Cosmic Induction Generator
Started by Aaron Murakami · · 29 posts · last reply 1 January 2017
-
#1 ·
I did this interview with Eric Dollard last September - about the Cosmic Induction Generator. Just put it on YouTube today. Please support John Polakowski's Indiegogo campaign!
Here is an interview with Eric Dollard by Aaron Murakami from September 2013 - just released! -
#2 ·
-
#3 ·
Hey Aaron..I've, ( Marty from MartinMotors) been a long time fan and supporter of Eric Dollard and was wondering if you could have Eric give is answer to a general question that's been going around in my head. Question: In the vacuum of outer space beyond our atmosphere I understand that the particles constituting light would not be moving slow enough for our eye to register light; that it is our atmosphere that slows down those particles to our percieved speed of light enabling us to "see the light", so if we went to the moon and set foot on it there being no atmosphere, wouldn't we be in total darkness? If we had a flashlight and turned it on would we be unable to illuminate anything..or?? Makes me wonder how the footage of the supposed moon landing was produced..?? Opinions?? Thanks for your time and efforts! -
#4 ·
Hello again, I had the pleasure to recently view the video of Eric's antenna project and, though most all of it was far over my head, it seems clear that Eric is probably the only soul on the planet making a "meaningful phone call" with his connection to above and below ground. And all without silly phones or computers! And what a Corolla! He started to talk a bit about the visibility of earth, moon and mars beyond our atmosphere and I am most fascinated with this bit of reality. Can anyone point me to a thread/discussion by Eric on this where he might go into detail explaining how he sees it? -
#5 ·
I don't believe it is so much the speed of the light that is making it visible - it is slower in our atmosphere than in the vacuum of space but for visibility, it is that light needs to interact with molecules to be visible. The moon actually does have an atmosphere and even some very faint clouds have been photographed on the moon. For years, it was denied that water was on the moon, but we now accept it as fact since they finally admitted it.powerdraw wrote:
Hey Aaron..I've, ( Marty from MartinMotors) been a long time fan and supporter of Eric Dollard and was wondering if you could have Eric give is answer to a general question that's been going around in my head. Question: In the vacuum of outer space beyond our atmosphere I understand that the particles constituting light would not be moving slow enough for our eye to register light; that it is our atmosphere that slows down those particles to our percieved speed of light enabling us to "see the light", so if we went to the moon and set foot on it there being no atmosphere, wouldn't we be in total darkness? If we had a flashlight and turned it on would we be unable to illuminate anything..or?? Makes me wonder how the footage of the supposed moon landing was produced..?? Opinions?? Thanks for your time and efforts!
Here is one of the simplest examples to show the concept of light needing something to interact with to be visible...
Whet it is nighttime and it's midnight, we're roughly on the darkest part of the Earth, the Sun is hitting the daytime side and light that is just as bright is streaming past the Earth. When it is midnight and we look out at the sky, we don't see any of that light streaming by because there is nothing for the light to interact with to be visible. But, it is still there as bright as the light that hits the daytime side of the Earth yet it is completely invisible to us.
It's the same as infrared - the heat from the Sun is not warming the Earth. It is just the infrared that interacts with molecules here on Earth. Between the Sun and Earth, it is beyond freezing yet it is full of infrared radiation from the sun, but there is no heat. The heat cannot manifest unless it has something to interact with - same thing.
If light is supposed to be visible in the darkness of space, then infrared radiation should be detectible as heat but it is not.
