gravity waves found

[Adie123]

Quite apart from which - how does one measure anything that exceeds light speed? Think about it. If light travels at plus/minus 300 000 kilometres per second - then that's the limit on gauging the speed of an object. Which is why we need to use light to determine an object's velocity. If we had anything faster than than light speed to use as a measure then we'd effectively be measuring a 'future event'. Something that is SO fast that light itself is 'outpaced'. In effect it would be rendered invisible. So. Light is simply the boundary limit on what we can measure. It's therefore also the boundary limit on our tangible universe. Which is not to say that light speed cannot be exceeded. Just - anything faster - and it's definitely in another time dimension separated from our own.

Its funny cos i was pondering this after i posted. If something is travelling or spinning faster than the speed of light, then there would obviously be a delay in the light getting to us, or at least it would seem that way.

a decent experiment could be to see what happens when one spins a disc at 98%-99% the speed of light and then time the deceleration to a stop after turning off power. Then time it again when you have it at the proposed max speed (which always seems to be close to light speed. Like the Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia reports close to speed of light), but im betting they have got them particles travelling faster but they cant register it properly. Timing this deceleration to a stop, they may find that there is a disproportianate difference in time it takes to slow to a stop. Which would indicate they are going faster than the speed of light and only timing a deceleration would be the only thing to calculate faster than speed of light.

May even be better to just use the Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Seeing as they got it setup to do speeds required.

So to recap- Speed faster than light needs to be calculated in decelerate time and to not try to calculate velocity while its going faster than speed of light

EDIT: Just had another thought. If it were to be possible to setup a camera/detector to follow the particle on its travel around the Hadron. Then they could calculate the speed of the particle moving away from the camera/detector and add that to the speed of the camera/detector. Trouble would be to get the camera at a decent speed. But if they are getting the speed of the particle at a supposidly 99.9% speed of light and they get the camera/detector to a speed of 1% speed of light then surely the calculation would show 100.9% speed of light. Vuala, faster than lightspeed calculated

Regards
Adie

[witsend]

Hi again Adie.

Here's the thing. Say we have a camera that is able to detect a particle. The shutter is left open and it points to some arbitrary position in space where particles whizz past and can be photographed. It takes a significant number of photographs so that it can reproduce a reasonably fair reflection of these events and the continuity of these events. Rather like an extended exposure on moving car lights. They all tend to stream together in long lines.

Under such circumstances one can assume that photons will be depicted as long lines of light and anything outside of the visible wavelengths remain undetected. Then - under these circumstances IF the particle that exceeded light speed were within the visible frequency range the camera would be able to pick them up. None such ahve ever seen.

However, if there were particles that somehow influenced by photons within the visible or near visible light spectrum and these were reflected - refracted - whatever - off those particles - then, just as happens in an atom - the angle of that refraction would determine the photon's new frequency and - if this was 'big' enough - that resulting frequency from that interaction would be visible.

My take on sucahyo's photos and kirlian photography - is that this is precisely what is happening. Photons are bouncing off invisible particles and these are then captured - not by the eye - but by the camera that is now adjusted to pick up these more subtle frequencies. And as sucahyo argues, there are those who can see these interactions with the use of their natural sight.

Now when it comes to the Lambright Glimmer - we have a similar event. What I saw was a glitter - or glimmer of lights that must have exceeded the average shutter speed - obviously. In other words there is an evident transition or movement of lights from one position to another showing a distinct 'directional' flow. No question we are looking at lights that are moving, and are moving through space, As photons they must also be moving at extraordinary velocities. But it tells us very little about the particles that they are interacting with if this is, indeed, what is happening. Are those particles held in a fixed position or are they also moving? Do they stream out of the rig continuously - or do they simply form a force field of some sort that is located in and around the rig itself?

In as much as a permanent or an induced magnetic field has a prescribed boundary where it can influence other particles - then I would say that this latter option is feasible. But what is frustrating is that the interaction of photons - or the glimmer itself - does not show that shape. Just the general area where the force is evident. Nor does it tell us more about the particle except that the 'glimmer' is variable - indicated by the different colours that emanate from it.

