gravity waves found

[sucahyo]

Application?

Someone can explain the use of numbers in PMH? To achieve what?

Is it for more experiment idea, something to try or for improving current work?

Sorry, I just can not understand.

[Harvey]

Good grief GB, you really have taken this way too personally. Perhaps it is because at the core you know I am correct. If you do attempt to divide an apple into 3 parts the parts will not be equal unless the total number of smallest parts is divisible by 3, and that is true of any numerical base you choose because it is fundamental to the material being divided. Let me know when you can divide $100 equally 3 ways.

As regards this comment:
"Attention everyone: According to Harvey, dividing 8 people into 2 areas doesn't equal 4 per area.......because the atoms or molecules of each person wasn't divided up properly (one person may have more atoms or molecules than the other person. I hope you can see how you took things way out of context)."

I should be offended by your tone but I understand you have a bit of egg on your face and this is how you react in that case. My apologies for ruffling your feathers.

Just so you know, as a GA pilot I am very well aware of the importance of dividing people properly by weight rather than by number. In some cases it is absolutely necessary to put 3 heavy persons on one side and 5 lighter on the other to balance the plane.

So, no hard feelings - we can all get along here if we just realize that division involves precision and limits.

[gravityblock]

Good grief GB, you really have taken this way too personally. Perhaps it is because at the core you know I am correct. If you do attempt to divide an apple into 3 parts the parts will not be equal unless the total number of smallest parts is divisible by 3, and that is true of any numerical base you choose because it is fundamental to the material being divided. Let me know when you can divide $100 equally 3 ways.

Once again you're taking things out of context (I've been talking about dividing the largest part, and not dividing the smallest parts. There is a difference between the two, and I truly hope you can see this difference). A $100 bill, the bill itself, can be divided equally 3 ways into thirds. Also, 33 1/3 + 33 1/3 + 33 1/3 = $100. If I have a coin, which has a value equal to one-third of a dollar (3 of these coins would equal $1), then I could do it in the way you would like. Just because TPTB hasn't issued this coin, doesn't mean it's impossible (by them choosing to use an ineffecient system, doesn't mean it can't be done). We have quarters, so why can't we have thirds? This just shows you how our society or TBTB has an affinity towards over-complicating things and also proves how narrow-minded people like you really are (can't think outside the box or think outside what they've been taught).

As regards this comment:
"Attention everyone: According to Harvey, dividing 8 people into 2 areas doesn't equal 4 per area.......because the atoms or molecules of each person wasn't divided up properly (one person may have more atoms or molecules than the other person. I hope you can see how you took things way out of context)."

I should be offended by your tone but I understand you have a bit of egg on your face and this is how you react in that case. My apologies for ruffling your feathers.

If your insulted by this, then so be it. It is what it is! I will always fight for what I believe is truth and what I perceive to be correct, regardless of how much egg you may perceive to be on my face. You should look in the mirror.

Just so you know, as a GA pilot I am very well aware of the importance of dividing people properly by weight rather than by number. In some cases it is absolutely necessary to put 3 heavy persons on one side and 5 lighter on the other to balance the plane.

Harvey, I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a GA pilot to be aware of this. This is just common sense, and you're attributing it to personal knowledge from being a pilot.

So, no hard feelings - we can all get along here if we just realize that division involves precision and limits.

In the base 12 system, we could have twelfths, sixths, quarters, thirds, and halves represented as a single decimal place (again, it would be easy to divide that $100 up equally in 3 ways if we had coins to represent those values in the base 12 system). Also it works much better in geometry and in a lot of other areas. The only limit is our imagination, so if we conceive a limit, then what is beyond this limit? We can all get along once this is realized. Nature disregards imaginary enclosures, throughout she behaves as though she were ignorant of Hamilton's calculus and the importance which people attach to formulae. No hard feelings here either, just a little dissappointed in your lack of reasoning skills along with your very limited and narrow views. We all fall short, no big deal, but we shouldn't practice it either, especially after being shown where we fall short.

GB

[Harvey]

GB, you have a social interaction problem and probably should seek help for that. We are adults here and your reactions are those of preadolescence. I merely exposed a flaw in your logic and you responded by attacking me as a person? Don't kill the messenger as they say

Just to summarize things here:

David stated that nonregular number series are infinite and therefore equal one which somehow relates to the reflection of a sphere.