The light not being visible in space was admitted to Tom Brown during a phone conversation with a NASA official years ago. In one large photo compilation of photographs in space that Peter Lindemann, etc... examined - 100% of every picture was NOT in the visible spectrum. There was x-ray, uv, etc... but not one single one in the natural visible spectrum. -
#6 ·
Eric hasn't mentioned it a whole lot but check out this thread: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ble-light.htmlpowerdraw wrote:
Hello again, I had the pleasure to recently view the video of Eric's antenna project and, though most all of it was far over my head, it seems clear that Eric is probably the only soul on the planet making a "meaningful phone call" with his connection to above and below ground. And all without silly phones or computers! And what a Corolla! He started to talk a bit about the visibility of earth, moon and mars beyond our atmosphere and I am most fascinated with this bit of reality. Can anyone point me to a thread/discussion by Eric on this where he might go into detail explaining how he sees it? -
#7 ·
Thanks Aaron. So what about pictures taken by the Hubbel telescope outside our atmosphere? Not sure how they fit into this explanation? Wouldn't celestail bodies such as stars and planets that have any kind of molecular atmosphere interact and project light and be visible to one who is outside our atmosphere? Eric did say that the earth, moon and mars were visible from ponts outside our atmosphere so why not any other body with an atmosphere...is it that most stars don't have the molecular quality you mention to interact and make light? or are the stars just too far away to be seen per there own light when we are outside our atmosphere? Just seems like something is missing and more explanation is necessary. But thanks..I think I'm starting to understand it better with your help. -
#8 ·
I don't know - there are a lot of unknowns. We just know that many cameras used by NASA actually could not pick up any of the background stars.powerdraw wrote:
Thanks Aaron. So what about pictures taken by the Hubbel telescope outside our atmosphere? Not sure how they fit into this explanation? Wouldn't celestail bodies such as stars and planets that have any kind of molecular atmosphere interact and project light and be visible to one who is outside our atmosphere? Eric did say that the earth, moon and mars were visible from ponts outside our atmosphere so why not any other body with an atmosphere...is it that most stars don't have the molecular quality you mention to interact and make light? or are the stars just too far away to be seen per there own light when we are outside our atmosphere? Just seems like something is missing and more explanation is necessary. But thanks..I think I'm starting to understand it better with your help.
I think the cameras like the Hubble probably have camera lenses that are inside of a gas filled chamber for the light to interact with to be visible.
All the pictures in the visible spectrum that the astronauts take with stars in the background are almost all on the inside of the ship where there is plenty of oxygen, etc...
But at the simplest, where is the sunlight in the night sky when it is dark? There is a massive amount of light in all spectrums streaming by the Earth but we don't see a single bit of it until it hits the moon. The light that is between the Sun and Moon is completely invisible.
We can go out at night and shine a bright light into the sky and we can see the light as a long column so we can see the light appear between the source and whatever it hits at the end. But in this case, it interacts with dust particles in the air, water moisture, gases, etc... so we can see it... but we don't see the sunlight going past the Earth at nighttime.
There really is no such thing as reflected light - it is all absorbed and then re-emitted. If there is nothing in empty space to absorb and re-emit the light, then it can't be visible. There are some gases, etc... in that thread I posted for Energetic Forum, someone mentioned about hydrogen and helium - its an interesting idea. -
#9 ·
Aaron Murakami wrote:
I don't know - there are a lot of unknowns. We just know that many cameras used by NASA actually could not pick up any of the background stars.
I think the cameras like the Hubble probably have camera lenses that are inside of a gas filled chamber for the light to interact with to be visible.
All the pictures in the visible spectrum that the astronauts take with stars in the background are almost all on the inside of the ship where there is plenty of oxygen, etc...
But at the simplest, where is the sunlight in the night sky when it is dark? There is a massive amount of light in all spectrums streaming by the Earth but we don't see a single bit of it until it hits the moon. The light that is between the Sun and Moon is completely invisible.
We can go out at night and shine a bright light into the sky and we can see the light as a long column so we can see the light appear between the source and whatever it hits at the end. But in this case, it interacts with dust particles in the air, water moisture, gases, etc... so we can see it... but we don't see the sunlight going past the Earth at nighttime.
There really is no such thing as reflected light - it is all absorbed and then re-emitted. If there is nothing in empty space to absorb and re-emit the light, then it can't be visible. There are some gases, etc... in that thread I posted for Energetic Forum, someone mentioned about hydrogen and helium - its an interesting idea.
Hi Aaron,
The idea of 'Intermediate Light probing' to look for its presence pre dates or at least contemporary to the Action-at-a-Distance Theory itself, this is in fact a corollary to the Quest of knowing if Light even travels the way we know what 'travel' (Spatial) is like!!!
I strongly believe that Light propagation has no Spatial role, but it is temporal,as it has a definitive Source but no sink..! Spatial travel seeks the simultaneous presence of both these aspects.
Rgds,
Faraday88. -
#10 ·
Thanks Faraday88.. I found Eric Dollards youtube video discussing secrets of the sun wherein he mentions his take on nature of light. I don't feel so bad now finding myself trying to wrap my head around how it might be as compared to what I have been taught...the threads of discussion on this topic definantly go quite deep and I am glad to see so many thoughtful folks seeking the truth.
