Tweet
If we look at the aether/virtual photons that go over a wire from one terminal to the next, that is the "Heaviside Flow" and I accept that as a scientifically established fact. I feel the same for the Druid Electron gas model, which is the snail pace electrons moving from the copper atoms in the wire towards the positive terminal, which were not supplied by the source dipole for example.
Basically, the observable results of all the electrical functions, gravity, etc. are all completely identical when we go to the root and use a fluid dynamic type model to analyze these things.
Mass, batteries, permanent magnet, electromagnet, atoms, etc. have one thing in common and that is the fact that they are all acting as dipoles. Every dipole polarizes the aether and where there is any mass that can be observed, there is a displacement in the Aether and that displaced Aether pushes back. The more mass, the more proportional push back from the displaced Aether there is which of course gives higher gravity.
When you "charge" a capacitor (not being filled with electrons), it can only hold so much of the polarized gas (Aether). You can fill the tank with the polarized electrostatic potential (voltage potential) a bit above its capacity and when you let off, that upper level of voltage drops a bit because it can't hold that much gas pressure. Voltage potential is just the pressure reading of the aether that is polarized. Get the voltage high enough you even hear it hiss. Its a gas. This gas creates the dimension of space. I have used the terms 3D when talking about space like most people but after spending quite a bit of time with Eric Dollard, all I can say is I completely agree and that he is right. There is only ONE dimension and that is SPACE. The 3D is not 3 dimensions, that are only coordinates within the single dimension of space. When that made sense to me, I was happy to realize that that revelation is actually completely compatible with my own model and that all along, I have treated space as a single dimension without seeing it that way.
Every mass displaces the Aether proportional to itself. I don't mean volume, but rather density of the combined mass. Even if there is a block of lead, it is still mostly empty space so there is still very few protons to be pushed against by the positive polarized aether - that push is an electrostatic push.
If we look at an electromagnetic coil and charge it that "field" is displacing more aether per volume of space than a "solid" object like a block of wood or a block of lead because it is like there is. Therefore, with that much more displacement of the aether, there is more pressure against the aether in that local area that an object sitting there. So gravity is a fairly week phenomena as it pushes against the mass that displaced it but a discharged coil is a fairly strong or FAST phenomena because the rebound of the displaced aether was at a much higher pressure.
Even Einstein's first model(s) described an elastic aether that was displaced by mass like the planet Earth but in his mind, as the mass displaces the aether, it is storing potential in the object therefore, gravitational potential cannot contribute to doing any work. And that same source potential couldn't contribute to doing anything anywhere and all the energy is attributed to the ridiculous idea that it is a property of the mass. His entire foundation is completely inverse from all the empirical evidence. As long as this fictitious premise persists, then there is no free energy in that model and we are all trapped in a claustrophobic universe where nothing travels faster than the speed of light, we have a purely mechanical universe with pinballs rolling around empty space.
If we're looking for meat, at the purest form, none of us can even prove that we even exist so what becomes satisfactory as being meat? I agree it is nice to have "proof", but seeing that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything in the universe, then there is no such thing as real objective proof - no default of predefined reality.
For something you can add up, mathematical proof, lift a rubber ball to a meter and let it bounce until it stops. Add up all the work required for each lift, which is force x distance - that is real work and the combined work is many times more than what was required to lift the ball to begin with, which was our only input. One 83% efficient ball I tested showed me over 8.0 COP and I didn't even count all the bounces. It is already over 1.0 COP on the first bounce.
If you have my book, you can see the section where I point out why all the skeptic's responses to this test are completely ludicrous. They claim the ball doesn't bounce higher each time. Yeah, no duh. But adding up real work done total is more than the input. They say it went up then went down - going up is positive work and falling down is negative work (claiming no net work), when any work that happens when it hits the ground is POSITIVE work in positive time in a measurable amount of joules of real dissipated energy - they completely have no idea of what negative work even means and using vectors to describe forward or positive work is completely laughable. That goofy little bouncing ball test is like bamboo growing under the fingernails of the skeptics because it is too blatantly in their face. It shows that the conventional explanations of what energy and potential are - are wrong (Bearden has said that for years). It shows that gravitational potential actually does cause work to be done on a mass the moment the mass encounters resistance on its way down meaning Einstein is wrong and that closed system thermodynamics do not even apply to any natural system in the universe. It demonstrates that on each bounce upwards - the dissipated energy on the impact went into creating a new potential difference by compressing it x amount (regauging) so that NEW FRESH potential enters the system (no conservation of energy) by establishing a new dipole as it raised to a new height (albeit it a smaller one than last time but a new one nevertheless) - Bedini's SG has shown the regauging process openly for years since it is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system just like the bouncing ball. This list can really get long and it is longer than this but these are just a few things to consider.
