gravity waves found

[david lambright]

fluid movement...

OK...we can see "heat" rising, most of the time with smoke or steam, or see the rippling effect distorting the images in the background, like a mirage...so why do we not "see" the wind distorting the image also...at what temperature do these distortions become visible?...if the force that distorts light can be made artificially, by itself, without heat or wind movement...what would it be?..david

[Harvey]

OK...we can see "heat" rising, most of the time with smoke or steam, or see the rippling effect distorting the images in the background, like a mirage...so why do we not "see" the wind distorting the image also...at what temperature do these distortions become visible?...if the force that distorts light can be made artificially, by itself, without heat or wind movement...what would it be?..david

We do see distortions along the boundaries between high and low pressures but the incidence angle of the light has to be within a specific range. It's like looking straight down at a pool of water with a long pole laying at an angle - you really cannot tell how deep it is because there is no distortion or reference. But from a side angle you get a better idea of the distortion. So with air, it is like looking through bifocals, you have to have a transition across the boundary to really detect the difference. With heat, the boundaries are very tightly curved and much more pronounced. With air the boundaries can be thousands of miles long. Whirlwinds and dust-devils probably give the best chance at observing this, but they usually pick up debris that causes us to focus on the wrong thing. Have you every seen a shadow from air disturbance but couldn't see the actual disturbance? I have, many times. So it is clear that the disturbance is sufficient to mask the light off in other directions, but from the viewing angle it could not clearly be detected at the source.

You may find this article interesting http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc..._Z6vHAqYLfFlTg

[gravityblock]

Light is a bipolar force with both an attractive and repulsive component that can be controlled. Maybe David's device can achieve this on a macro scale.

GB

[broli]

No hanging laser experiment?

[Harvey]

Light is a bipolar force with both an attractive and repulsive component that can be controlled. Maybe David's device can achieve this on a macro scale.

GB

"This is not possible in free space — it is only possible when light is confined in the nanoscale waveguides that are placed so close to each other on the chip."

I don't think I agree with that comment - it certainly assumes a lot.

As I have stated before in this thread, I do believe that an apparatus could be constructed that would filter and phase light and allow just one of the quad-polar forces to be acted on along its path therefore causing it to bend in free space. There are four forces, not just two: +/- magnetic and +/- Electric and they are each 90° from the other force type and 180° from their opposite while each is 90° from the trajectory path. So, we can also add two more forces that relate to the direction of propagation and are kinetic. There is a force present as a photon leaves and atom and an opposite force when it joins an atom. So in absolute technicality, the photon represents 6 balanced forces on the 3 axis of our 3D space time.

Here is something to ponder - when the magnetic field of the photon is at zero, the electric field is also at zero: Where is the energy stored? Anyone who is familiar with my 'long long' photon will know the answer.

[Loadstone]

Hi all.
David, yes, what I witnessed was like Schlieren photography.
You can also see shadows on concrete and other things on a sunny day which has already been mentioned.
Also if you look into the sky for a while you can see a boiling gasseous substance too, but it takes a little training.

I have my own replica of Ed's wheel, but I haven't noticed anything unusual accept for a certain optical illsion that happens when I watch the wheel turning and then stop it...the wheel looks as if it i still turning!

I will do some experiments here to see if I notice anything.
Scotty.

[gravityblock]

Figure 1.2 of page 21/28 showing the harmonic frequencies of vibrating loops of string, reminds me of the clover bowl on Ed's generator. Any thoughts on this?

GB

[DavidE]

Edward S. Farrow (November 1911) wrote an extensive report on his own findings concerning gravity reduction. He observed that ignition coils, attached to aerial wires and plates, lost weight. When placed on accurate, nonmetallic scales and "fired", the entire apparatus lost one-sixth of its weight. Mr. Farrow performed these demonstrations willingly and openly, allowing every portion of his experiment to be dismantled. Furthermore, he encouraged others to attempt reproducing the result. Although with weaker force, the effect was observed in these instances. The difference for the strength of his demonstration had to do with a specially developed a rapidly rotating "spark wheel" which he kept enclosed. Mr. Farrow believed that his apparatus was nullifying the local gravity field, which he termed the "vertical component". He considered gravitation to be a special electrical effect, which acted within neutral matter. At about this same time, a small antigravitational device was independently developed in Paris. In this, a highly charged mica disc spun at high rate and levitated when electrostatically charged (Ducretet). Dr. Francis Nipher (March 1918) conducted extensive research on a modified Cavendish Experiment. In the classical reproduction of the experiment, he arranged for the gravitational attraction of free-swinging masses to a large fixed mass. Dr. Nipher's modification included the electrification of the fixed mass. When the fixed mass was highly charged by an electrostatic machine and shielded in a cage, the free-swinging masses yielded unexpected and inexplicable motional effects.

The free-swinging masses first showed reductions in their gravitational attraction when the fixed mass was slightly charged. At a certain charged stage, the free-swinging masses were not attracted at all. Beyond a critical charge limit, Dr. Nipher showed the complete reversal of gravitational attractions. Therefore, shielded electrostatic fields were demonstrably effecting gravitational modifications in controlled experiments, Dr. Nipher considering that electrostatic force and gravitation were absolutely linked. Dr. Nipher's reports were thorough and extensive, forming a real research base on which to perform further research.