Solrey stated that rounding is necessary to make the whole thus correctly pointing out why my program stopped early.

GB stated that when using fractions or other measurement methods (number base) its possible to divide a real object equally into three parts.

I chose to post that Solrey and GB were both mistaken because as I pointed out the real issue is not the numbers themselves but the parts of the whole that are being divided and therefore a function of the precision and limits chosen for a given level of accuracy.

So conditions exists where the smallest part is evenly divisible by 3 and rounding does not enter into the equation such as 99 / 3. In this case we set our precision and limit to a single unit

Conditions also exist (like in the case of a real apple) where it is impossible to equally divide the whole into 3 parts unless the first condition is true and each constituent part is evenly divisible by 3. So when the condition is false, then at least one of the 3 parts will have an unequal portion. As an example of this, I represented the dollar which has a real limit of a penny which carries a precision of 1/100 of the dollar. 100 of these dollars cannot be equally divided with currency in circulation due to this limit and there will be a penny left over as indivisible. This limit does not exist in our banking systems where precision is carried out to several decimal places but even then, eventually you reach the limit of your precision and those little bits left over get put somewhere in an unequal distribution.
That's the summary of events.

This is not a platform for attacking each other, it is a forum for sharing - just as I shared the links to Egyptian Fractions. I was only trying to broaden the exposure of the readers to other perspectives so they don't limit themselves to only the observable. Go deeper into the unobservable makeup of your existence and see what limits exist in reality rather than fantasizing that it is limitless.

[gravityblock]

GB, you have a social interaction problem and probably should seek help for that. We are adults here and your reactions are those of preadolescence. I merely exposed a flaw in your logic and you responded by attacking me as a person? Don't kill the messenger as they say

Just to summarize things here:

David stated that nonregular number series are infinite and therefore equal one which somehow relates to the reflection of a sphere.

Solrey stated that rounding is necessary to make the whole thus correctly pointing out why my program stopped early.

GB stated that when using fractions or other measurement methods (number base) its possible to divide a real object equally into three parts.

I chose to post that Solrey and GB were both mistaken because as I pointed out the real issue is not the numbers themselves but the parts of the whole that are being divided and therefore a function of the precision and limits chosen for a given level of accuracy.

So conditions exists where the smallest part is evenly divisible by 3 and rounding does not enter into the equation such as 99 / 3. In this case we set our precision and limit to a single unit

Conditions also exist (like in the case of a real apple) where it is impossible to equally divide the whole into 3 parts unless the first condition is true and each constituent part is evenly divisible by 3. So when the condition is false, then at least one of the 3 parts will have an unequal portion. As an example of this, I represented the dollar which has a real limit of a penny which carries a precision of 1/100 of the dollar. 100 of these dollars cannot be equally divided with currency in circulation due to this limit and there will be a penny left over as indivisible. This limit does not exist in our banking systems where precision is carried out to several decimal places but even then, eventually you reach the limit of your precision and those little bits left over get put somewhere in an unequal distribution.
That's the summary of events.

This is not a platform for attacking each other, it is a forum for sharing - just as I shared the links to Egyptian Fractions. I was only trying to broaden the exposure of the readers to other perspectives so they don't limit themselves to only the observable. Go deeper into the unobservable makeup of your existence and see what limits exist in reality rather than fantasizing that it is limitless.

You exposed a flaw in my logic? ROFL. You're right, this is a platform for sharing ideas, but it can also be a platform for sharing and exposing your own ignorance. If you choose to do this, then don't blame me. Good luck with conceiving limits on what is infinite! I showed you how to divide $100 equally amongst 3 people, and you still say my logic is flawed. This is your loss, and not mine.

GB

[Harvey]

Someone can explain the use of numbers in PMH? To achieve what?

Is it for more experiment idea, something to try or for improving current work?

Sorry, I just can not understand.

Yes.

In Leedskalnin's PMH he essentially devised a toroidal core which has a specific value of relative permeability (ĩR). For soft Iron, the relative permeability could be somewhere near 200.

He also had a certain number of windings, 3000 IIRC.

His core had a specific cross sectional area, IIRC it was 1.5" x 1.5" square core.

In magnetism there is an H field and a B field. The H field is what is caused by the current flowing in the wires and the B field is that which is induced in the material.