[witsend]

I just read that through. I'm trying to point to the possibility that light is simply interacting with an invisible force field comprising particles. If this was purely electromagnetic then I think this would have been widely evident in photographic techniques such as kirlian photography and that number that sucahyo does. But we only know how it shows up in sucahyo's photos. And there is no real difference in the 'glow' that sucahyo has in most of the objects in his photos. Definitely not specific to the rig. Nor is the Lambright glimmer evident in any objects other than is directly associated to the rig. So it may be the same field - it may have an electromagnetic source of some sort - but clearly it has a different construct of some kind. Perhaps it has a wider reach. Or perhaps it is more dispersed?

[Adie123]

@witsend- You pose many questions and probabilities on which i cant comment on. I think it needs a physicist with more insight into photons than what i possess and if these could be the effect from the Lambright Glimmer/Glow (LG)

But along the lines of the camera/detector i mentioned. the LHC has several detectors of which are huge. So i was meaning to have a detector of a donut or tube type form to run around the LHC which would allow the protons to continue through and past the detector. The detector could be a few meters long and have a detector on the front and aft so 2 detectors in essence. So the timing between the first and second detector can give a speed reference which is then added to the speed of the detector(s). But truely have no idea if a detector could be so small to detect protons. As i said the detectors already in place at the LHC are huge.

Regards
Adie

EDIT: Changed photons to protons in the main paragraph. was a mistake to use photons.

[wrench76]

YouTube - AlienScientist's Channel

[witsend]

More About Light

Guys have just read through my post. It's really badly expressed - apologies. If I may I'll try that again. My question is this. When a photon interacts with an atom then the photon changes its frequency and becomes visible. It shines. It does not shine before it interacts with the atom. If it did then we'd see it on its way in so to speak. Mainstream tell us that it's in an invisible wavelength until it hits the atom. Then it becomes visible and also it becomes colour specific and locality specific. So. Leaves shines green - wood shines brown - rubies shine red, and so on. Which means that there is something in the property of that atom that the photon is able to interpret and it relates to the structure of that atom and the level of penetration by the photon. But there is a reliable consistency to this interaction. The ruby that is red - stays red - bricks that have been burned brown stay brown - and so on. So. Whatever happens at that moment of interaction is a dependable reference. The colour does not change. Only the intensity of the colour changes depending on the strength of the initial light source.

Now. We are also told that the colour changes when the photon - having interacted with the atom - then leaves the atom. It's bounced off the atom at a specific angle and this then determines its new VISIBLE wavelength. Again it's colour specific and locality specific. And given the density of our atmosphere one can then imagine that same photon then interacting with sundry atoms and molecules in the air. And at each transition through each new atomic structure in its path it is able to faithfully interpret something - some density related to those atoms and molecules to emit the appropriate colour or light. And so it is that light enables us to see sundry objects in and around our tangible universe.

Mainstream have established that when a photon is somehow introduced into the body of an atom it is able to 'reposition' the 'superficial' electrons in the atom's energy levels to force them into a new and tighter orbit. The electron jumps one or more energy levels. The photon is 'absorbed'. Then the electron jumps down to it's natural level and the photon is again emitted. In other words the mechanical property of that jump determines a 'new' series of events that is then responsible for the colour. Effectively the frequency adjustment that enables that appropriate colour - is an interaction of the photon and the valence electrons of the atom.

This is very well explained by AlienScientist - for those who have watched the video link. But he introduces a new concept initially proposed by his friend Dr Podkletnov. Here he suggestes that the interaction of the photon with the atom has a cascading type of effect that can be roughly equated to a kind of Dopler effect where the entire structure of the atom is influenced by that intruding photon so that the entire atom 'resonates' and this 'shakes loose' so to speak, the parent bonding of the atom. And it is this interaction that effectively challenges the gravitational pull of the atom and renders it free of that gavity bond.