Thanks and regards to all,
pd -
#11 ·
I couldn't find that phrase "intermediate light probing" but I know what you mean. We also have to define what TIME is - below is a definition that I created long time ago because it is the only thing that makes sense to me.Faraday88 wrote:
Hi Aaron,
The idea of 'Intermediate Light probing' to look for its presence pre dates or at least contemporary to the Action-at-a-Distance Theory itself, this is in fact a corollary to the Quest of knowing if Light even travels the way we know what 'travel' (Spatial) is like!!!
I strongly believe that Light propagation has no Spatial role, but it is temporal,as it has a definitive Source but no sink..! Spatial travel seeks the simultaneous presence of both these aspects.
Rgds,
Faraday88.
From a non-relative perspective, time itself seems to be nothing more than the rate of motion of mass moving through the aether, which is dependent on the density of the aether.
So under high density aether, there is more restriction to the movement of mass and even light speed but to an observer in that area, light will still look like light speed since all perception, etc... is based on the aether being that dense.
Under low density, there is less restriction to the movement of mass and light speed is faster with less restriction - but to an observer it will still be at light speed since their perception is subject to that lower density aether.
From the universal perspective - if we could look at both areas of the aether at high and low densities, we should see that the high density aether light is slow and the low density aether has light moving fast.
But again, to each observer in their own respective areas of different densities of aether everything looks normal and to them time seems to tick normally because they are perceiving at their own benchmarks based on the aetheric density that they are in.
Many of the principles of relativity are accurately describing the effects but an aether based model is what actually makes sense out of it.
When we look at space and time - Eric considers space to not have 3 dimensions, but 1. XYZ are coordinates but not dimensions. You and I are at different coordinates in this world, but we are in the same singular dimension of space. So any "travel" that light does if it even travels is still within 1 single dimension of space from point A to B and that movement is from one set of coordinates to the other - but again in the same single dimension of space. As far as time, it can be a mathematical dimension we can multiply different variables by but it doesn't look like it is a dimension in the sense of "3D space and time". Time is an amount of movement that happened and that is about it.
If some kid is swinging on a swing and the swinging is consistent and we count those swings, that is just as valid of a timepiece as a clock. The only thing the kid swinging and a clock are doing is simply MOVING in a countable or incrementally quantifiable way. To the observer within their own aetheric density - time will always look the same since the light is moving at a speed governed by that density, their observation faculties are governed by it, movement of mass is governed by it, etc... so no matter what density, this will always be the case but comparing locations with different densities, there will be a difference in the "flow of time" and therefore the "speed of light" from an absolute perspective.
What is the actual mechanism at play that allows light to be created at one spot and appear at another spot in outer space without it being visible in between or light created at one spot down on Earth and hitting another spot while illuminating its pathway by interacting with dust, moisture, etc... good question! In both situations, the light only appears when it hits something because illuminating its own pathway down here is simply each particle on the path being hit and illuminated so essentially it is the same thing as light out in space where the moon is simply a big particle on the sunlight's path that is being illuminated by absorbing and re-emitting light.
There is also a big fallacy when it comes to measuring distance to different stars by looking at color shifts as the light moves past other objects. I can't find that reference but there are examples where that whole idea doesn't manifest so it can change everything we think about in terms of how big the universe is, etc... I'll try to find it and post it because in a way, it kind of gives credit to some of Eric's ideas about light travel and it is based on actual photographs taken by NASA, etc. -
#12 ·
Hi all,
I have a question and don't know if it really belongs to this thread but I taught that the cosmic induction generator was based on the magnifying transmitter, my question is:
When I read the papers of Eric Dollard conserning the magnifying transmitter, there is always spoken off a wavelength of a certain frequency but this frequency is never the resonance frequency off the total system because this is influenced by the capacity's or am I wrong?