In a closed loop system such as the PMH, the B field becomes self induced and remains even after the H field is removed.

The permeability of free space is known to be four Pi times 10 to power of minus 7 (4π · 10^-7) and is known as mu zero (ĩ0)

In our magnetic formula's we find a value of just plain mu (ĩ) and this is the product of ĩR and ĩ0. So the equation is ĩ = ĩR· ĩ0.

The flux (Φ) in a magnetic circuit is given by : Φ = BA or Φ = F / R where F is the mmf and R is the reluctance of the magnetic path.

F = NI Where N is the number of turns and I is the current in those turns
R = len / ĩA where len is the magnetic path length and A is the cross sectional area.

Let us say that the PMH has a total path length of 1 meter so len = 1. Let us also say that Ed used a 12 volt battery to energize his PMH and that he used 30 AWG wire. That size wire has a resistance of about 103.3 ohms per thousand feet. Let us suppose that the coil ended up about 1/4" thick so that on the last layer it wrapped around 2" on each side, or 8 inches per turn. On the first layer it would 6 inches per turn. So 7 inches is a good average. 3,000 turns x 7 inches = 1,750 feet. 1,750 feet divided by 103.3 = 16.94 Ohms. So for round numbers let us say 12V / 17 ohms = ~71 mA so that is our current (I). Since our core is in inches, we will need to divide the square inches by 1550 to get square meters for the Area (A)

F = 3,000 · 0.71 = 2130
R = len / ĩA = 1 / ((200 · 4 · 3.14159 · 10 ^ -7) · ((1.5 x 1.5)/1550)) = 2741001.80
Φ = 2130 / 2741001.8 = 7.77 x 10^-4 Wb or 0.777 mT

Because you now know Φ and the cross section area in meters you can use the equation above to determine B as B = Φ / A.

There is more to it than just this simple application, as once the H field is removed (B = ĩH) the B will drop to zero unless the material has a high remenance. However, the remenance of a given material changes when the loop is closed because of the self excitation involved. Therefore, the exact drop is unknown without empirical testing.

One method to determine the Br (remenance) of the material in this looped configuration is to measure the current that flows back through the winding when the magnetic circuit is broken.

We have all seen the lamps being lit when this occurs, so we know that flux remains. Quantifying the current and then reversing the procedure above will tell you how much flux remained after the coils were de-energized.

[occy30]

Enough you two. I'm more interested in more discussion about the original topic.

I don't have the material to try any of these experiments but I'm curious if any one with a PMH could try some of these things:

Take a PMH just like Ed had (same dimensions and material) and while it is charged in what I call "PHM Mode", strike the metal with a hammer (maybe twice if you want to tie this to the "ringing twice" thing Ed always wanted visitors to do). I'm wondering what harmonic may be produced (if any) and if that sound may amplify the force affect that Dave says he can see.

Option A: I'd wonder if anything happens if the PMH was spun rapidly. As if you were trying to "stir" the vortex (this may need to have a specific RPM).



On a secondary experiment I wonder...

In Ed's book on magnetism, Ed spends some time explaining how to make a magnet permanent. It's usually by applying voltage to the device until it gets hot (and of course holding it in alignment with the earths magnetic north). I wonder if you took a PMH (I'd like to use one using his dimensions, material, and winding) and maybe left the car battery attached to the device until it gets hot (it's been a while since I read the book but did he say to strike the device with a hammer? If so then strike the device with a hammer). Could this make your PMH act like a permanent PMH (no longer needing to use current to start the process?).

I'm just wondering if these angels have been looked at. I wish I had the material to do these things myself.

Oh, and a last thing that just crossed my mind. I've seen some of David's videos. David, try some of your experiments from the opposite side of your device. I believe that if your creating a force above the device then you are simultaneously creating an opposite force on the opposite end (underneath). This world we live in is a perpetual lesson in balance. If you push then some force is pushing back just as hard (sometimes harder) until eventually both forces balance each other and motion stops.

[gravityblock]

Enough you two. I'm more interested in more discussion about the original topic.

You're right. My apologizies to all, including Solrey and Harvey. Harvey has a talent at explaining things in laymen terms and is a great asset to this community. There's nothing wrong with a little heated debate, but I crossed the line.

GB

[sucahyo]

We have all seen the lamps being lit when this occurs, so we know that flux remains. Quantifying the current and then reversing the procedure above will tell you how much flux remained after the coils were de-energized.

