gravity waves found

[Aromaz]

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

It took me some time to find this old reference in my FTL growing index of researh. I trust this will answer some of your question.

Observations: Faster-than-light electric currents could explain pulsars

Paper reference: [0903.0399] A new mechanism for generating broadband pulsar-like polarization

Follow up with Google on John Singleton and Andrea Schmidt.

@Witsend:
Forgotten but now revived specially for you a thought invoking paragraph in relation to our owl incompleted Photon/Light.
"When light leaves the Sun and travels to Earth in 8.3 minutes, that does not mean the photons that drove the light wave have
reached the Earth in that time; they have not. The photons that drove the light wave are still near the Sun, not yet having traveled
very far. Their movement is more like the movement of electrons in a wire. When a voltage appears at one end of a wire, it is not
because the electrons from the other end got through the wire at light speed; they did not.
What moves at light speed is the wave, not the charge carriers." R.J. Huntington

Sorry for confusion!

[BenTec]

space ship has a laser light beam pointing forward - what would the speed of that light be?

The speed of light would depend on what kind of material the spaceship is in, like different kinds of gas, different kinds of speed light will have. but the speed is not modified because the spaceship is in movement.

[Psyclic]

@Aromaz
...and that space ship has a laser light beam pointing forward - what would the speed of that light be?

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the light beam will be moving at c, the speed of light. Even if the space ship was moving at 99.9% of c and turned on its head light, that light beam speed will be c, the speed of light. It's not accumulative.

Steve

[redrichie]

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the light beam will be moving at c, the speed of light. Even if the space ship was moving at 99.9% of c and turned on its head light, that light beam speed will be c, the speed of light. It's not accumulative.

Steve

that is what I was "taught" as well. But after the last few weeks it wouldnt surprise me if i were taught wrong.

[gravityblock]

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the light beam will be moving at c, the speed of light. Even if the space ship was moving at 99.9% of c and turned on its head light, that light beam speed will be c, the speed of light. It's not accumulative.

Steve

You correctly stated the theory of relativity. The reason for this is because "time" is a variable. When you increase your relativistic mass/energy, then you lose time, thus your calculations will be based at a slower rate. I look at time as being inversely proportional to energy (99% energy = 1% time, and 99% time = 1% energy).

When an object is falling towards a large mass, then it is moving through a "time gradient", thus it will lose "time" and gain energy. This gain in energy is seen as an acceleration. If you have a gain somewhere, then you must have a loss from somewhere else. "Time" ticks at a slower rate the closer you get to a large mass, thus a "time gradient" around the large mass, or a curvature in space-time (gravity). If a spacecraft can drag the ether with it, then FTL speed is possible, and you will gain energy and acceleration without losing time.

The world's first time machine, 1 of 5.

GB

[gravityblock]

A good experiment would be to place a small digital clock above Dave's device inside a Faraday Cage for a 24 hour period (maybe even for a week), then take note if the clock has a gain or loss in "time". A simple control test with an external clock would be needed of course.

If the digital clock has a gain or loss in time, then we are dealing with gravity waves. Light is after all a distortion in space-time, and this explains why light is invisible in the vacuum of space. If there is a distortion in space-time with Dave's device, then this explains the glimmer.

GB

[Adie123]

When an object is falling towards a large mass, then it is moving through a "time gradient", thus it will lose "time" and gain energy. This gain in energy is seen as an acceleration. If you have a gain somewhere, then you must have a loss from somewhere else. "Time" ticks at a slower rate the closer you get to a large mass, thus a "time gradient" around the large mass, or a curvature in space-time (gravity).

Firstly i'd like to just mention and say sorry, that i seem to be picking on you. Its just that my theories and thoughts on subjects that you bring up, seem to always be different. Your bringing up subjects and theories that have been accepted by mainstream science, but in my mind there is alternatives that make more physics sense.

To the subject at hand. Warping of time- Its a fact that watches/clocks that have been sent into space, come back showing speeded up time. This (my theory) change in time of clocks/watches is due to pressures. In space a clock is in a vacuum with no pressure. The workings of a clock and its components/electricity move more freely than on the earths surface. The earths surface has air/atmosphere pressures which slow down mechanical and electrical devices. You can probably add gravity forces aswell to the effect, but its not a warp of time, just a pressure of components in devices. If you were to do a test with a clock/watch under the sea you will probably find that you get an even larger slowdown of the clock/watch, due to the extra pressure of the water. Its not due to being near to a mass. So you mentioning being closer to a large mass alters time to be slower is a little off target.

YouTube - Relativity In 5 Minutes
quote at the end of the video- "The speed of light is slower in materials like air than in vacuum. The speed of light, as referred to in this clip, is the speed of light in a vacuum."

And this i beleive is the same as electricity and materials, not only light.

If a spacecraft can drag the ether with it, then FTL speed is possible, and you will gain energy and acceleration without losing time.

