NOTEPAD for RANDOM IDEAS

[greggvizza]

Gravity doesn't exist, except as a consequence of the method of creation and maintenance of created.

I totally agree with your statement. It aligns with my vision of how things work.

The only thing that I would add to that, is possibly a name for it. What shall we call “a consequence of the method of creation and maintenance of created”

I propose we name it Gravity.

GV

[kevin.b]

Greggvizza,
The word gravity is firmly entrenched in all peoples minds as a force of attraction.
It is promoted as been driven by mass, and the larger the mass the stronger the gravity.
Whatever the occurance is ,that results in mass and matter been kept on or near the surface of spheres of created mass ,imho needs a different name, a break from the almost totally accepted comprehension of the word gravity.
Kevin

[Mikado14]

Greggvizza,
The word gravity is firmly entrenched in all peoples minds as a force of attraction.
It is promoted as been driven by mass, and the larger the mass the stronger the gravity.
Whatever the occurance is ,that results in mass and matter been kept on or near the surface of spheres of created mass ,imho needs a different name, a break from the almost totally accepted comprehension of the word gravity.
Kevin

Then kevin, perhaps it is time to educate the masses (like that pun?) of a correct definition.

Mikado

[kevin.b]

Greggvizza,
The word gravity is firmly entrenched in all peoples minds as a force of attraction.
It is promoted as been driven by mass, and the larger the mass the stronger the gravity.
Whatever the occurance is ,that results in mass and matter been kept on or near the surface of spheres of created mass ,imho needs a different name, a break from the almost totally accepted comprehension of the word gravity.
Kevin

Then kevin, perhaps it is time to educate the masses (like that pun?) of a correct definition.

Mikado

As if by magic,
http://www.gravitycontrol.org/unity-book.html
David W Barclay, I have immense confidence in.
kevin

[Rose]

i think i've got it:

Axiom 1. Whatever we think gravity is, it isn't that!

That's a great site Kevin, Thanks for the link. i'll be reading for a while.

And thanks Linda, for pointing out Mr. White's comment on the homepage of this site. i'm dead certain that there was a lot of truth in it.

rose

[greggvizza]

Greggvizza,
The word gravity is firmly entrenched in all peoples minds as a force of attraction.
It is promoted as been driven by mass, and the larger the mass the stronger the gravity.
Whatever the occurance is ,that results in mass and matter been kept on or near the surface of spheres of created mass ,imho needs a different name, a break from the almost totally accepted comprehension of the word gravity.
Kevin

I don’t think of gravity as an attraction but rather the result of being caught in the flow of aether that is rushing into matter to keep it supplied with energy to maintain its existence. But the greater the mass, the greater the aether inflow needed to keep it in existence, and therefore the more gravity. So, gravity is directly related to mass.

The fact that gravity follows the inverse square law has nothing to do with gravity exclusively. The inverse square law is just the formula for an expanding sphere. The surface area of a sphere increases by the square of its radius. So this law applies to anything that grows or shrinks in a spherical pattern. Nothing to do with gravity other than it tends to operate in a spherical pattern. If one could confine it to a single direction like a laser with no divergence then it would not follow the inverse square law.

"This diagram shows how the law works. The lines represent the flux emanating from the source. The total number of flux lines depends on the strength of the source and is constant with increasing distance. A greater density of flux lines (lines per unit area) means a stronger field. The density of flux lines is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source because the surface area of a sphere increases with the square of the radius. Thus the strength of the field is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source".