Many thanks for explanation. Although I still don't know what is the use of number discussion for PMH, your explanation let me know the math behind PMH

Option A: I'd wonder if anything happens if the PMH was spun rapidly. As if you were trying to "stir" the vortex (this may need to have a specific RPM).

Jetijs done it before, just stronger effect?


I wish david response to my pm. Anyone else can see energy and already seen PMH effect?

[david lambright]

infinite

i guess it comes down a belief in something infinite..i personally do..for me every thing points that direction..is math real? of course it is and shows us an infinity..anyway i made a PMH out of mercury, energizing the mercury [salt water & battery dangerous] first before energizing the PMH coil and it works well..the mercurry seems to change colors between states of energy, from bright to dark purpleish...it has a stronger effect than the others...amalgams of metals might have a better effect......solrey came today!...i had a great time, he is very intelligent, and likable....solrey thanks for stopping by..there is a guy who has been following the forums who lives here in salem..he might come by also....

[Harvey]

i guess it comes down a belief in something infinite..i personally do..for me every thing points that direction..is math real? of course it is and shows us an infinity..anyway i made a PMH out of mercury, energizing the mercury [salt water & battery dangerous] first before energizing the PMH coil and it works well..the mercurry seems to change colors between states of energy, from bright to dark purpleish...it has a stronger effect than the others...amalgams of metals might have a better effect......solrey came today!...i had a great time, he is very intelligent, and likable....solrey thanks for stopping by..there is a guy who has been following the forums who lives here in salem..he might come by also....

I pondered 'infinite' very early in life and discovered a simple truth with regards to it. Whenever you set a boundary to enclose your universe, you are always left with "what's on the other side". Consequently, there must be an unbounded space in which this universe and perhaps others reside. That space must be infinite.

Likewise, there is no end to adding 1 more to any number or subtracting 1 more from any number. Therefore infinity exists in mathematics. Additionally, there is no end to multiplying and no end to dividing, mathematically. Such is the demonstration of the fractal. In digression, I also enjoy the story of the rice grain and the chessboard. The chessboard has 64 squares. Place one grain of rice on the first square. On each subsequent square, double the quantity. How many grains of rice by square 64? Or use a penny instead, how many dollars by square 64? Put another way, if given a penny and you can double your money on each transaction how rich would you be after 64 transactions?

So we also have the same concept of infinity with regards to time. It is written that God has no beginning and no end. Science also tells us the same regarding energy, that it cannot be created nor destroyed. This is true, since it originates from God who cannot be created nor destroyed. So, with regards to time, energy has always existed and possibly is even positioned ahead of time in some ethereal sequence. In other words, time may have a point of creation, whereas energy does not.

Einstein recognized that time and space always seem to be joined at the hip. It is nearly impossible to use one without the other and still have meaning. If Solrey tells David, I will meet you at X'Oclock - that is only part of the equation. Conversely, if David says he will meet him at his house, but neglects to include a time frame, then something is missing. Intersections require time and location and it is difficult to separate the two. An interesting thing in this regard is the ranging. David could say, my house anytime on Wednesday. Or Solrey could say Wednesday, between 1 and 2 anywhere in Salem. But eventually, for David and Solrey to actually meet up, there had to be a specific place and time. This is why Einstein found it convenient to combine the two into a single fabric called Space-Time. For every point in space, there is an intersection with time, and for every point in time there is an intersection in space. Those intersections are unique to Space-Time and are considered to be infinite in quantity. This statement can be true even if the universe is bounded if it is a manifold like a Mobius for example.

Where things get very interesting is when we attach terms like speed to things like time. How 'fast' does time travel? Can the passing of time be slowed or sped up? How do measure the self referential aspect of assigning a rate to time? These things become important when we discuss the bending of Space-Time, because by curving the path of something moving, we are causing an acceleration to occur because acceleration is a change in velocity, and a curve represents such a change. Therefore, time must be accelerated where Space-Time is curved.