My own interpretation - for what it's worth - is that there is no question that light can degrade the bound state of atoms. We know that light can somehow diminish the clarity of colour - and that this diminution - this reduction - is related to the coherent structure of any bound amalgam - to any visible three dimensional object. Given enough exposure to light and - over time - that bound condition of all structures are compromised. But I question whether it also changes the atom's response to a 'gravitational' field - whatever that is. Theoretically one would simply need to bombard something with enough photons to get it to levitate. Not sure that this has ever been seen. But I also know enough about our mainstream scientists that if there is a proposal that electrons jump through different energy levels then this is based on empirical evidence.

But here's the thing. If the electron's position and spin is changed - and it is taken away from the photon that has just penetrated that atom - then where is there any interaction of the photon with the electron? As I see it the electron has reconfigured its position to adjust to this new piece of matter that has come into it's immediate environment. Energy has been introduced into the body of the atom. And the electron has - in effect - avoided an interaction and has - rather - been repelled or propelled away from that photon - that extra energy. What I'm trying to suggest is this. There is no actual interaction with the photon and the electron. Could it be that the photon interacts with something in those energy levels. If, as I propose those energy levels comprise two dimensional magnetic fields - then could it be that the photon is simply interacting with those magnetic fields rather than with the electron itself?

Sorry. I've just seen the length of this post.

[sucahyo]

When a photon interacts with an atom then the photon changes its frequency and becomes visible. It shines. It does not shine before it interacts with the atom.

Photon is not part of an atom and both can independently exist without the other?

[witsend]

Again - with apologies for such a long post - but I'm still only skirting the point here. The body of an atom is huge in comparison to its particles. We know this. If you take the standard hydrogen atom and - in the mind's eye make the nucleus as big as an apple... then the electron would be the size of a split pea and it would be circling the nucleus at a radius of something in the order of 8 miles I think it is. That's an awful lot of space when you consider that the photon - whatever it's frequency - is still within the range of the electron's own wavelength within its orbit. They are both much, much smaller than the environment of the nucleus. But here's the thing. One can take that electron away from the atom but the atom will still bond with other atoms yet retain those energy levels. That space that belongs to the nucleus seems to be a part and parcel of the nucleus. They come together.

Then consider this. The electron is negatively charged and the proton is positive. In terms of the Laws of Charge the electron should make a bee line to the proton and BOND. But it doesn't. On the contrary. The nearer the electron gets to the proton - the more they repel each other. Something - some charge in the proton renders it 'like' the electron albeit that the net charge of the proton is positive. So. We're told by mainstream that it is the strong nuclear force that repels the electron. If so - then the strong nuclear force is either antigravitational - in that it repels rather than attracts matter - or the strong nuclear force is essentially negative.

But there's another option which is this. Surely, if the electron has these clearly defined orbits could it be that the energy levels themselves trap the electron either in their centre or between two opposing fields. And. If those energy levels were simple two dimensional magnetic fields - something shaped like a saucer - could it be that the electron itself is descibing an orbit that is a faithful reflection of the shape of those fields. This, at it's least, would provide a mechanical explanation for the orbit of the electron. It is known to spiral in a magnetic field and to move to the centre of that field. It's been seen to do just this inside a collider. Here it spirals to the centre of the field and once found - it reaches a comparative rest state - and only evinces a spin. But trapped inside or between two opposing magnetic fields - then - indeed - it would continually orbit as would not find that preferred rest state.

But the problem then is this. Many such atoms can bond regardless of their valence condition. The parent bonding as it's referred to - is achieved regardless of - and according to - the valence condition of those electrons. This determines its lattice structure - the electromagnetic balance between the atoms that are then perfectly aligned to achieve a best balance or best rest state. That position where any innate electromagnetic imbalance is somehow spatially adjusted by those electromagnetic imperatives to move towards a state of balance.