[FM No Static At All]

Greggvizza,
The word gravity is firmly entrenched in all peoples minds as a force of attraction.
It is promoted as been driven by mass, and the larger the mass the stronger the gravity.
Whatever the occurance is ,that results in mass and matter been kept on or near the surface of spheres of created mass ,imho needs a different name, a break from the almost totally accepted comprehension of the word gravity.
Kevin

I think the force of attraction is called magnetism, and gravity according to Newton is a pull based on mass. But didn't Dr. Brown and others postulate gravity as being a push? In reading some other "outside the box" physical theorists (Aspden, et. al.) gravity is caused by the aether which supples that "glue" that holds matter together. Aether pushes against mass at the quantum level, holding even electrons in orbit around protons (a nucleus) by virtue of producing an opposing force (charge?) toward each particle. This would be considered the strong gravity force and the weak gravity force would be that which pushes smaller masses like people and rockets toward the Earth. When electromagnetic fields are produced that are strong enough, a body will tend to lose its weak gravitational effect. If the strength of that electromagnetic force is increased still further, the "structural integrity" of the body itself weakens and other bodies can pass through it. Even light can pass through such a "stimulated" body, so that it would in essence become invisible or "cloaked."

Just as I was writing this, Gregg Vizza posted before me, and evidently mentions the aether as the source of gravity also, but from a different perspective. Synchrocity once again!

<EDIT>
And whether it's cowboys or traveling salesmen, I won't take my pennies and run home.

[natecull]

Gravity doesn't exist, except as a consequence of the method of creation and maintenance of created.

And yet it is an observed experimental fact, at least in our publically documented scientific experience so far, that all objects we can test in the experience an acceleration towards each other proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to their distance, and is unaffected by electric or magnetic charge, and at the surface of the Earth, on average, this force is equal to an acceleration of 9.87 metres per second per second.

However you envisage gravity 'working' or whatever 'really' causes it, and whether it's really there 'all the time' or has exceptions, you still have to be able to explain the observed facts. The word 'gravity' describes an *observation*, not a mechanism, because we don't actually *have* a physical mechanism for it even in theory (except mumble mumble Higgs field, but that's not actually an explanation, just a name).

If it is true that 'gravity doesn't exist': please describe a precise experimental configuration where we can see a mass *not* being attracted in such a way.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say, but I find it difficult to communicate if we don't share common language. 'Gravity' DOES exist regardless of what produces it - it's a generalised observation that so far has yet to be falsified. If you can show us how to falsify it, please do.

And as no gravity actually exists, then given the correct placement at the correct field timing, no thing need weigh anything relevant to the general local area, but it will reset and reform back to the normal local area over a short time period, which Dr Brown called benification.

Sorry, pedant alert: Brown actually called the temporary lowering of mass by adding light or friction 'excitation'. 'Beneficiation' in his notes is the process of separating out a substance with a *permanently* lowered (or susceptible to being lowered) mass. Very different concepts. Possibly confusing because one of his methods of beneficiation (wind-blown sand or loess) relies on excitation also.

'Field timing': do you mean something like 'oscillation frequency' or 'date and time'? If frequency, what kind of frequency bands do you see as achieving antigravitational effects? Sonic? Radio? Optical? X-ray? Higher or lower? If 'date and time', are we talking alignments that occur on the order of hours, days, months, years, centuries? And 'correct placement': how accurate a placement do we need? On the order of kilometres, metres, centimetres, millimetres, subatomic precision?

I assure you that every single rock and living thing has an individual FIELD, if that field conforms to the normal, then it will become as the local normal, but alter the field shape and subsequent local flows about it, then the push of negative to positive can be locally changed, it will all be simple, not complicated at all, thats why a five foot latvian could do it on his own.

I'm intrigued by this claim, as I've been reading through Project Unity and that's saying the same thing, and it *sorta* makes sense, but I can't see how to connect any of this framework with the terminology of science.

For example, what exactly do you mean by 'field'? The physics definition is something like 'a numeric value assigned at every point in a space'. Do you mean a field like that? If so, what kind of space are we talking about: 3D? 4D? Plain old Eucledian geometry? Minkowski space? Something more exotic? What kind of value? Scalar? Vector? Tensor? Quaternion?

Or do you mean something entirely different from the normal physics definition that just happens to use the word 'field'? If so, can you please explain what you mean?