Conservation of momentum is an absurdity and a simple Newton's Cradle demonstrates everything listed above...momentum is NOT conserved in the slightest bit. Gravity comes in, pushes the balls down and 100% of that input is dissipated back to the environment and what happens is a new potential difference (dipole) is created when the balls lift to a new height a little lower than before on the other side of center (no conservation of energy or momentum) - it is NEW momentum on each cycle back and forth since new fresh gravitational potential came into the system there. A Newton's Cradle is WAY over 1.0 COP - just add up the force x distance on each lift of the balls on each half swing upwards and it is WAY more than the f x d required to lift them to begin with.
The above experiments are mathematically able to show in real joules of dissipated energy that total work done is way more than the input meaning that this simple elementary math with junior high school equations and a stupid rubber bouncing ball flushes Eisensteinian science down the drain. Einstein's theories don't get relegated to hypothesis or postulations, they MUST be simply acknowledged as being nothing more than mistakes. These simple experiments mathematically give credit to my claims and absolutely demonstrate that at bare minimum for now, they are more accurate and are more in alignment with empirical reality than Einstein, conventional thermodynamics, etc...
I can't say scientifically that my claims are true but I can absolutely demonstrate with their own equations that they indeed do not know the difference between energy and potential and that these demonstrations/experiments account for everything "they" are not able to. Look at the equations that are needed to do this mgh, fd and very little if anything else so quite literally, any child can mathematically overturn all the bs on a chalkboard.
These are some bold claims that obviously go against the popular belief system, but there is nobody that has ever defeated the math argument of adding up all the positive work in positive time in the bouncing ball example and then compare that to what we pay for. As Peter Lindemann has said, free energy is dripping off the walls and that is an understatement. It is all around us when we properly account for what is actually happening.
Basically, the observable results of all the electrical functions, gravity, etc. are all completely identical when we go to the root and use a fluid dynamic type model to analyze these things.
Mass, batteries, permanent magnet, electromagnet, atoms, etc. have one thing in common and that is the fact that they are all acting as dipoles. Every dipole polarizes the aether and where there is any mass that can be observed, there is a displacement in the Aether and that displaced Aether pushes back. The more mass, the more proportional push back from the displaced Aether there is which of course gives higher gravity.
When you "charge" a capacitor (not being filled with electrons), it can only hold so much of the polarized gas (Aether). You can fill the tank with the polarized electrostatic potential (voltage potential) a bit above its capacity and when you let off, that upper level of voltage drops a bit because it can't hold that much gas pressure. Voltage potential is just the pressure reading of the aether that is polarized. Get the voltage high enough you even hear it hiss. Its a gas. This gas creates the dimension of space. I have used the terms 3D when talking about space like most people but after spending quite a bit of time with Eric Dollard, all I can say is I completely agree and that he is right. There is only ONE dimension and that is SPACE. The 3D is not 3 dimensions, that are only coordinates within the single dimension of space. When that made sense to me, I was happy to realize that that revelation is actually completely compatible with my own model and that all along, I have treated space as a single dimension without seeing it that way.
Every mass displaces the Aether proportional to itself. I don't mean volume, but rather density of the combined mass. Even if there is a block of lead, it is still mostly empty space so there is still very few protons to be pushed against by the positive polarized aether - that push is an electrostatic push.
If we look at an electromagnetic coil and charge it that "field" is displacing more aether per volume of space than a "solid" object like a block of wood or a block of lead because it is like there is. Therefore, with that much more displacement of the aether, there is more pressure against the aether in that local area that an object sitting there. So gravity is a fairly week phenomena as it pushes against the mass that displaced it but a discharged coil is a fairly strong or FAST phenomena because the rebound of the displaced aether was at a much higher pressure.
