Physics of Anti-Gravity Explained in DETAIL... Legendary Video Series!!!

Originally posted by tauristercus
As interesting as Znidarsic's theory may be, I'm surprised that no one is questioning WHY his calculated value for the radius of the proton is so far of the mark when compared to the almost universally accepted value ... and also WHY no one seems to be asking HOW the speed of light value becomes reduced significantly to 1.094 x 10^6 m/s as it crosses into the interior region of the atom.

How does one define "interior" of an atom, especially when the atom is in a large collection of dense material (like a solid)?

How does one define "inside" when the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation is substantially larger than an atom, like at optical frequencies. The atom is more "inside" the wave than vice versa.

By contrast, none of these problems exist for quantum mechanics because "c" is always "c", and the slowdown of macroscopic wave propagation in classical dielectric media (index of refraction) is fully explained by the microscopic theory. That is, this happens when the wavelength is much larger than the size of an atom (like light going through glass). When it isn't, say gamma rays, then the effective velocity is 'c' in and out of an atom.

Originally posted by mbkennel

How does one define "interior" of an atom, especially when the atom is in a large collection of dense material (like a solid)?

Um. The electron is on the outside, with a lot of space between it and the nucleus. Anything between the electrons and the protons is "inside the atom".. Is that so hard to grasp?

How does one define "inside" when the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation is substantially larger than an atom, like at optical frequencies. The atom is more "inside" the wave than vice versa.

What's your point, again? I missed it.

By contrast, none of these problems exist for quantum mechanics because "c" is always "c", and the slowdown of macroscopic wave propagation in classical dielectric media (index of refraction) is fully explained by the microscopic theory. That is, this happens when the wavelength is much larger than the size of an atom (like light going through glass). When it isn't, say gamma rays, then the effective velocity is 'c' in and out of an atom.]

I think you have things completely confused, my friend.

You are talking about light going through an optical medium. We are talking about photons being absorbed by an atom.

Light shining through the medium is not being absorbed and the electron isn't jumping up the orbital shell. Therefor it is not being slowed do the speed of transition.

We are only saying that light is slowed to the speed of transition during the act of emission or absorption... or in cold fusion and Podkletnov, when the material is induced to a constant state of transition through external stimulation of the BEC.

So like I said... what is your point?

Also, I think you missed the memo where it was established (in video 12, 13, and 14), that during the act of photon absorption, the wavelength gets compressed, like a tsunami, to something much shorter.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged

I wanted to reply to you but I need more time to review the information relating to my point and our posts as I find there is so much about the subjects in this thread that I know little to nothing about.

I am under the impression that what we are talking about, or what was being described in some of the videos, is the wave structure of matter, meaning atoms are spherical standing waves. Here is a link to a good description of this theory.
Matter is made of waves.

What this means is that there are no such things as particles and nothing is ever truly at rest. Kind of hard to swallow, I know. Motion is the definition of existence and through this motion we can measure and compare, which is the definition of time. Now, when we get to the term "Absolute Zero" is where my desire to comment comes in.

At absolute zero, the system's molecular energy is minimal and none is available for transfer to other systems. The Kelvin temperature scale has absolute zero as its zero point, and its fundamental unit is the kelvin.

Source
This is a partial definition from Britannica Encyclopedia and I would amend this to state that "At absolute zero, the system's atomic energy is zero and none is available for transfer to other systems." So what I am thinking is that at this point the atom ceases to exist. Existence is motion and motion transfers heat energy. I may be wrong here but I think that absolute zero is a point in which no matter can achieve. If we were to bring mass down to absolute zero I believe it will cease to be and nothing will bring it back. The energy that makes up its structure once removed will forever be removed. This is a point of no return unless we can figure out a way to create mass out of energy.

reply to post by Devino


The energy in the atom is not zero. It has a zero point energy.

You just cant transfer that energy to other atoms. It can't radiate photons. That's all i'm saying.

And especially electrons are waves.

We are in agreement.

Okay

It's been a few weeks... so... now that we have had anti gravity and cold fusion explained ...

Has anyone figured out how to apply it so I can use the fusion generator to power an anti gravity drive to get my ship off the ground for a quick once around the moon?