For example: Project Unity uses the term 'dynamic field of frequency', but I can't relate that to any known terminology. Frequency relates to the speed of regular vibration - an amplitude value that varies over time. A 'field of frequency' would presumably be a 3D space that contains a vibrating waveform at every point? Or a single waveform spread out over a 3D area? But 'frequency' as vibration assumes time in its definition? While Unity's 'time' actually *is* the field, so there is no way for it to vary 'over time'. So does 'frequency' there mean something like 'density'? These terms are very difficult if not defined and described clearly.

Another thing: If every 'object' has its own 'field', then what happens when such 'fields' overlap, as they must for every object, because every object is in fact a collection of smaller objects? Which 'field' is my house in: the field of the Earth, the field of its structural timber, the field of the walls, the field of the furniture inside, the field of me sitting in it...? What makes the definition of an 'object'? Where does my house stop being my house, at the front door, at the garden gate, at the street...?

In normal physics this is a nonexistent problem because we do not say that 'everything has a field' but rather that there is by definition only *one* field, covering the whole of space - a field is defined as covering space rather than assigning to 'objects'. An 'object' if we choose to call it such 'has a field' but that only means that we are looking at that particular piece of space (or spacetime) that we have chosen to separate out and examine and call 'that object'.

Do you mean something similar, or do you really mean to describe a universe made up of many overlapping 'fields'? In which case, how do we determine 'field' boundaries?

Thanks, if you can shed any light on this.

[htmagic]

And yet it is an observed experimental fact, at least in our publically documented scientific experience so far, that all objects we can test in the experience an acceleration towards each other proportional to their mass and inversely proportional to their distance, and is unaffected by electric or magnetic charge, and at the surface of the Earth, on average, this force is equal to an acceleration of 9.87 metres per second per second.

Nate, yes, this is true. And Kevin, you can take two lead spheres and suspend them on wires or strings. Get them close enough and they will attract each other.
Or look at this experiment. Lots of math for Mr. Trickfox and Mikado to chew on. And this uses a laser for better accuracy.
http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~haar/ADV_LAB/BIG_G.pdf


For example: Project Unity uses the term 'dynamic field of frequency', but I can't relate that to any known terminology. Frequency relates to the speed of regular vibration - an amplitude value that varies over time. A 'field of frequency' would presumably be a 3D space that contains a vibrating waveform at every point? Or a single waveform spread out over a 3D area? But 'frequency' as vibration assumes time in its definition? While Unity's 'time' actually *is* the field, so there is no way for it to vary 'over time'. So does 'frequency' there mean something like 'density'? These terms are very difficult if not defined and described clearly.

Another thing: If every 'object' has its own 'field', then what happens when such 'fields' overlap, as they must for every object, because every object is in fact a collection of smaller objects? Which 'field' is my house in: the field of the Earth, the field of its structural timber, the field of the walls, the field of the furniture inside, the field of me sitting in it...? What makes the definition of an 'object'? Where does my house stop being my house, at the front door, at the garden gate, at the street...?

<SNIP>
Do you mean something similar, or do you really mean to describe a universe made up of many overlapping 'fields'? In which case, how do we determine 'field' boundaries?

Thanks, if you can shed any light on this.

Nate,

Leedskalnin said electron theory was wrong. He talked about two counter rotating vortices. One is like a fast spinning corkscrew traveling down a wire and the opposite corkscrew in reverse. (Could this be "dark energy"?) Now look at cloud chamber videos. There are a few on the Internet and I might have posted a link for one elsewhere in this forum. The electron travels like a fast spinning corkscrew. Now I have never seen a counter rotating vortex in the cloud chamber videos I have watched. Now picture this fast spinning corkscrew. In 2D space it would look like a sine wave from the side. In 3D space, it is like a spinning slinky or corkscrew boring through the "aether".

Now we know that the electron has an electrical field and a magnetic field associated with it. I just described one electron. Now consider a field or sea of electrons flowing like a river or streamlines of smoke in a wind tunnel. Then this would be a field. Now some would be at different energy levels and different frequencies thus you get a dynamic (ever moving, swirling) field of frequency. Now consider different sources and conditions such as electromagnetic transmissions, magnetic disturbances, sunspots, sidereal radiation, etc. It would not be a homogeneous field except in lab conditions.

