and gravity is the interaction of these compressions trying to equalize.

I like the centrifugal model but I think you will find that along the rotational axis it will be zero so the spikes are probably not correct in that respect.

Good work though!

[Jetijs]

Great news spiralout
So are you saying that the effect grows over time? Great stuff! This confirms some of the channeling info.
You can use ImageShack® - Online Media Hosting to upload your pictures and put the link to those pictures here. Just press "browse" button, then select where the picture is on your computer and then press "upload", after that you will see your picture uploaded and all you have to do now is just to copy the direct link to that picture here.

I would like to see your setup

[Harvey]

Hi Sprialout,

to the thread

to embed pictures you must first make them available elsewhere on the net like photobucket. I think some members here have a place dedicated for that but I don't recall the link.

Once you have a link you can reference, then you can used the IMG tool (looks like a square with a mountain and sun on a yellow background) to insert the IMG tags around the link.

That's all there is to it

Cheers,

[spiralout]

Thanks guys, will post tomorrow, good night.

[Adie123]

Thanks for your post with all them links Harvey. Some nice reading to be had for sure

Hi Adie123,

That is some good work there in 3D Studio Max.

I've seen many illustrations of curved space that use the surface analogy and it works to give an approximation but is not really the way Einstein envisaged things. First of all, the model demonstrated requires gravity to work. So we are using gravity to explain gravity Second of all, Einstein knew that spatial curvature happens spatially, not just on a surface, even a 4D or higher dimensional surface. Instead the curvature is a spherical compression of space-time around any given mass and gravity is the interaction of these compressions trying to equalize.

thanks and I did seriously have my doubts on the illustrations that ive seen in documentories etc for einsteins space warp. Was hoping einstein was meaning different to the warping of space to these models. So it was the reason i pointed it out in my post. Glad you clarified the difference between docs and einsteins true theory.

I like the centrifugal model but I think you will find that along the rotational axis it will be zero so the spikes are probably not correct in that respect.

Yeh i was thinking that myself, but the spikes were to show that the force funnels out. Although its probably more or less flat. Would i be right in thinking that if an object came into our solar system, that object (due to grav forces of sun and the planets) would be pulled to align itself slightly to our sytems plane as it passes through?... If so it would make sence that for the centrifugal forces to be parrallel with the spin of a mass...

------

Anyhow, some more work ive just done in 3ds max. See what you think ... again all theories to spark anyones brain on the cure for gravity

Fan in an atmosphere

Fan in a vacuum

regards
Adie

And well done spiralout

[jermutin]

Phew!

Hi all

Wow. I just spent the day reading this thread from page one. I finished after.. hmm 7 hours maybe. I watched all the relevant test videos and many other links too.

There was moments of excitement (the stone in the early videos really seemed to move lightly between just 2 fingers), and moments of disappointment (the recent weight test with a spring-scale from the 50's, because that 2 % difference is most propably caused by different weight distribution in the system, AND this experiment really wasn't proposed by anyone after all).

Those still shots/videos that show compressed U's on the right and almost O-shaped U's on the left side should definitely be debunked by shooting the rig from 45 degree angle, and moving in a circle around the rig. I assume that the big O's will stay on the left side, because of the videocam rendering each frame in an up-down direction (or down up). This makes things moving up/down to shrink/expand. The fact that the rings that are situated high and low seem to be equal in size also supports this.

Interestin phenomena is the Lambright glow, or LG, that has one positive "peer review". This is in my opinion maybe the best proof of this phenomena (besides David's marvellously genuine enthusiasm). What comes to believing peoples claims, I like to ask my self "Would I buy a used car from this man?". Yes, I would!

Keep up the good work, and focus on replications and DOCUMENTATION!!! (Besides theorisizing, of course!)

J

[jermutin]

And now, for the exciting part of this report. Since I've switched to an observer mode and stopped "Harassing" the device, I've been able to see the effect, AKA "the Lambright glimmer" clearer and clearer! I've showed the device to three other people and all said they notice the effect, one even said that he can see a vortex coming from the middle of the rig which I haven't been able to. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, "OMG! IT'S ALIVE!"