No?

Hmmmmm

]reply to post by FalselyFlagged

You just cant transfer that energy to other atoms. It can't radiate photons. That's all i'm saying.

I agree with you and it is because of this that I believe absolute zero cannot be reached. What I mean is that matter registering absolute zero would be a contradiction.

However looking up "zero point energy" I found this.

Vibrational energy retained by molecules even at a temperature of absolute zero. Since temperature is a measure of the intensity of molecular motion, molecules would be expected to come to rest at absolute zero. However, if molecular motion were to cease altogether, the atoms would each have a precisely known location and velocity (zero), and the uncertainty principle states that this cannot occur, since precise values of both position and velocity of an object cannot be known simultaneously. Thus, even molecules at absolute zero must have some zero-point energy.

Source
I see a contradiction here in the first and last sentence to the overall definition.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged

I had a few questions in your reply to mbkennel and an observation.

You are talking about light going through an optical medium. We are talking about photons being absorbed by an atom.

Is there a difference?

Light shining through the medium is not being absorbed and the electron isn't jumping up the orbital shell. Therefor it is not being slowed do the speed of transition.
...
We are only saying that light is slowed to the speed of transition during the act of emission or absorption

Are you sure light is not being absorbed into the atom's electrons? I understand that some light is collected in the atom by electron jumps and released in "packets" back out as radiating heat but what about the visible light? Do most of these photons pass through solid glass as though it wasn't there? I see this a little differently.

When light hits a solid surface 100% of this energy is absorbed and eventually 100% is transmitted though it or reflected back. In the case of a glass window some of the light is reflected or refracted away and this is the reason why we can see the glass, the reason why it isn't invisible.

When an image, like a tree, hits the outside of the glass it is absorbed and most of this image is transferred through the glass. We do not see the original tree but an image that is a product of light transference from the tree to our eyes. This is why the image degrades over distance. Even supposedly empty space degrades light over distance.

Before I bought my telescope a few years ago I did some reading about optics' light transmission and reflectivity. Meade coats their lenses and mirrors with Ultra-High Transmission Coatings (UHTC) that improves this quality.

Uncoated glass, for example, reflects about 4% of the light impacting it; in the case of an uncoated lens 4% of the light is lost at entrance to and at exit from the lens, for a total light loss of about 8%.

Meade UHTC

I assume that this has to do with the uneven surfaces of the lenses but the point is that the glass not only effects light as it is absorbed into the lens but also as it is emitted out the other side. The amount of energy loss here is very low and this gives an appearance of invisibility to these lenses and mirrors.

reply to post by Devino


If light was being absorbed the the electrons then it wouldn't come on the other end of the glass.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged

So light passes through atoms, through the electron shells untouched? I got to tell you I like thinking about this but it is way over my head.
Well at least some light gets reflected and refracted somehow, this is how we can see glass...right?
When light hits a solid opaque object it is transformed into an image of the object and then reflected. I had assumed this was done by way of absorption/reflection.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged


I really enjoyed these videos!! Cris Angel = DoucheNozzle Sooooo Correct!! That was badass.
"and thats why your pissing blood"

reply to post by Devino


Yes, the static electric forces between the electrons and protons slow down light as it passes through a medium like glass / water.

The light gets reflected because there is an impedance mismatch of the speed of light in the glass, and the speed of light outside the glass. The mismatched impedance makes it so all the energy doesn't transfer.

The difraction is an effect of the light slowing down in the medium as well (due to the static electric forces).

Photon emission is in a completely random direction, not in relation the direction it was absorbed from.

Hope that helps.

EXCELLENT thread...

Thanks so much for posting - I look forward to watching the series.. And I agree, the guy narrating sounds well funny. Like some kind of Gangster-rapper of the world of Quantum Physics!

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by Devino

 

If light was being absorbed the the electrons then it wouldn't come on the other end of the glass.

check out richard feynman's quantum electrodynamics - the strange theory of light and matter.....

A new video ( part 21 ) is available. This segment actually does the calculations for the speed of sound in the nucleus.



You can also view the entire series at seattle4truth.whynotnews.eu...

reply to post by necromanser

this is getting really crazy. it makes perfect sense and we know its being suppressed!