Hope this helps!

MagicBill

[natecull]

Leedskalnin said electron theory was wrong. He talked about two counter rotating vortices. One is like a fast spinning corkscrew traveling down a wire and the opposite corkscrew in reverse. (Could this be "dark energy"?)

As I understand it, 'dark energy' is a hypothesis invented by astrophysists to explain observed variations from Standard Model of the 'rate of expansion' of the universe, deduced by things like the red-shift of starlight, and modelled a something like a locally variable Cosmological Constant. I'm not convinced all astrophysicsts agree that it is needed or even exists. It might just be a fudge factor which turns out to be a mistake. It's one of those things inferred from inferences made from inferences made from rather speculative models.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

Now look at cloud chamber videos. There are a few on the Internet and I might have posted a link for one elsewhere in this forum. The electron travels like a fast spinning corkscrew. Now I have never seen a counter rotating vortex in the cloud chamber videos I have watched.

Okay, but you're not looking at an actual electron here, you're looking at a massively macroscopic set of events apparently triggered by the path of that electron, right? Which means you're not nearly down to the level where quantum effects start applying. The difference in behaviour between electrons at macroscopic scales and quantum scales is huge, that's why we have quantum physics instead of using classical physics all the way down. What makes you think classical intuitions of electrons moving like particles can in fact be scaled down, against all our experimental evidence to the contrary?

Now we know that the electron has an electrical field and a magnetic field associated with it. I just described one electron. Now consider a field or sea of electrons flowing like a river or streamlines of smoke in a wind tunnel. Then this would be a field. Now some would be at different energy levels and different frequencies thus you get a dynamic (ever moving, swirling) field of frequency. Now consider different sources and conditions such as electromagnetic transmissions, magnetic disturbances, sunspots, sidereal radiation, etc. It would not be a homogeneous field except in lab conditions.

Hope this helps!

Not really, no. See above about quantum vs macroscopic scales, for a start.

Now don't get me wrong. I find the Standard Model horribly clunky and inelegant, and for that reason I find aether-type models are hugely appealing from the point of view of elegance and ease of visualisation. But the reason why the Standard Model persists is not because it's pretty but because it's been hand-tweaked to explain a whole pile of really ugly data. Any other theory we come up with has to, at a minimum, explain the data, or find alternative ways of explaining why the data is wrong.

Second: are you are seriously arguing that 'the aether' underlying *all* particle and electromagnetic wave phenomena, *including* electrons and photons, is in fact made of electrons? That electrons are the lowest size it gets? How then do you propose to begin explaining electromagnetic radiation emitted by electrons, let alone the observations which led to the prediction of quarks and neutrinos? Or are you saying 'electrons' but meaning something else, much smaller?

Third: assuming you are talking about a sea of literal electrons, how do you propose to assign values to those 'energy' or 'frequency' levels? I'm aware of two types of 'energies' associated with electrons in the Standard Model that I know of: 'orbital shell', which is a relationship to an atomic nucleus and not intrinsic to the electron itself, and 'voltage' in the sense of 'electron volts'. I'm not at all convinced that the two are interchangeable, and furthermore, neither is a measure of *frequency*. Photons on the other hand have energy proportional to 'frequency', but also have polarisation, and then of course they start getting into all the weird quantum nonlocality/entanglement wave/particle duality stuff, which is *really* hard to interpret in any kind of classical framework.

Fourth: would this 'electron sea' would be a field over the ordinary three-dimensional space we find ourselves living in, with time as a completely separated dimension, or something else? If 3D+1, how do you plan to reconcile with relativistic notions of spacetime as a unified 4D continuum which is warped by mass and by speed? And how do you plan to reconcile this in such a way as to explain the observations of particles travelling at high relativistic velocities, where relativistic corrections are essential?