FTL is possible like you say. Stars orbitting the centres of galaxies black holes have been registered to be travelling millions of KM per second (more than 3 times the speed of light). So i agree with you on that ... But again, time doesnt change, its just the devices used to calculate time run differently in different pressured enviroments.


Best Regards
Adie

[IndianaBoys]

David,

Have you put your PMH in front of your color TV to see if it distorts the screen?

IndianaBoys

[Harvey]

Light Speed and Simulataneity

Perhaps this will help:

YouTube - Simultaneity - Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

[antorise]

hello jetijs ! i am new here

how are ur experiments about the fuelless heater? that one with two cilinders

Thanks witsend for the kind words


What I meant was that my wheel has 24 metal poles pointing outwards and I just put a small rectangular neo magnet on 12 of the poles. I just had not enough magnets to put on all 24 poles so I just took 12 of them and put them on every second pole and they were all facing N outwards. This made an S magnetic pole in between both N poles, very similar to the Leedskalnin wheel on that video where they showed the magnetic poles of the generator using a pole identifier. I just could not magnetize the steel to get permanent remaining magnetic poles, so I improvised and used neo magnets instead. I hope this makes things more clear. The wheel is given away to others for few days for testing so I can't make a picture of the setup at this time.

Thank you!

[Adie123]

I found this to support part of the point i was making

YouTube - Relativity In 5 Minutes

Ive updated the post with this link that it relates to, also added a little more text on it. #1300

Regards
Adie

[rave154]

umm.....guys, arent you getting a little bit ahead of yourselves here?

instead of theorising ( as fun as it is ) on what might be causing this & that........lets first establish that "this & that".....is actually happening....

so far...we basically have one guy saying something is happening....and other people....cant see anything with their own eyes.


my point being , until such time as you have a large enough amount of people who can say "yep....thats definitely happening, i can see it ! "........then the theorising is a bit...putting the cart before the horse?

so far i havent seen anything that comes even close to proof that ANYTHING is happening here.......yes.....i commented that i could possibly see something on one of the videos, but i also commented that it could also be an effect of the camera, the codec, etc ( i think i phrased this as "but maybe the camera is playing tricks on my eyes )

as an example, look at JET's work... fantastic replication work as i think youll all agree.....but what could he himself see?.....nothing

[Adie123]

umm.....guys, arent you getting a little bit ahead of yourselves here?

instead of theorising ( as fun as it is ) on what might be causing this & that........lets first establish that "this & that".....is actually happening....

so far...we basically have one guy saying something is happening....and other people....cant see anything with their own eyes.


my point being , until such time as you have a large enough amount of people who can say "yep....thats definitely happening, i can see it ! "........then the theorising is a bit...putting the cart before the horse?

so far i havent seen anything that comes even close to proof that ANYTHING is happening here.......yes.....i commented that i could possibly see something on one of the videos, but i also commented that it could also be an effect of the camera, the codec, etc ( i think i phrased this as "but maybe the camera is playing tricks on my eyes )

as an example, look at JET's work... fantastic replication work as i think youll all agree.....but what could he himself see?.....nothing

Agree whole heartedly with you rave, but the problem is that thoughs that are building replicas of daves device have gone quiet. Other topics and theories have kept this topic going and im pretty sure all involved are waiting to see some results of daves device through tests and replication.

Regards
Adie

[IndianaBoys]

magnetic displacement analyzer

The Youtube user name = hhoforvolts

YouTube - HHO - RODIN

has a video describing a free software download called (free to download and try for 2 weeks):

Improces graphics editor

that can be used as a magnetic displacement analyzer

Free Software Downloads - improc42.zip - Desktop Publishing::Graphics Programs and Utilities - Simtel.net

Also describes converting a monitor to reveal magnetic pattern of objects held in front of it.

IndianaBoys

[broli]

umm.....guys, arent you getting a little bit ahead of yourselves here?

instead of theorising ( as fun as it is ) on what might be causing this & that........lets first establish that "this & that".....is actually happening....

so far...we basically have one guy saying something is happening....and other people....cant see anything with their own eyes.


my point being , until such time as you have a large enough amount of people who can say "yep....thats definitely happening, i can see it ! "........then the theorising is a bit...putting the cart before the horse?

so far i havent seen anything that comes even close to proof that ANYTHING is happening here.......yes.....i commented that i could possibly see something on one of the videos, but i also commented that it could also be an effect of the camera, the codec, etc ( i think i phrased this as "but maybe the camera is playing tricks on my eyes )

as an example, look at JET's work... fantastic replication work as i think youll all agree.....but what could he himself see?.....nothing

I love the smell of sanity.

I admire david for being so open about this from the start but like many other threads , it has become convoluted to the point it lost track of the goal.
People have taken the information replicated it and found apparently nothing besides "psychic" people saying there's something there.
Ed could apparently lift large boulders with a slightly bigger sized model yet all this does is show a questionable optical effect?

Still a little soar from the mylow bandwagon.