This is kind of cool.

However, I'm not that deep into the math aspect (not that I can't work the math if pressed, but for some reason my brain just doesn't picture things that way), but still I got quite a bit out of the layman explanation of it in the beginning videos. And there are still a couple more videos to go...

Also I remember Podlenkov AlienScientist interview... He said you really didn't need superconductors to get similar results, but they were one of the easiest ways to produce the initial conditions in order to get the results until you had a good idea of what was needed... Something about the Bose-Einstein condensate not requiring specific certain materials, but rather it's matter existing under certain special conditions. So in the long term, while knowing what to look for - it's quite possible to produce those conditions in other ways.

And then this guy now shows up saying you can impedance couple the gravitomagnetic field to the electromagnetic one by matching the speed of light with the speed of sound in a Bose-Einstein condensate, thus letting you direct and perhaps amplify one with the other.... Hmmm...

So just thinking randomly here...
Say you could come up with a device that contained:

• A gyroscope made out of a dense material (lead/depleted uranium/whatever) to provide a reference rotational field
  
• A special electronic device that was a combination of a high energy trans-capacitor (you're bumping the charge from side to side, and guess what speed?) and orbital photon modulator (Something to utilize the photoelectric effect and drive coherence in a large electrostatic charge to make a Bose-Einstein condensate without necessarily needing a superconductor. I envision something that sort of works like a laser - it even has one in it, but "backwards". Since you're using the laser to pump the electrons into a special energy state.)
  
• Then use some configuration of big ol' standard electromagnetic coils in proximity of the special electronic device to further pump that entire circuit and focus and/or direct a beam much like the CRT tube in an old TV set. If the theory is correct, something like this should work because of the special EM/EG impedence coupling condition.
  

Would something like that actually do what I think it could do?

(I'm also laughing because some of the things I picture it doing can be depicted in some of the situation-comedy that happens in "troll science" illustrations. Or for the older crowd - Wile. E. Coyote cartoons. Despite the joke behind it, it provides some of the best ways of depicting these things. Not that it in itself would fall under the premise of the joke if it actually worked.)

Can somebody with an electronics or electrical engineering background picture how I describe this, or is such an contraption too stupid-crazy to be conceived of as actually feasible or working? Is my layman's understanding of the theory as explained in layman's terms flawed?

FalselyFlagged, I viewed all the videos and wrote the equations down. I also downloaded the torrent, for those that are having difficulties finding it seeded, here's a URL:
www.seedpeer.com...
It says it was uploaded five months ago, so not sure if this is the newest one referenced - it's 146MB. I think that's the one I'm currently seeding.
Beyond somehow using this for further ideas in building a Lifter type system, I'm not sure how I would use it, I'm not a physicist or anything.
To be honest, I can't summarize what I just watched in a paragraph and feel I understand it. I'm going to have to go back and watch it again. It was extremely long with a lot of distracting content. Not trying to detract from what you're trying to do here, thanks for that. I'm probably just tired.