To make myself more clear: I have a test kit from Constantin Meyl where a single wire transmission system is build with 2 coils on pcb board, on this board are balls attached for the capacitance. When one use the coil with lambda/2 the system resonates at +-3Mhz and +-7Mhz being the 7Mhz the frequency where the longitundinal waves are most present. Now I want to implement the third "tesla coil" from the paper of Eric Dollard "Condensed intro to tesla transformers" and I would take the same wire length as is used on the secundary coil on the pcb. But this length is approx 9m (trying to measure it)
so the frequency of resonance should be 33Mhz, this would mean I think that the 10th harmonic is used. So I whas wondering if one build a tesla magnifying transformer with the 3 coils, does he need to use the wire length for a certain wanted frequency "with or without" the influence of the capacity's. Does the capacity's values need to be changed to? -
#13 ·
had the pleasure to recently view the video of Eric's antenna project and, though most all of it was far over my head, it seems clear that Eric is probably the only soul on the planet making a "meaningful phone call" with his connection to above and below ground. -
#14 ·
Here is a short video showing some of the early work John Polakowski. -
#15 ·
Is this not a matter of the plane in focus and hyperfocal distance?Aaron Murakami wrote:
We just know that many cameras used by NASA actually could not pick up any of the background stars. -
#16 ·
Where's the video?JohnNelson wrote:
Here is a short video showing some of the early work John Polakowski. -
#17 ·
Go out at midnight, look up in the sky - you don't see the sunlight streaming past the earth out in the dark sky even though that light is there and is streaming past. It is completely invisible until it actually is absorbed and then re-emitted by something.wrtner wrote:
Is this not a matter of the plane in focus and hyperfocal distance? -
#18 ·
Aaron, I guess one should be looking at the night time horizon to get the feeling that you have described, because looking along the night sky upright straight actually happens to be in the line of the shadow (of the sunlight)..Aaron Murakami wrote:
Go out at midnight, look up in the sky - you don't see the sunlight streaming past the earth out in the dark sky even though that light is there and is streaming past. It is completely invisible until it actually is absorbed and then re-emitted by something.
Rgds,
Faraday88. -
#19 ·
The shadow is like the cone, which is a small percentage of the entire sky. Looking through the shadow into the rest of the space, which is filled with sunlight shows that the sunlight is invisible. You do not see any of it outside of that cone.Faraday88 wrote:
Aaron, I guess one should be looking at the night time horizon to get the feeling that you have described, because looking along the night sky upright straight actually happens to be in the line of the shadow (of the sunlight)..
Rgds,
Faraday88.
In that picture, if you're on the equator on the dark side of the Earth and are exactly 180 degrees away from the sun and you look straight up in the sky, you are looking directly towards the small point of the shadow cone. Look out towards the horizon in any direction where the distance is the smallest until you look past the border of the shadow - why don't you see any of that sunlight, which is streaming right past the Earth? You can't see any of it and it is there outside of that shadow.
To really put it into perspective... the below picture - the yellow is everywhere that the sun is shining through space...the shadow cone is an insignificantly small part of it and everywhere you look through that shadow, you are looking into space where that sun is shining. Anyone can look up in any direction in a dark night sky and they are looking right into that space where the sunshine is yet they can't see any evidence of it.
Attached Files -
-
#20 ·
informative interview. thanks for link -
#21 ·
Hi Aaron,Aaron Murakami wrote:
I couldn't find that phrase "intermediate light probing" but I know what you mean. We also have to define what TIME is - below is a definition that I created long time ago because it is the only thing that makes sense to me.
From a non-relative perspective, time itself seems to be nothing more than the rate of motion of mass moving through the aether, which is dependent on the density of the aether.
So under high density aether, there is more restriction to the movement of mass and even light speed but to an observer in that area, light will still look like light speed since all perception, etc... is based on the aether being that dense.
Under low density, there is less restriction to the movement of mass and light speed is faster with less restriction - but to an observer it will still be at light speed since their perception is subject to that lower density aether.
From the universal perspective - if we could look at both areas of the aether at high and low densities, we should see that the high density aether light is slow and the low density aether has light moving fast.
But again, to each observer in their own respective areas of different densities of aether everything looks normal and to them time seems to tick normally because they are perceiving at their own benchmarks based on the aetheric density that they are in.
Many of the principles of relativity are accurately describing the effects but an aether based model is what actually makes sense out of it.
