It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Absurdity of Detecting Gravitational Waves

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines
Are you saying you can transmit and receive between these devices even if both are entirely inside faraday cages?

If so, would it still work some distance apart, say 200m?

Also, one of your drawings mentions a TV tuner detuned to 1.2GHz. Can you explain this a bit more? And what is your tx dielectric made of?




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: EasyPleaseMe

Short answer, yes.
Distance is no problem, but i have yet to test this over a large distance (obviously with a lot of matter in between).

I hope to un-shelf that project when i have finished the current ones.

The TV tuner is not a modern one but an old anaog one, they use AM for the sound and FM for the video, in some countries this is reversed, i forget some, but i have all the tables etc.

The dielectric, hmm where to start?
You can try googling for Beau Kitselman & his material analysis he did for Brown.

I used, in the first experiment, a cone of wax doped with iron oxide (rust powder) and lead 2 oxide, i also tried the glycerine/lead oxide & many other materials, this research is still ongoing, but what you really need is Titanium Hafnium Barium Titanate, that has a K factor of 50,000 or more, compared to air which is 1, or my ones which vary from 50 to 200. See the difference.

I plan tu use a Bismuth/Neodyne/ acetate composite that will literallty blow the competition away.

Others are researching the gravitor, with equal or greater success, have been for 30 years, i'm a newbie by comparison.
OK i will dig out some diagrams/links etc on the tuner, but first be aware, you can modulate grav waves the same as EM waves, from Terrahertz down to DC. The flux-liners seem to operate fairly low, like 400hz or so, i have seen the field-time-lapse analysis of a cigar in space, it was running 300Hz if my memory still works.
I have tried solid, liquid, and gas dielectrics, just to prove the theory, and it holds for all of them.

Solid dielectrics, and then with a lot of mass, are preferable.
Hence the bismuth, shh!



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: Arbitrageur

So if gravitons exist, and are indeed massless,why do peeps think they are limited to C ?
Photons are massless. Why is c the only speed they can travel in a vacuum?


Yes, a gravity wave if small enough would pass through only 1 detector, but again it will show a very small response for the reasons i stated.
So what you might have is detector 1 zero response, detector 2 a tiny response.
They never claimed it was zero in one arm but yes essentially they are claiming the response in the two different arms is slightly different. Everyone admits the responses are tiny.


Also they are assuming that these gravity waves are travelling at C so those black holes must have collided millions of years ago, but it could have been much later if the waves are superluminal.....
The speed of gravity has been indirectly measured in another paper as consistent with the speed of light, so since it's been measured it's not an assumption. They weren't able to measure the speed of gravity as precisely as we can measure the speed of light but what they could say is that if the speed of gravity is different, it's not by a lot (no more than 20% faster or slower).

arxiv.org...

the experiment measures the numerical value of c g as a test of the Lorentz invariance of the Einstein equations, and is an indirect measurement of the speed of propagation of gravity...The measured retarded deflection, as expressed by the parameter δ, is in agreement with GR to 20% accuracy
Since c is the conversion factor between space and time in relativity and many other experiments are consistent with relativity, it's not much of a leap to think that not only is the speed of gravity within 20% of the speed of light but it is probably the same.


The rock method is easier & works extremely well, Brown measured changes on a daily, weekly, monthly & yearly basis, he correctly identified the ablation of the moon in his recordings.
How do you know he correctly identified the ablation of the moon? What reliable lunar ablation data are you using to confirm this?

By the way your RF transformer, tuner and power supply are all outside the shielded tin. If I wanted to shield external EM radiation I'd put the entire experiment inside a faraday cage.

edit on 2017121 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Most 'scientists' think it takes gigawatts to bend/warp spacetime (what i call masstime).
But it doesnt, all you have to do is create an imbalance....

Later!
-PWM-



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Just for you guys, some private videos;
ENJOY!




OK one more, just for fun

Bye!

edit on 21-1-2017 by playswithmachines because: Addenum

edit on 21-1-2017 by playswithmachines because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines

So private they've been on YouTube since Feb 6, 2012(first video) and Aug 16, 2011(second video)?

Pull the other one.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes, i wasn't around on ATS in those years, go check my posts, you wil find a huge gap.