This was GOOD news, I think I'll add this Lambright-device to my list of "exotic phenomena-devices to replicate"!!

[Harvey]

Hi Adie123,

You raise an interesting question regarding the capture of extent mass into our solar system that has a source trajectory different than the solar orbital plane.

Notice that dwarf planet, Pluto is not in the same plane as the other planets:

An Overview of the Solar System

and really, even the other eight deviate a bit above and below the plane.

So the evidence would tend to indicate, looking at Pluto and various Comets, that an alignment with the Solar Orbital Plane does not occur even after billions of years. This would indicate that the imaginary centrifugal force is a function of the individual orbits as Newton suggests. However, there are probably gravitational vectors from all bodies of matter seen and unseen, that if were of sufficient quantity and distribution density, could pull orbitals into the same plane, not because of centrifugal force, but because of their vectors. So in the arrangements with greater density, the plane would be more predominant.

Centrifugal force is actually an object trying to go in a straight line while being tied centripetally to another point or points by some force or connection. This is why it is considered an imaginary force, a matter of perspective. Phun Physics - Topics

Of course evaluation of this introduces the factor of inertial and non-inertial reference frames.

[Harvey]

. . .

But because we know the truth about magnetism already, we find from #23 & #24 that inducing a magnetic flux in a closed loop causes that flux to be retained in that loop.

Therefore, using closed permeable cylinders to get a PMH lock will always fail because the flux already has a closed path of much smaller distance and higher permeability. Try as you wish, it will never, ever lock unless you break the path within the cylinder.

While this statement is true with the proviso that the radius of the cylinder is less than the radius of the connections I feel I must correct myself here because the statement does not preclude any particular geometry.

Therefore, it is possible to get a lock with say 3 cylinders because the total flux path between the three will be less than the cylinder circumference. Therefore, this is the rule to getting the lock:

"The total flux path length for all elements locked must be shorter than the single path length of any closed element."

My apologies if my former statement was too dogmatic and misleading - I often assume the readers grasp the concepts within and I need to remind myself that some things are not self evident.

[witsend]

Hi guys,

Some news on our tests - still no Lambright Glimmer - and - if there is a 'lock' it's tenuous. I need Dave to comment. Our cylinders are tie bound and - frankly - I'm too scared to unbind them. Not at all sure they'll hold. Other effects still evident.

I'll post my photos when it's daylight here. I need better light to navigate that system. Also I'll take another long look for those elusive 'lights'.

[witsend]

Roger 10 4

-----------

@witsend - Image below is what im messing about with in 3DS Max. Its the same type of model design to illustrate einsteins theory of space bending, but its not entirely what my theory is..... As this theory and design would draw an object in and then sink to the bottom of the mass. This would show an object approaching and then veer off course and i dont recall anything from documentories or science literature about that. So einsteins theory is flawed with this (imho).



If you can imagine the spheres at the same height as the dark cyan layer. Objects approach, keeping their trajectory until they get within the centrifugal force of the mass, which can be billions of miles depending on the size, core spin, etc of the mass. The centrifugal force will slowly alter the objects path in an ark (same direction of the mass's spin).

The below image is roughly how i perceive the centrifugal force (part of gravities equation).



The flat area of the centrifugal force (red) will pull on objects, just like a whirlepool draws in the surrounding water and other matter in the water. The 2 spikes of the centrifugal force will be much thinner/tighter than this, but i drew them fatter for illustration.

Adie - your pictures are AMAZING. Very well done indeed. WOW - Really, really nice. I'm almost tempted to try and get some software and see if I can navigate around it with this arthritic brain of mine.

Not sure where you're heading with your thesis. If the 'centrifugal force' is the result of space 'bending' then presumably there's actually something in that space to 'bend' in the first instance? Is this what you see as 'gravity'? If so, then I think we're on the same page. But it doesn't then quite explain the 'continual' spin or 'orbit'. I think the argument here is that if there's nothing in the vacuum then there's nothing to stop that momentum. But the fact that something has first positioned that path argues that there IS something in the vacuum.