When we look at space and time - Eric considers space to not have 3 dimensions, but 1. XYZ are coordinates but not dimensions. You and I are at different coordinates in this world, but we are in the same singular dimension of space. So any "travel" that light does if it even travels is still within 1 single dimension of space from point A to B and that movement is from one set of coordinates to the other - but again in the same single dimension of space. As far as time, it can be a mathematical dimension we can multiply different variables by but it doesn't look like it is a dimension in the sense of "3D space and time". Time is an amount of movement that happened and that is about it.
If some kid is swinging on a swing and the swinging is consistent and we count those swings, that is just as valid of a timepiece as a clock. The only thing the kid swinging and a clock are doing is simply MOVING in a countable or incrementally quantifiable way. To the observer within their own aetheric density - time will always look the same since the light is moving at a speed governed by that density, their observation faculties are governed by it, movement of mass is governed by it, etc... so no matter what density, this will always be the case but comparing locations with different densities, there will be a difference in the "flow of time" and therefore the "speed of light" from an absolute perspective.
What is the actual mechanism at play that allows light to be created at one spot and appear at another spot in outer space without it being visible in between or light created at one spot down on Earth and hitting another spot while illuminating its pathway by interacting with dust, moisture, etc... good question! In both situations, the light only appears when it hits something because illuminating its own pathway down here is simply each particle on the path being hit and illuminated so essentially it is the same thing as light out in space where the moon is simply a big particle on the sunlight's path that is being illuminated by absorbing and re-emitting light.
There is also a big fallacy when it comes to measuring distance to different stars by looking at color shifts as the light moves past other objects. I can't find that reference but there are examples where that whole idea doesn't manifest so it can change everything we think about in terms of how big the universe is, etc... I'll try to find it and post it because in a way, it kind of gives credit to some of Eric's ideas about light travel and it is based on actual photographs taken by NASA, etc.
In Aetheric Physics it is established (very much like what Hamilton said that a distinct Science of TIME is possible) that TIME is the other counter part of the physical 'Nothingness' the first being the Physical fabric of space itself. if i understand Tom bearden writings on the Structure of TIME from the perspective of Engineering it, this should be it. i remember seeing a documentary in the discovery channel where a scientist is shown working on using Light to do 'TIME TRAVEL' none the less, TIME travel must be a diffenrt perception as opposed to Space travel...Astrophysics is yet to marry with the Science of TIME.
Rgds,
Faraday88. -
#22 ·
Hi Andy, above are some of my views (Highlighted) on your comments...Handy andy wrote:
Time is not a real dimension (yes in a way it is not but in another way it is !!!), it is a useful way of determining where we are, were, and will be.
If some one travels around the world in a supersonic jet with an atomic clock, the clock appears to have slowed down, when compared to a clock on the ground. No matter which you look at it when both clocks are compared they have a discrepancy, but they are both when compared exist at the same point and space in time. Time travel is not possible,(Yes you are correct, but again, this has nothing to do with the way we know about 'spatial Travel' Time travel is a different sense..i have said this before many times) even if we could open up a whole in space and appear at the other side of the universe at will, we have not slowed time. For the observer it might take a millenia for light to appear back here on earth confirming your arrival, so to the observer on earth you might appear to have travelled a millenia into the future.
Look at this perspective : Spatial travel happens only unidirectional... while in the case of a light, it does it simultaneously in 3D axis, which is impossible for a Mass-particle to do.as for light, and its source, they are inherently associated with the 'Spatial spread' and not 'travel' so to speak. Light originates from the TIME-DOMAIN.
when we perceive the 'travel of light from a distances point in the far Universe (like a star) we perceive the 'act' happening there and this act is the instance that it happens and not that it would have happend millions of years ago (as is generally interpreted).. TIME ENTERS OUR PHYSICAL REALITY FROM TWO NODES..... ONE IS THE FROM THE 'NEAR' MASS(COMPLEX PLANE) AND THE OTHER IS FROM DISTANCE SPACE (SIMPLE PLANE)....if LIGHT is made as the NODE between THE SPACE AND TIME ....A PHENOMENON CALLED THE TIME TRAVEL IS REALIZED!!!!!
Light is only perceived when it hits your eyeball or sensor, photons of light travel through the ether space, (what ever you wish to call it) in a straight line unless interferred with, photons moving between the ether are being driven on like a perpetual spring. The ether transmits all forces including gravity and magnetism in the form of vortices, different vortices give rise to different types of forces, attractive and repulsive etc.