This stuff is hard even for rocket scientists, and that's why I'm a little concerned when I see glib quotes like 'it's all fields'. Yes, okay, but what *kind* of fields?

[natecull]

Hmm. Rose's post of this Nigel Cook TEM model on the 'Second Draft' forum rings bells with me:
viewtopic.php?f=23&t=562&p=16822
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/cook.htm

The issue is a very important one for physical sciences. For if we reduce the size of the Catt, Davidson, Walton dynamic charged capacitor right down, we eventually come to the correct picture of the electron. The transverse electromagnetic (T.E.M.) wave has propagation speed c, electric field E, and magnetic field B, all at right angles to one another, in such a manner that you get a bicycle wheel, the axis representing propagation direction, the spokes representing radial electric field (diverging with distance from origin), and the tyre representing circular magnetic field (curling around the origin), always at 90 degrees to the electric field lines and to the direction of propagation. This TEM energy wave has mass (e = mc2), and when the energy is 0.511 MeV, the mass's gravitation (which is inversely proportional to the square of distance) on the tiny size scale due to the tiny wavelength at that energy (energy = hc/wavelength) can self-trap the TEM wave in a tiny loop or circle. The result of a TEM wave represented by a bicycle wheel going round in a circle along its axis (ie at 90 degrees to the direction a wheel along goes along the ground) is a toroidal shape (ring doughnut). This results in electric fields radiating outwards in all directions, giving rise to Gauss's law (giving Coulomb's force), but the magnetic curls do not all add up, and the result is the familiar magnetic dipole of the electron. Hence, the Catt, Davidson, Walton proven correction of Maxwell's electromagnetic theory gives the only existing physically-consistent model of the charged particle, eg, the electron.

This is exactly what H. Short describes elsewhere on this forum as being the model for a MHD vehicle using a toroidal field. Radial electric charge lines like spokes around a wheel, magnetic field curling around and enclosing the whole thing such that it creates its own self-enclosed 'gravity field'. And it's what I think Brown's 1958 disc sketches show.

An 'artificial electron'?

I'm wondering if that could mean that if you created a macroscopic field geometry like that, which looked identical to the geometry of a subatomic particle, then might quantum-like effects manifest in the macroscopic realm? Ie, would it be conceivable for your 'vehicle' to become a sealed 'wave packet' to the outside world? And therefore be able to do all that wacky quantum stuff like be in multiple places at once, etc?

[kevin.b]

These hanging balls,
If the aether is moving in all directions at once, then if you place two objects near each other, and the objects have a manipulative effect on the free flow in all directions of the aether, then they will form a field about themselves of circulating aether, which is both positive and negative, there will be attraction then, not because of the objects, but because the objects create a field, each object creates a different field reaction, dependant upon how it is formed crystalline structure wise, is how I percieve it, with chirality acting in a refractive/reflective fashion.

It's not the balls that are attracted to each other, it's the balls creating an attractive field pattern/s.
I can think of some of the obvious answers to this.
It's all Biefeld Brown.
View everything from the aethers observation , not from what it creates, it acts symbiotically with everything it has created, but everything is different shapes, the shapes create the fields of interferance patterns.
Because of the geometry involved, the aether is following vortex patterns in spiral shape in/out of points, everything created by this utilises the available dual flows, humans are good at this, but much of nature is even better, we are greedy, wanting more and more , constantly consuming the stored and compressed aether that other life forms have coalesced into themselves, everything is ONE, from no-thing, the better that you can manipulate no-thing, you will be able to do any thing.
kevin

[natecull]

If the aether is moving in all directions at once

Literally? Every direction at once, including opposite ones? Or a random jiggling?

then if you place two objects near each other, and the objects have a manipulative effect on the free flow in all directions of the aether, then they will form a field about themselves of circulating aether, which is both positive and negative, there will be attraction then, not because of the objects, but because the objects create a field, each object creates a different field reaction, dependant upon how it is formed crystalline structure wise, is how I percieve it, with chirality acting in a refractive/reflective fashion.