And that is how we get from infinity to gravity, infinite time following a curve. When time curves, it causes a centripetal force to exist that points to the center of the curve. It is that centripetal force that we see as gravity. The same is true of a centrifugal force, it too can be felt as gravity - because in reality it is acceleration. Therefore, if you stop the acceleration, you stop the gravity. Or if you offset the acceleration of time, with an opposite curve (or negative acceleration) you then have anti-gravity. If you snowboard off a mogul and get a positive rate of climb (gain in altitude) then you have temporary anti-gravity. The same is true of a basketball player jumping. In these cases, there is a temporary inversion of the centripetal acceleration imposed on us. These things occur from the smallest particle of matter to the largest cosmic body, all of which materially cause a curvature in space-time.

However, in my theory there is a unique factor left out of most all the other equations and that is a factor of phasing. What if the material is not always material? What if part of the time (or place if you prefer) it is energy? And what if energy does not curve space-time? Then gravity becomes variable. And this, IMHO is why we have unexplained gravitational phenomenon. We want gravity to be constant and I don't think it is. If I'm right about this, then dark energy and dark matter will vaporize into nothingness because they are no longer needed to explain our observations.

Very glad to hear that David and Solrey were able to find the intersect.

And GB, all's good dude

[solrey]

David wrote:
solrey came today!...i had a great time, he is very intelligent, and likable....solrey thanks for stopping by

I had a great time as well, David. I sincerely thank you and Misty for opening your home to me, your hospitality and stimulating conversation.

I would also like to publicly apologize to David for giving him such a hard time. He and his clan are good, hospitable people. I hope we can get together again sometime in the future.

I have to say that David is smarter than I gave him credit for, despite his style of written communication.

GB, apology accepted and I hope you accept mine as well.

Harvey, excellent points, quite right. That's cool you're a pilot, I've done a bit of flying myself. Better than sex my instructor told me as he cut me loose for my first solo, and at the time I agreed, but in retrospect...hmmmm, not so much, but pretty darn close.

cheers

[occy30]

Good Material!

Russel Walter has some pretty convincing explanations in these areas.

I believe that EVERYTHING in this reality is energy. Everything moves at it's own individual frequency (or energy level). I believe Ed found a frequency and technique to take the huge coral stones and change their fundamental frequency thus causing gravity's pull on those atoms to change. Maybe even so much as to create very light stones (when originally weighing multi-tons). Maybe those telephone polls were plenty strong enough to hold those weights when the stones pull was reduced drastically. Maybe with enough frequency change you can get the stones to "float" or even fall in the opposite direction.

Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe he used some principals of magnetism and was able to get the "normal" gravitational force in the stone to align and basically make the rock into a magnet (not a magnet like we use on our fridge but more like a magnet that works on the force that is responsible for gravity).

Then, like a magnet, flip the stone so it is now in an "un-natural" state or un-balanced (the stone now "wants" to flip back the other way so as to go back to a neutral state or balance). Keep it flipped and you could probably walk the stone to where you want it. This would also be a good way to find an exact center of a stone so you could make it a door (like the one Ed has that can easily be pushed open by one finger...well, at least it used to until recently).

Sorry for rambling. If I ever win the lottery I'm getting everyone here together and we are going to do MANY experiments to figure this stuff out.

[gravityblock]

Dark energy/matter is starting to be linked to fullerenes. Normal matter hidden and contained inside the fullerenes cage being shielded and escaping detection. Look at the ground state electron density of the C60 fullerenes in the second image below. This pretty much shields what ever is contained inside the cage. They're now finding huge amounts of fullerenes in space.

GB

[Matos de Matos]

However, in my theory there is a unique factor left out of most all the other equations and that is a factor of phasing. What if the material is not always material? What if part of the time (or place if you prefer) it is energy? And what if energy does not curve space-time? Then gravity becomes variable. And this, IMHO is why we have unexplained gravitational phenomenon. We want gravity to be constant and I don't think it is. If I'm right about this, then dark energy and dark matter will vaporize into nothingness because they are no longer needed to explain our observations.

Hi Harvey

I am with you, indeed i do not understand that dark side of scientific explanations. Now they found that may be less dark matter in the universe than expected.
Letter to Editor in Nature (on line publication Feb 16, 2011; print Feb 24, 2011) | Cosmology@UCI
Herschel finds less dark matter but more stars

I believe that the solution to anti gravity device is in the use of resonance and phasing between electrical and magnetic fields.
Harvey, I would like to see your opinion on the threadhttp://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post130883 and a possible combination of this thread great job on PMH and Turturīs resonance coil - magnet combination.

Thank you
David