My proposal is that this bonding of the atoms is actually achieved by something extraneious to the atom. They're small one dimensional magnetic fields that can hold many atoms in a bound condition by arranging the atoms into that 'best balance' position. If so, then these fields would be able to act independently of the atom. They would be able to move and adjust through space and would be able to move all matter into a position of 'best balance'. Being one dimensional their spin can be adjusted as required. They can compensate or not. They can continue to bond or move away and compromise the bound state of those atoms. Then these same fields are not locality dependant. If something, some energy was introduced into an amalgam - then these fields would re-arrange themselves to compensate without materially altering the structure of the atom itself. But they would unquestionably be able to BOND atoms together. If this concept is 'imposed' so to speak on our observable reality - then this could account for the casimir effect as well as many other effects. But I'll get back to this.

As it applies to gravity - here's the thing. If energy levels are magnetic fields - and if the casimir effect is the result of extraneous fields that are responsible for that parent bonding - then what is obvious is that magnetic fields can 'shield' matter. What is known is that while the electron does not respond to gravity the entire atom does. If so. And if our own gravity fields are the result of our magnetic fields - then to achieve an antigravitational effect - it would only be necessary to find an appropriate magnetic alignment that would shield the atom itself from the earth's field. I think that Dave's rig is showing us what is required. The hell of it is to determine exactly what magnetic fields are evident.

[CatLady]

Yes

Hi David,

I'm still interested if the device you constructed and it's effects has anything to to with any specific location similar to what I have already done for you and Jetijs with your close proximity to the areas of possible negative flux lines.

I see the thread is getting very long now which can be troublesome for members and guests to wade through some of the totally off topic postings so I propose this.

Anyone doing a replication that wants to participate and have their location plotted to see if replication devices are location dependent they can PM me or e-mail me at FuzzyTomCat@yahoo.com with the city where the replication is, and I will send them back a image of the closest location of the proposed flux lines to them.

This way if the evidence is there it could be posted if felt it's relevant to the thread and this could help keep the thread "on topic" or limit the postings for this.

It's good to see so many people actually making a replication or "COPY" of your device to try to see the effects, don't be disappointed though with the "mavericks" making devices not even close to what you have made ..... a replication is just that ..... a "COPY" ..... they'll figure it out .....

We'll have to set up a time when I can come down to Salem and observe what you have ..... maybe even a "LIVE" broadcast !!

Best Regards,
Glen

When I get the rig to test and film I would like you to send me an image of the closest location of the proposed flux lines. We will be in touch....


TheTruthBeKnown
Dr. Hazel Yackty

[witsend]

Photon is not part of an atom and both can independently exist without the other?

I believe that's mainstream's interpretation Sucahyo. There are no photons naturally part of the construct of an atom that has yet been determined. I think mainstream concede that the proton is a composite of different particles such as quarks, gluons and such like. But photons do not make up any part of that composite. And an electron and a photon are classed as leptons which mean that they're considered to be fundamental particles. What has been proposed by AlienScientist is that the photon is always in a wave and never a particle. But I think that's a viewpoint. Not sure. Even as a wave it would need to be considered some kind of matter as it has a velocity and mass that has been carefully measured.

[FuzzyTomCat]

When I get the rig to test and film I would like you to send me an image of the closest location of the proposed flux lines. We will be in touch....


TheTruthBeKnown
Dr. Hazel Yackty

Cool I've had only a few members ask about doing this for them .... but .... actually have had about the same amount of requests from "guests" which was quite unexpected but much appreciated.

Glen

[witsend]

But along the lines of the camera/detector i mentioned. the LHC has several detectors of which are huge. So i was meaning to have a detector of a donut or tube type form to run around the LHC which would allow the photons to continue through and past the detector. The detector could be a few meters long and have a detector on the front and aft so 2 detectors in essence. So the timing between the first and second detector can give a speed reference which is then added to the speed of the detector(s). But truely have no idea if a detector could be so small to detect photons. As i said the detectors already in place at the LHC are huge.