Those 'whirlpools' - they're like that virtual photon ejection proposed to come from a black hole. That intrigues me no end. I'm entirely satisfied that this is what actually happens. I see it as a kind of 'unravelling' of matter back to some primal condition. LOVE THIS SUBJECT.

[witsend]

It is my opinion that if anyone has been 'hide bound' by classical education one has also been 'schooled' in the Laws of Thermodynamics. By 'schooled' read 'brainwashed', hobbled, handicapped. These Laws are bandied around like a creed and like all creeds they are 'adhered to' with a blind faith that transcends all requirements of applied logic and reasonable thought. Certainly amongst mainstream it is politically incorrect to subscribe to alternate thinking. And should any such be reckless enough to embark on 'deviant' paths - then they must put paid to their professional reputations. Which means that science is advanced - not by clear thinking but by popular opinion. Which also puts paid to the 'claim' that science is only advanced by experimental evidence. I speak with some authority when I say that the acme of our scientific endeavours - being the publication of papers - are hampered by just this fact. Any submission of proof of over unity results in an alarming need by our learned and revered - to drop the subject - close the eyes - shut the mouth - and block the ears.

To my way of thinking - that is precisely the value of this kind of forum - and more to the point - to this kind of thread. Accreditation does not afford anyone greater authority to comment. Our own logic is the only real tool we have to advance our own learning. And use of that logic is actually also an inalienable right - like 'free speech'. But like 'free speech' that too is somewhat prescribed.

If mainstream had all the answers - then indeed it would be as well to defer. But they don't. And if they pretend to such then they are simply guilty of just that - PRETENSION. It's sadder yet to 'pretend' to accreditation. That puts it at a really 'far' remove from anything of value. And, sadly, such pretensions abound. I am rather pleased that there are such as the majority of us - who can use our intellect - unfettered by the demands of that majority opinion.

p.s. i hope i/we havnt sabotaged Daves thread. I feel that im trying to add my theory on gravity so everyone can draw their conclusions onto what Daves device has found. My personal opinion is that its not gravity. Although i would love to be proved wrong

And Adie, I know for a fact that Dave is encouraging just this kind of discussion. I believe he has his own thesis which we'll get to know in due course. But he is as anxious as all of us to explore this effect and its implications.

[witsend]

So, I continued to play around with the device, trying different coil arrangements, pulsed it over and over again in order to get the effect clearer, but to no avail. lol, it got to a point where I thought of offering it some food!
...

And now, for the exciting part of this report. Since I've switched to an observer mode and stopped "Harassing" the device, I've been able to see the effect, AKA "the Lambright glimmer" clearer and clearer! I've showed the device to three other people and all said they notice the effect, one even said that he can see a vortex coming from the middle of the rig which I haven't been able to. So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, "OMG! IT'S ALIVE!"

Hi spiralout and most welcome to the discussion. I never realised we first had to spark each segment. I'll need to try that. And really GOOD NEWS here.

LOL I loved your post. Very amusing.

[witsend]

This was GOOD news, I think I'll add this Lambright-device to my list of "exotic phenomena-devices to replicate"!!

Golly - and another newbie. Just so nice to see the interest in this subject. Welcome jermutin. Hopefully you'll keep us posted.

[Harvey]

. . . p.s. i hope i/we havnt sabotaged Daves thread. I feel that im trying to add my theory on gravity so everyone can draw their conclusions onto what Daves device has found. My personal opinion is that its not gravity. Although i would love to be proved wrong

I hope so too.

But some of the best advice I've seen yet in this thread, I can't recall who gave it though was for David to take his rig to a University.

I really hope he takes that very sound advice to heart because they have all the kewl toys to sort this stuff out.

Besides, IIRC, his own brother graduated from college this year "Congratulations, Davids' Brother"