Electric Flying Machines - Thomas Townsend Brown

[broli]

From ou.com

Bruce_TPU
Last Active: July 31, 2010, 04:28:56 PM

So that's yesterday. Did he reply to anyone in pm?

[IndianaBoys]

From ou.com

Bruce_TPU
Last Active: July 31, 2010, 04:28:56 PM

So that's yesterday. Did he reply to anyone in pm?

David,

When you sent the PMH to Bruce TPU, what address did you send it to??

[Harvey]

From ou.com

Bruce_TPU
Last Active: July 31, 2010, 04:28:56 PM

So that's yesterday. Did he reply to anyone in pm?

I just found out Thursday that a longtime family friend named Bruce was recently told he has cancer. I inquired as to whether he had recently moved just on the outside chance that this coincidence could somehow be connected.

Looks like its a different Bruce.

But it did get me thinking about what the pattern of behavior could be if some news like that did occur with Bruce_TPU or if he had his family checking his accounts for him.

Also, it could very well be that he can log in and read using his PDA or Cell phone, but can't really make any comments very easily - assuming he is on the road.

So there could be a few reasons for his not responding - but if anyone does hear from him, it would be good to let us know.

[Freemen]

Dipole Antigravity

I think this could bring a light upon your discovery Dipole (Anti)Gravity, Magnetic Gravity, true Gravitomagnetism May it is a good theory that deserves investigation. Other interesting approuch is found in Anti-Gravity Explained About several phenonema the Newtonian thermodinamics does not include see The Tom Bearden Website

[Freemen]

Funding

I think you should take a glance at Is a cosmic chameleon driving galaxies apart? - space - 02 August 2010 - New Scientist

It would be a good chance you talk with Dr Eugene Jeong (PhD in physics) he have a good theory -which your discovery fills it- and he is engaged in serious research funding Dipole Anti-Gravity

[Freemen]

I don't think I agree with that comment - it certainly assumes a lot.

As I have stated before in this thread, I do believe that an apparatus could be constructed that would filter and phase light and allow just one of the quad-polar forces to be acted on along its path therefore causing it to bend in free space. There are four forces, not just two: +/- magnetic and +/- Electric and they are each 90° from the other force type and 180° from their opposite while each is 90° from the trajectory path. So, we can also add two more forces that relate to the direction of propagation and are kinetic. There is a force present as a photon leaves and atom and an opposite force when it joins an atom. So in absolute technicality, the photon represents 6 balanced forces on the 3 axis of our 3D space time.

Here is something to ponder - when the magnetic field of the photon is at zero, the electric field is also at zero: Where is the energy stored? Anyone who is familiar with my 'long long' photon will know the answer.

"the charging process of a C is not linear. at the end, the power supply will push harder and harder to compensate the oposing repulsive force of the overcowding electrons. So I think C*V*V/2 already contains your extra kinetic energy (velocity of e's) obtained BEFORE recombination/equilibr. However, if I'm wrong then I suggest to discharge C's energy, through a superconductor"; excerpts of comments of YouTube - Physics of Free Energy Device (page 5)

[Harvey]

"the charging process of a C is not linear. at the end, the power supply will push harder and harder to compensate the oposing repulsive force of the overcowding electrons. So I think C*V*V/2 already contains your extra kinetic energy (velocity of e's) obtained BEFORE recombination/equilibr. However, if I'm wrong then I suggest to discharge C's energy, through a superconductor"; excerpts of comments of YouTube - Physics of Free Energy Device (page 5)

While the electron and photon share similar characteristics (wave particle duality) they are quite different electromagnetically and materially.

The photon is considered to be massless while the electron has been measured to have a mass of 9.10938215(45)×10−31 kg.
The photon posses both electric polarities and magnetic polarities at different temporal assignments whereas the Electron exhibits a continuous negative polarity independent of time. While the photon enjoys a duality of magnetic polarity akin to its electric polarity in that it shifts spatially, the electron tends to keep its magnetic dipole oriented in one direction spatially in accordance with its movement rather than any wave function.

So we need to be careful when we try to assign the characteristics of one to the other.

On the 27th day of September in 1905, Albert Einstein "deduced inter alia" with the principles of Maxwell's equations that the kinetic energy of a body is reduced by the emission of light in his work entitled "DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY CONTENT?". In his deduction he showed that the energy of a body viewed from two different systems moving relative to each other where that body is at rest in one of the systems, can have a differential that differs from the kinetic energy of the body with respect to the other system. The results of the deduction are as follows:
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c²"

Einstein indicated "that the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content; if the enrgy chanes by L, the mass changes in the same sense by L/9 x 10^20, the energy being measured in ergs, and the mass in grammes"

He then stated "It is not impossible that with bodies whose energy-content is variable to a high degree (e.g. with radium salts) the theory may be successfully put to the test."

And then, to drive the point home he finishes with the following statement:
" If the theory corresponds to the facts, radiation conveys inertia between the emitting and absorbing bodies."

It is important to realize in this case, that he is referring to electromagnetic radiation, i.e. photons. Thus, he is stating that photons take inertia from one system and give it to another.