Hi Adie. I know nothing about the LHC so can't comment. But what my brother has proposed is this. If one shines a light into a mirror that reflects the light back from the mirror then what's the speed of that light? I can't get my head around it. You guys obviously can. LOL. What I do know is that if they were to use photons in that LHC they'd need to deflect this off some kind of mirror arrangment to get it around the donut. But again. I know nothing about these accelerators. I need to read up some more. I understood that particles were literally accelerated by the applied magnetic fields induced around the LHC. And the rate of those orbits increases with each passage as they're literally passed through an 'acceleration' type wing. What I have also read that's interesting is that they can see a visible increase in the mass of the particles as they go faster. This sort of conforms to Einsteins's predictions. I prefer to think that they get more visible as they get accelerated into higher velocities. They're more energised. But this field is absolutely outside my understanding.

[Aromaz]

For a long time I am reading and often am tempted to reply.
Against my own wish, I cannot tolerate your ‘suffering’ longer.

@Witsend:
Your arguments are very interesting and I see the answers every time with my model; unfortunately you do not accept PM’s. This posting #1284 above is brilliant; you answer some of your questions but maybe does not realize that.

First I have one point of confusion:
“ . . .when a photon is somehow introduced into the body of an atom it is able to 'reposition' the 'superficial' electrons in the atom's energy levels to force them into a new and tighter orbit. ”

When a photon passes an orbital electron, which is capable of being raised to a higher allowed energy level, if the photon possesses that increment of energy, the lower energy orbiting electron can capture the photon’s energy.
o This energy capture can only occur when the incoming photon’s kinetic energy field is properly directed and focused in relationship to the orbital electron.
o The photon must directly impact the orbital electron. If properly oriented and positioned, the photon’s E field will accelerate the orbital electron, causing it to absorb the energy of the photon.
o To properly connect with the orbital electron and accelerate it, the photon must superimpose its kinetic energy field parallel to the electron’s orbital tangent.
o This will accelerate the photons E field with the orbital electron’s velocity, thus allowing the E field energy to accelerates the orbital electron, and thus convert the photon’s E field energy into B field kinetic energy.

The principle dictates that the electron orbital closest to the nucleus is the lowest energy levels, subsequent levels of orbits requires higher energy electrons – thus the further the electron orbits from the nuclei, the higher its energy level – more photons content.

NOW; IF my statement and understanding of Electron energy in the different orbits are correct: THEN we have a problem, why is the higher energized electron in the outer shell and not closer to the logical inner orbital? Simply because of the gravitational effect – pushing theory again.

“Given enough exposure to light and - over time - that bound condition of all structures are compromised. “
Indeed it does, and not really over a long period of time. Do yourself an amazing experimental favour; PLEASE do go and visit a factory/workshop where they use LASER to cut metal, wood, cloths or any similar. Metal is more interesting to observe. In particular keep in mind with all methods of cutting there are residue; Observe laser cutting.

“Theoretically one would simply need to bombard something with enough photons to get it to levitate. Not sure that this has ever been seen.”
Such experiments was done. Here is one of those references:
Laser Particle Levitation
http://www.cse.unr.edu/~ambardek/cleo.pdf
BUT: the photon can only act on the particle/atom with which it is interacting.

“But I question whether it also changes the atom's response to a 'gravitational' field - whatever that is.”
In my model photons are partially responsible for gravity; thus it will affect the atoms reaction to gravity. Regardless of my model, when the photon is captured by the electron/atom it increases spin/energy; thus it will also be affected by conventional Pull Gravity. The release of that photon will cause a ‘spring back’ effect to neutralize the original effect.

“But here's the thing. If the electron's position and spin is changed - and it is taken away from the photon that has just penetrated that atom - then where is there any interaction of the photon with the electron?”
NOW this question of yours opened my mind to see an answer in a different problem. Unconventional again: The photon is a much smaller unit in size than the electron (after all electrons are only multiple photons) Thus it is possible for a photon to be temporally ‘jailed’ within two electron orbits. In this case the photon does not directly interact with the electrons, just held for a while until it can escape.