reply to post by diginess


Eh, I think I found the problem, my place was getting hot, was over 80 degrees...no wonder. Just turned the air back on. I'm going to slowly go back over what you stated. Can you put up some bullet points for me? Sorry if I'm a bit on the slow side on the uptake right now.
Let me see what I remember - please correct me if I'm misinterpreting these:
1. The Bose Einstein Condensate (superconductor) allows for all the atoms to spin in the same orientation, therefore behaving as a single atom. This allows you to treat it as one simple system, meaning that you only have to think about one transition state, not several trillion atoms.
2. You explained a little about Planck's constant and quantum theory. I really enjoyed the explanation of the two-slit experiment, it was the best one I've seen (or at least the most understandable to me). Even if you didn't put it together but just copied it, thanks. It still makes no sense to me at all why observation makes two lines only - if they caused a wave collapse at the slits, wouldn't they still have to retransmit toward the wall?
3. You implied that the nuclear strong force was related to real spin (?). Not sure if I'm interpreting that correctly at all. However, it seems to me that the strong force is the atom identity force, as it controls how many protons/neutrons an atom has, so that's quite interesting. Yes, I know there's the up spin for protons and down spin for neutrons, but I thought there was something about the overall spinning of the molecules as well (?).
4. There's the implied relationship here between cold fusion, the lifters (asymetric capacitors) and gravity. I'm dismissing the guys out of hand who are referencing Messner force as the entire reason for it, as Dr Podkletnov explicitly mentioned the force in his interview.
5. I'm still mulling over the equations, I see how you went from one to the other; now I just have to go back and see what the intermediates are used for (once again, not a physicist). The math makes perfect sense, as did your explanations. Thanks. So, if I can derive Planck's constant from basic principles (charge in the system, speed of transition and vaccuum constant e sub zero), then does that mean that Planck's constant isn't really a constant? I mean, charge in a system can change, right (I don't know if it's the atom you're talking about or what there in reference to Q)?
So yeah, I'm still trying to relate this to other things with what limited knowledge I have.
6. Question - would the transition state of 1,094,000 change with the width of a superconductor? You stated that it came from multiplying the length of 50 nanometers (from the palladium cell) by frequency of plasmonic stimulation (I guess you were talking about a laser or pulsed magnetic field or something like that). Therefore, since the superconductor could be 8 inches (or even larger), I would think the 1.094MHz/m would have to change as well. Correct?

reply to post by diginess


I don't remember the exact explanation but I remember him saying he got a number close to his final number which was similar to the numbers found with the palladium experiments. And yea you can solve for plancks constant easily. Check it out: his equation: (q^2)/(4eoVt)=h. plug it all in....
((1.602*10^-19)^2)/(4*(8.85*10^-12)*(1.094*10^6)) and you get 6.626*10^-34, Planck's constant. (you can google that equation to double check for me if youd like) TADA!!!
But the real amazing thing is you can solve all the other problems with his transitional state frequency too.
(Which btw for those who dont know...the number fully expanded is 1093845 m/s)
I hope Frank Znidarsic is still working to get his theory out there.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
Jeeze. I really can't believe this. I subscribe to a guy on youtube and he produced the most incredible series I've ever seen regarding physics. Not only does it completely detail the processes behind anti-gravity, and how it doesn't break ANY laws of physics, but it also details the physics behind cold fusion also, and the history and conspiracy behind successful antigravity experiments and cold fusion. A lot of the theory is even based on experimental verifications done by NASA and ESA regarding gravitomagnetism.

And the craziest thing about it is it actually has MATH to back up the series. The language of the universe is math, and math doesn't lie! The things Znidarsic solves with high school algebra is insane, all without using Planck's constant. He derives the orbital radii of a hydrogen atom, the compton frequency of the electron, the energy of a photon, the probability of random transitin, all without using Planck's constant. Current physics says that's impossible!

And the series isn't even done yet. I never felt I was watching history in the making like this, literally. The maker of the series is still working on more math videos... But it is all based on the work for Frank Znidarsic. I've read his newest published paper and saw all the things that his math can solve for, simply by knowing the speed of quantum transition. It's nuts.

But even the only video that covers math so far is incredible.. (its part 12 BTW) . IT DERIVES PLANCK'S CONSTANT from a classical framework!!!! Modern physics says its impossible. It's proof that this theory is correct! No other theories I have ever heard have had math to back them up like this. And for those into math, video #11 gives the info on the torrent file to DL Znidarsic's work.

There are 12 parts right now, but I think he is still adding more every couple of days. Seriously this video series blew my damn mind. The best 3 hours of my life I ever spent. I can't even believe somebody is doing this for free. Plus the dude is actually funny... hell, i even like the music!! it makes it more interesting having nice beats in the background...


well yes axplain nice but is wrong. it is nice t osee that in my pesonal lab i have bent and deflected gravity as if thats what you wish to call it. i have isolated the attration to all forces in a contained bubble forcfield where attraction has no hold, no magnetic no electric nothing a induced void of space, contained and controlled. thats all i want to say for now.

I was hoping for something interesting in these videos but stopped watching as soon as I heard the phrase "megahertz metres" and "dimensional frequency".

I normally look out for the word "amperage", which is a sure sign people don't know what they are talking about.

That said, I think there may be something to Podkletnov and Ning Li's experiments. Oh and the whole LENR thing.