It's not the balls that are attracted to each other, it's the balls creating an attractive field pattern/s.

Thanks, but I still don't get it. What is the difference between an attraction between objects, and an 'attractive field pattern' between those same objects, if an identical field pattern is always and only created by objects of identical mass? Do two objects with different 'crystalline structure' but identical mass experience a different 'force of gravity', and if so, any idea what kinds of materials show this difference, and why we haven't so far noticed it in our experiments?

If you can't measure any difference, *is* there in fact a difference?

If you *can* measure a difference - then can you tell us how and where to look, and how this 'attractive field pattern' differs from the standard calculations of 'acceleration due to gravity' as calculated by mass and distance?

View everything from the aethers observation , not from what it creates, it acts symbiotically with everything it has created, but everything is different shapes, the shapes create the fields of interferance patterns.
Because of the geometry involved, the aether is following vortex patterns in spiral shape in/out of points, everything created by this utilises the available dual flows, humans are good at this, but much of nature is even better, we are greedy, wanting more and more , constantly consuming the stored and compressed aether that other life forms have coalesced into themselves, everything is ONE, from no-thing, the better that you can manipulate no-thing, you will be able to do any thing.

This sounds somewhat similar to Grebennikov's 'Cavity Structural Effect' fields.
http://amasci.com/greb/greb2.html

And the Project Unity reference to the xylem of trees doing an antigravity field-structuring effect sounds very similar to Grebennikov's descriptions of beehives and beetle wing-cases doing similar things. Do you think Grebennikov is talking about the same kind of fields that you perceive, or different ones? And do you think these fields have anything to do with electrostatics, or are different again?

[natecull]

Just another note: do we know who the 'J M Brown' of 'JMB Co, Los Angeles' mentioned in the Douglas documents as the author of the 1967 'Kinetic Particle theory' is?
http://www.checktheevidence.com/DouglasDocs/
http://www.checktheevidence.com/Douglas ... hysics.pdf

No relation to Townsend, I presume? Any relation to this guy: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2416010 ?

The website says these papers were found and 'sold on eBay', but I know I've read this paper or something very similar before, in the 1980s. Probably in The Antigravity Handbook.

[FM No Static At All]

Now don't get me wrong. I find the Standard Model horribly clunky and inelegant, and for that reason I find aether-type models are hugely appealing from the point of view of elegance and ease of visualisation. But the reason why the Standard Model persists is not because it's pretty but because it's been hand-tweaked to explain a whole pile of really ugly data. Any other theory we come up with has to, at a minimum, explain the data, or find alternative ways of explaining why the data is wrong.

Second: are you are seriously arguing that 'the aether' underlying *all* particle and electromagnetic wave phenomena, *including* electrons and photons, is in fact made of electrons? That electrons are the lowest size it gets? How then do you propose to begin explaining electromagnetic radiation, let alone the observations which led to the prediction of quarks and neutrinos? Or are you saying 'electrons' but meaning something else, much smaller?

Third: assuming you are talking about a sea of electrons, how do you propose to assign values to those 'energy' or 'frequency' levels? I'm aware of two types of 'energies' associated with electrons in the Standard Model that I know of: 'orbital shell', which is a relationship to an atomic nucleus and not intrinsic to the electron itself, and 'voltage' in the sense of 'electron volts'. I'm not at all convinced that the two are interchangeable, and furthermore, neither is a measure of *frequency*. Photons on the other hand have energy proportional to 'frequency', but also have polarisation, and then of course they start getting into all the weird quantum nonlocality/entanglement wave/particle duality stuff, which is *really* hard to interpret in any kind of classical framework.

This stuff is hard even for rocket scientists, and that's why I'm a little concerned when I see glib quotes like 'it's all fields'. Yes, okay, but what *kind* of fields?

Try Harold Aspden on Gravity at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&c ... qh7rE_VpZw for a more "elegant" set of equations that explain the unification of gravity as an electrodynamic cause. I do think that he has further revised his position in that he now feels electrostatic energy may be the underlying cause of gravity.