Yes these are old videos, that's why i can post them now, duh.
ETA these vids are locked, only those viewing this post at ats can see them, LOL
Happy new year.
edit on 21-1-2017 by playswithmachines because: afterthought



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines

It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

They ARE private, you peeps are the first to see them (apart from that other forum)
Enjoy, and look for the message instead of denouncing what you haven't even seen.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Go log in to my YT channel "stawmy" and you won't find these films.
Yes they are private, and old.
You want me to tel you of the latest developments?
What's in it for me?
Can you pay me 10 grand a month (plus insurance)?
No?

Goodbye.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: FauxMulder

Great thread!!!

Gravity is one of the subjects I recently had to dismantle my previously conceived theories of. Basically, I have come to file gravity into the category of 'magnetism.' The new data kind of makes me think of the +/- forces at work... of which kind of forces me to think in terms of the frequencies of which they interact.

I've come to learn that the balance of interaction between the opposing magnetic frequencies have an astonishingly strong amptitude when they oscillate at a frequency close to the golden ratio. That thoughts veers off topic, so I will stall my input here...



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines

Like anyone should believe an "armchair scientist" who keeps bragging about machines that don't work lol.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ermm, these machines do work, you want the documentation going back 80 years or do you want my own findings?

Either way, you are way out of your depth. I am probably the last engineer to have had a backround in Cambridge since the late 60's.

You are doomed. Accept it.
edit on 21-1-2017 by playswithmachines because: bla



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ttobban

Remember what Tesla said; vibration is everything!
Keep an open mind, and stay on the path, dude.

edit on 21-1-2017 by playswithmachines because: Duff keyboard



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: playswithmachines

Yeah, like I'm going to accept the word of some random person with a YouTube channel lol.

Just because you've got a machine that YOU say works (like we've never heard that before [ Brilliant Light Power, for example ]), doesn't mean people are just going to accept what you say.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines

It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.


If you're going to call someone out at least check your facts first. Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines

It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.


If you're going to call someone out at least check your facts first. Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...


Not sure which thread you're reading, but it's certainly can't be this one as I never used any ad homs. Also, I don't feel embarrassed in the slightest for what I said.
edit on 2112017 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines

It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.


If you're going to call someone out at least check your facts first. Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...


Not sure which thread you're reading, but it's certainly can't be this one as I never used any ad homs. Also, I don't feel embarrassed in the slightest for what I said.

I didn't say you did. And I suppose if your aren't embarrassed about being wrong then you won't and we can all have less crepe to read.

edit on 21/1/2017 by EasyPleaseMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: playswithmachines
a reply to: ttobban

Remember what Tesla said; vibration is everything!
Keep an open mind, and stay on the path, dude.

He also said this, about the ionosphere:

Terrestrial phenomena which I have noted conclusively show that there is no Heaviside layer, or if it exists, it is of no effect.


And this, about electromagnetic radiation.

The Hertz wave theory of wireless transmission may be kept up for a while, but I do not hesitate to say that in a short time it will be recognized as one of the most remarkable and inexplicable aberrations of the scientific mind which has ever been recorded in history.


www.tfcbooks.com...

An open mind is fine. Just don't let your brains fall out.

edit on 1/21/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: EasyPleaseMe

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: playswithmachines

It's just a bit absurd to say they're "private videos" when they're on YouTube and have been for several years. That would make them the opposite of private.


If you're going to call someone out at least check your facts first. Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...


Not sure which thread you're reading, but it's certainly can't be this one as I never used any ad homs. Also, I don't feel embarrassed in the slightest for what I said.

I didn't say you did. And I suppose if your aren't embarrassed about being wrong then you won't.


So I'm guessing this line...

Then you don't have to get all ad hom to cover your embarrasment...

...was a just in case I did?

I'm not sure what you think I'm wrong about. The YouTube videos might be hidden, but they're not private as he has already shared them (from a quick glance at the comments of one of the videos and by his own admission) at least 4 years ago AND on another forum.

Anyways....I think we're getting off topic by quite a bit now.

FYI, I don't have a problem with PWM in general. We even talked on another thread and agreed (shocking, I know). It's just his videos and "research" reek the same way Brilliant Light Power does.




top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join