Witsend; in your next post: #1286
Again I might be wrong, but personally I do not see the electron as a pin-point-particle; I see it rather like a fireball – soft, energy, plasma, spherical quantum of energy.

Now let us try a model where e = Electron and n is number of electrons in orbital: 1xe= peanut, 2xe=pecan nut, 3xePingPong Ball, 4Xe=Tennis ball, 5xe=soccer ball, 6xe=beach ball. With this simple analogy we actually covered the electron structure in an atom! However, the number of electrons does not form separate individual point like particles; it is a combination of energy, just meaning its volume becomes bigger – more energized. In other words, the number of electrons define the size of the fire ball. Now try to add in the effects of photons if we accept the photon is the ultimate source of energy; and ultimately electrons are just a combination of multi-photons.

The biggest non-secret, least understood:
“From photon to electron to neutron to proton there are no physical change of constituents; there is only an increase of energy levels.”

While I am on the run and nobody is likely to read this long posting; here is what is happening with this gravitational model of David: Gravity is the compounded push effect of all cosmic radiation; be it polarized or not. Thus when you have a magnetic locked wheel rotating, slow or fast does not matter; each pole on the magnet will repel a small portion of the cosmic radiation; i.e South pole will repel the positive Cosmic ‘particles’ and attract the negative ‘particles’. The opposite off course with the North pole. In the case of Ed Leedskalnin wheel, he placed weak magnets SS-NN-SS-NN; thus causing a different kind of repulsion. Let us call it ‘Confused Repulsion’ and to what exact result this leads I do not understand yet.

What you are ‘seeing’ is the turmoil in the cosmic radiation due to being pushed and pulled at various stages during the rotation of the disk. It is similar to a haze on the road or mirage in the Namib. A long time ago I asked Davit to do a simple test: He states reduction of weight above the wheel, then simply test for the balance: is there an increase of mass below the wheel? In my model we are getting gravity push from all of the universe’s radiation – down to the earth that is shielding us from a small portion, but we are also getting gravity push away from the earth; by the earth radiation itself.

On the bonding of atoms: Ref your posting # 1286 try this:
In same reference to the first section above in this posting: For the electron to converge with the Proton, there are specific conditions that needs to be in place. All the keys of the lock must be open, else you cannot open the lock or door. How does a Proton come to existence? What does a proton consist of? Proton is charged positive, electron is charged negative, they attract but cannot bond for the same reason (sorry for the example) a chicken egg cannot bond with a monkey sperm to form a Monchick (men first).

[Aromaz]

Speed

. . . about the LHC

The use of Photons in LHC will not work. Photons are not polarized, thus will not move or accelerate by magnetic means.

However there is an example/question.
If an supersonic fighter plane is flying at 3,000 km per hour and it fires a missile with normal speed of 1,500 km/h forward - that missile is moving forward at the total of 4,500km/h.

Now if the earth is orbiting the sun, sun is orbiting the galazy and galaxy is orbiting the universe - and IF learned elders predicted these speeds correctly, the total speed we are moving is around 8,000 km per second. Now at the critical location we fire off a theoretical space ship with continues acceleration until it reaches 30,000 km/s; and that space ship has a laser light beam pointing forward - what would the speed of that light be?

Also do remember the speed of light is a mathematical theorem based on absolute vacuum - space void of any matter; which is something we do not find in the universe.

Now, we know the photon is moving at or near the speed of light (depends on which model you follow). Thus if a photon is expelled by an atom - forwards; while that atom is already moving at say a theoretical 50,000 km.sec - then obviously the photon will move faster than the speed of light.

No need to answer me, these are only hypothetical questions.

[Adie123]

The use of Photons in LHC will not work. Photons are not polarized, thus will not move or accelerate by magnetic means.

Sorry i was meaning protons. no idea how i manage to start saying photons lol.. me bad.

Adie