Even Einstein's first model(s) described an elastic aether that was displaced by mass like the planet Earth but in his mind, as the mass displaces the aether, it is storing potential in the object therefore, gravitational potential cannot contribute to doing any work. And that same source potential couldn't contribute to doing anything anywhere and all the energy is attributed to the ridiculous idea that it is a property of the mass. His entire foundation is completely inverse from all the empirical evidence. As long as this fictitious premise persists, then there is no free energy in that model and we are all trapped in a claustrophobic universe where nothing travels faster than the speed of light, we have a purely mechanical universe with pinballs rolling around empty space.
If we're looking for meat, at the purest form, none of us can even prove that we even exist so what becomes satisfactory as being meat? I agree it is nice to have "proof", but seeing that there is no intrinsic meaning to anything in the universe, then there is no such thing as real objective proof - no default of predefined reality.
For something you can add up, mathematical proof, lift a rubber ball to a meter and let it bounce until it stops. Add up all the work required for each lift, which is force x distance - that is real work and the combined work is many times more than what was required to lift the ball to begin with, which was our only input. One 83% efficient ball I tested showed me over 8.0 COP and I didn't even count all the bounces. It is already over 1.0 COP on the first bounce.
If you have my book, you can see the section where I point out why all the skeptic's responses to this test are completely ludicrous. They claim the ball doesn't bounce higher each time. Yeah, no duh. But adding up real work done total is more than the input. They say it went up then went down - going up is positive work and falling down is negative work (claiming no net work), when any work that happens when it hits the ground is POSITIVE work in positive time in a measurable amount of joules of real dissipated energy - they completely have no idea of what negative work even means and using vectors to describe forward or positive work is completely laughable. That goofy little bouncing ball test is like bamboo growing under the fingernails of the skeptics because it is too blatantly in their face. It shows that the conventional explanations of what energy and potential are - are wrong (Bearden has said that for years). It shows that gravitational potential actually does cause work to be done on a mass the moment the mass encounters resistance on its way down meaning Einstein is wrong and that closed system thermodynamics do not even apply to any natural system in the universe. It demonstrates that on each bounce upwards - the dissipated energy on the impact went into creating a new potential difference by compressing it x amount (regauging) so that NEW FRESH potential enters the system (no conservation of energy) by establishing a new dipole as it raised to a new height (albeit it a smaller one than last time but a new one nevertheless) - Bedini's SG has shown the regauging process openly for years since it is a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system just like the bouncing ball. This list can really get long and it is longer than this but these are just a few things to consider.
Conservation of momentum is an absurdity and a simple Newton's Cradle demonstrates everything listed above...momentum is NOT conserved in the slightest bit. Gravity comes in, pushes the balls down and 100% of that input is dissipated back to the environment and what happens is a new potential difference (dipole) is created when the balls lift to a new height a little lower than before on the other side of center (no conservation of energy or momentum) - it is NEW momentum on each cycle back and forth since new fresh gravitational potential came into the system there. A Newton's Cradle is WAY over 1.0 COP - just add up the force x distance on each lift of the balls on each half swing upwards and it is WAY more than the f x d required to lift them to begin with.
The above experiments are mathematically able to show in real joules of dissipated energy that total work done is way more than the input meaning that this simple elementary math with junior high school equations and a stupid rubber bouncing ball flushes Eisensteinian science down the drain. Einstein's theories don't get relegated to hypothesis or postulations, they MUST be simply acknowledged as being nothing more than mistakes. These simple experiments mathematically give credit to my claims and absolutely demonstrate that at bare minimum for now, they are more accurate and are more in alignment with empirical reality than Einstein, conventional thermodynamics, etc...
I can't say scientifically that my claims are true but I can absolutely demonstrate with their own equations that they indeed do not know the difference between energy and potential and that these demonstrations/experiments account for everything "they" are not able to. Look at the equations that are needed to do this mgh, fd and very little if anything else so quite literally, any child can mathematically overturn all the bs on a chalkboard.
These are some bold claims that obviously go against the popular belief system, but there is nobody that has ever defeated the math argument of adding up all the positive work in positive time in the bouncing ball example and then compare that to what we pay for. As Peter Lindemann has said, free energy is dripping off the walls and that is an understatement. It is all around us when we properly account for what is actually happening.
Comment