The reason masses appear to increase with speed approaching light speed and the size of the particle reduces and becomes componential (i have coined this term) to aether it self is because energy must be expended moving the ether out of the way. like any liquid it becomes rock hard when squashed too hard, it has inertia, and therefore a memory of what has passed.
The solar system is thought to be expanding because of red and blue shift observations, which is based on the doppler effect which you hear when a car approaches you then passes, light behaves the same. Einsteins observation on light being bent due to gravity, hides what is really going on. The gravitational waves in the ether reduce the density of the ether ie stretch it, and give the appearence of space being stretched, therefore like in water when light passes from one medium to the next the refractive index changes and the light appears to bend. At least thats what I reckon, I am open to discussion.
Interestingly I think rosemary ainslie also included all matter as coming out of the ether, the masses being given by centrepetal forces of the ether. She used zipons to represent her magnetic field, I think she was wrong here, the magnetic field is the ether spiraling out of one pole into the other, I could be wrong, But I am open to discussion.
A star trek type idea just occurred to me flashed through my skull, ref opening up a gap in space,(We already have this 'GAP' and it is know to us by the name MASS and yes it does have a superluminal 'velocity' to travel in TIME) and travelling faster than light.
My view of the ether is that it consists of very small pieces of space, that are all connected by a zero space, all things are connected literally by this extra dimension. However if a tunnel could be opened up in the ether, ie moving the ether out of the way, then travelling at above light speed might be possible in an artificial zero space dimension. You would probably die trying to do it, therefore it is not recommended. Also my view is that quantum matter appearing from the ether and disappearing continually all around us, is the ether trying to produce matter, when the ether is stretched I reckon this quantum matter appears permanently as matter, so stretching space too much might suddenly result in vast amounts of matter appearing, some of it could be antimatter(BANG, gamma ray emissions, see centre of rotating galaxies, where matter is produced). This is most likely how the original matter in the universe appeared, in vortices which stretched the ether. This matter then coalesced into big clouds nebulae, which became stars, converting the matter into bigger particles. The stars then supernovaed this heavier matter out into the universe forming the planets we have today etc.
I originally started my investigations on wardenclyffe wondering what would happen if we pulsed a big enough potential across an area of space, could we pull quarks or even electrons and positrons into existence, and harvest them. That is when I got into lightning. But to go back to the high potential concept, like lightning and water it will work better in a vacuum. The ether also behaves like a very fine liquid so it will pass through the walls of any container you try to create a vacuum in. Setting up gravitational waves to stretch the ether, might be possible using one of teslas ideas.
Rgds,
Faraday88. -
#23 ·
Hi Andy,Handy andy wrote:
Hi
Thanks for your comments, I will take some time to absorb them fully. As you are aware my ideas are very flexible and changing rapidly, I have now incoorporated Rosemary Ainslies ideas with a twist into my ideas.
At first pass, I think this isnt mentioned in these threads and I overlooked it partly because of the breadth of the stuff I am looking at in my essays. This is that the speed of light can be exceeded in differing reference frames. The Aether is moving in space, light travels through the aether at light speed. But the aether itself is not stationery. This is observed at the outer edges of the visible universe where galaxies are accelerating away from us, even more interesting is that galaxies within a moving aether travelling at light speed could and do exceed light speed. The following is a link outlining some of the issues astronomers have, you may find it interesting, I did.
So, how can galaxies be traveling faster than the speed of light when nothing can travel faster than light?
Do you have a good book or reference website for aether physics, you could direct me at.
Kind Regards
Andy
look it is like this... Astrophysics and Astronomy have a perspective of the physical universe and the irony is..these in general have no perspective for TIME it self as a Distinct Science and that is where the overall understanding fails.. i would suggest you to read Tom Bearden (at least i cohere with his conception ) one striking statement that he made ' Astrophysicist and cosmologist wrestle to uncover the secrets of the so-called Dark Energy whereas it can be readily proved on table top experiment if one understands how to siphon the Vacuum Energy using a Dipole that bears a Broken symmetry with the immediate Vacuum... Yes if you get it right, Space Time is more readily understood in Electromagnetic terms and once you get that the structure of the working of the Universe in both Space-Time manifold will be obviously evident.
just a background of the jut feeling to my understanding on this... years ago while in school i was very inquisitive about Einstein's Theory of Relativity but would struggle to comprehend the concept... but believe me today i know it more on the Electromagnetic Theory (Scalar Electromagnetic or Quantum Electrodynamics) basis.. and that how it is!!!!
Rgds,
Faraday88. -
#24 ·
Hey Andy...Yes, on the hind sight i too am interested in Lightning and Cold Fusion stuffs.. under a lot of Plasma Chemical Interactions in what you term as the H+ OH- split up..!Handy andy wrote:
Hi
Thanks again for coming back, I am still mulling a few things over ref how space behaves at when galaxies are travelling close to light speed and still accelerating, it explains a few things, and is yet another example where standard physics ignores the obvious, when it doesn't suit.
I played with a magnetic dipole theory many years ago, but improved it over time to what I have now, something between aether, string, and dipole theory. My aim was to write something that all people at all levels could understand, at the moment I am improving it again, I had not realized the galaxies at the edge of the visible universe were moving so fast. A finite expanding universe is a nonsense to me, as are infinite gravitational forces, and black holes. All things are relative when different reference frames are taken into account.
All electrical equations can be written in terms of electromagnetic equations, it is not too hard if you are fresh out of school. Equally things can be represented in different ways with differing numbers of perceived dimensions, and reference points. I suspect we are talking about the same thing using different words. Dark matter is theorized to exist because of a misunderstanding of how gravity works, and what space is made up off. The properties of space are manifest in light speed in our reference frame and the double slit experiment, showing wave behaviour as a photon passes through space. This wave like behaviour in space as a photon passes through space is replicated by larger bodies galaxies even. A galaxy approaching light speed will have a huge vortex of space around it, stretching space in its wake, this vortex will most likely bend light back on itself. I think this explanation explains what is happening in the physics link on the previous reply to you. It also explains why there appears to be a edge to the expanding universe. Your Vacuum energy I suspect is what I would term a vortex, a stretching of space, like the gravity caused by a planet or the gravity seen at the centre of a galaxy or solar system. Magnetic fields are caused by vortices in space spiralling away from magnetic material, all things can be explained in terms of vortices of one form or another, or as tesla stated in to understand the universe you must think in terms of frequency energy and vibration.
4 billion years from now our sun may be dieing, (if new matter is not continually being created in space for it to consume), our solar system is going to get a make over. The Andromeda galaxy is on a collision course.
I will see if I can acquire Tom Beardons book ASAP I should have time to read it before then.
My main interest on this site is the lightning and chain reactions, do you have any comments on that. Apparently it has been viewed over 500 times and no comments.
Cheers
Andy
Irwing Langmuir is the guy who did Plasma chemical experiments his famous being the Atomic Hydrogen flame or the Electrically heated Molecular Hydrogen dissociating under occlusion process..and in low pressure (Glow-Discharge) conditions.... theses are all Radiant Energy phenomenons if you further elaborate them...right??
I really wonder why people have not used Radiant Electricity to excite Cold -Fusion electrolysis or did they..?????
Rgds,
Faraday88. -
#25 ·
Hey Andy,Handy andy wrote:
Ref the cosmic induction generator, in all likelihood if things are going to be observed it will work better in a vacuum(as in light bulbs), to avoid interactions with air molecules. I do not agree with the big bang creating all matter in the universe, I think it appeared molecule by molecule over eons from the aether, it accumalated in nebulae etc.
This process happened in the partial vacuum of space, the vacuum of space is full of quantum matter, here one second gone the next. This is easier to visualize than to talk about 3,4,5,6, to 13 dimensional universes explained only by mathematics. If you ignore the jargon and the gozzintas (sums) it is easy to visualize many types of vortices like you would see running your hand through water. I always try to create a picture in peoples minds when trying to explain something, and avoid talk of multi dimensional universes. My views are always in a state of flux constantly changing.
Vortices or waves in the aether appear as quantum matter. The more the aether is stretched the more excited it gets like a gas. etc
I noticed some major discrepancies in tom beardons book 2002 and what is going on in the zero force motor, disinformation and drip feed of information, does not sit well with me.
I would like to know the discrepancies you found in Tom bearden's book.. and yes I too do not believe in the Big bang Theory..Universe does not exist in way!
It is only Space-Time Manifestation..
Rgds,
Faraday88.
