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

reply to post by Sjakie


thanks man
i plan on thanking him
some of his ideas gel with stuff im working on

thanks for the linky bud
xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


Why are you talking to me like I know Frank? I talk to seattle4truth on skype sometimes... but hes been busy as hell... He already wrote the script for the next few parts and emailed me a copy so I know whats comin' up.

And yes, Frank's work also involves sonoluminescence. If you read his angelfire page (mostly made 10 years ago... use teh googlz) there is a section on sonoluminescence in the first couple chapters. Just do control-F and find the right part.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged


thank you very much
sorry if i misunderstood about you seattle and frank
i have personally thanked him (frank)
and would like you to thank seattle for me

this would have taken me many years to figuar out and i look forward to more videos
i have been hosting a mini summit around these theorys for my peers and we are all abuzz

thank you thank seattle thank frank lol
xploder

Remarkable.
This totally defies everything about physics I have ever been taught.
You definitely bring about multiple interesting topics. Thank you for giving me greater cause to ponder.

Originally posted by Sjakie

This guy mis-explains things which are very well understood already in physics

is that so? Did you understand were Plancks Constant came from before this video series?

like he said: "producing E=hf without using Planck's Constant and both calculating the energy level of an emitted photon by simply knowing the frequency of the photon and simontaniously producing Planck's Constant from scratch, must all be a coincidence right?"

Actually, a *generous* reading of Znidarsic might be able to make his formula give the energy levels of a hydrogen atom. I refer to equation 10 in "control of natural forces". The energy is proportional to a constant multiplied by the square of the energy level. It is essentially re-stating planck's constant in different terms.

However, this is where the "theory" or formula breaks down. It cannot account for spin-spin interactions, or spin-orbit interactions which change the fine structure of the atomic spectra. Things such as the Zeeman effect (en.wikipedia.org...) are not accounted for in this formula and hence the energies it gives will be wrong, strictly speaking, and especially once you move to heavier elements.

I would add, however, that the fine structure of atomic spectra has been studied and well-understood for half a century already. There already exists a *much more accurate* theory of these things, and it's called quantum field theory.

Originally posted by FalselyFlagged
reply to post by wirehead

 

Yes. The math is the same. You said it yourself.

We don't know the inductance of an electron. To use first principles you HAVE to re-arrange Coulombs formula in the form of a spring constant, because we do know the MASS of the electron.

Why exactly can't you do that? Because when you solve BACKWARDS for the indunctance of an electron, assuming VT, you get the same answer. But frank wanted it in first principles, so he used the spring constant.

The math works the same for capacitance or spring constant, they are just reciprocal, and you can't measure the inductance of an electron.

So, do you yet feel like explaining what you mean by any of this? Specifically what do you mean by the "inductance of an electron."

reply to post by wirehead


The inductance of the electron is the momentum its charge caries... which is related to its mass. I will elaborate more when I have time. I'm at work now.

I'm just popping in to say that it looks like part 16 is up... Hopefully he won't make changes so the link stays good LOL.

Absolutely incredible. I'll admit I'm not the most well versed individual in this area, so I've sent the series link to my father who is an electrical engineer by trade with a good grasp on physics. I'm hesitant to buy into this completely, but that is more from my lack of proper knowledge on the subject matter. The video and Frank's papers present a solid case in my limited estimation.

Of course you can also use these spinning magnetic fields and super conductors to generate power. Something that John Searl and others were attempting...

But I am sure that if we had anything like that we wouldn't see it. It would be locked up in the Military...

Something like this perhaps..

No Denying World-Class Gyrotron Power Shown enclosed by its superconducting magnet, this 2.5 MW gyrotron, developed jointly by Air Force Research Laboratory and industry, has already produced 1.7 MW of power and is undergoing further improvements to increase this world-record output. (AFRL image)

Source of image and caption... AFRL Wright Paterson AFB

Can one of the physicists on the forum explain something for me (I am not a physicist but a mathematician).

Is it possible to "derive" a constant from first principles which is not dimensionless?

Originally posted by XtraTL
Can one of the physicists on the forum explain something for me (I am not a physicist but a mathematician).

Is it possible to "derive" a constant from first principles which is not dimensionless?

As far as modern physics is concerned, no. One of the claims / promises of string theory is that should actually explain the origin of the fundamental constants, but they replace fundamental constants with "the geometric parameters of the Kaluza-Klein manifold".

It is hard to say how one would get around the issue of introducing units when it comes to deriving the fundamental constants. Units can't really be extracted from pure mathematics, so maybe they're more of a "bookkeeping tool" for us humans.

Part 17 is up... I was hoping it would be covering math again.. but not yet. Lots of eye candy in this one.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged

I disagree with the statement made in part 16 that atoms will keep spinning forever even at absolute zero, found at about the 6:25 mark. I think he meant the electrons around an atom will spin forever but none-the-less I don't think they will "spin" (or vibrate) at absolute zero. If the atom is a production of a standing wave and this wave emits/transfers energy in the form of heat and/or light then nullifying the wave function would be to remove the transferring of energy, or vice-versa, and the atom would cease to exist.

The existence of atoms is the resistance of the function that propagates waves through a transference of energy. This resistance gives it a function that can be seen as time and absolute zero is the 'anti-function' to this process, in my opinion, and therefore would remove our ability to perceive these objects in time or otherwise measure them in any form.

Objects that are hot emit lots of heat and vibrate rapidly. By removing this heat the objects cool and slow their vibration down to the point of complete stillness or non-transference of energy which I discern as absolute zero. Maybe I am wrong here but I see absolute zero as a definition for non-existence, i.e. the only thing that has a temperature of absolute zero is nothing.

Furthermore this means that atoms, or their spinning/vibrating electrons, are not perpetual motion devices. They are being propelled by a yet to be understood force, call it the Aether if you like. I see this as an instantaneous connection of all subatomic particles (i.e. strings) that string theory attempts to explain. A Universal and timeless connection that propagates the existence of mass and time through resistance of energy transference.

ADD; I wanted to add that this is not my attempt to critique the information or claims made in these video series as I am overwhelmed by the claims made there within, and I am annoyed by the background music, which makes it difficult to understand what he is saying. This was just something that I noticed and felt compelled to reply to.

reply to post by Devino


What are you talking about? The standing wave of the electron has to do with its compton frequency and that type of stuff. It's oscillating between the electric and magnetic component.

It doesn't have anything to do with emitting light / radiation. When that happens, that's the act of transition, and it emits a photon and the electron drops down the orbital shell.

Zero point energy of the electron means it will keep spinning. Thats what the dude in the video says. He clarifies it in far more detail in part 17.

reply to post by FalselyFlagged

First off I would like to say please be easy with me, there is a lot about physics that I don't know. However I do have what I feel is a very good understanding of some things, like relative motion. The theory of relativity shows us that there is no such thing as a particle at rest. Nothing is every at rest! Everything is in constant motion in some form or another. Things appear to be "at rest" simply because we are moving with the same velocities relative to these things. Everything is always in motion, the concept of 'at rest' is a relative term at best.

What are you talking about? The standing wave of the electron has to do with its compton frequency and that type of stuff. It's oscillating between the electric and magnetic component.

OK, I am following you here but we are talking about observing the motion of this type of energy interaction, cause and effect. These standing waves are a function of the interactions between atoms and energy. If we remove an atoms ability to move, stopping the wave's motion by removing all of its potential and kinetic energy, what do we have left?

The very act of perceiving mass is the fact that energy is emitted or rather transmitted by way of energy transference. Heat is felt in this way as energy radiates out from these atoms, as they transfer energy, and the same goes for light which allows us to see things. If an object does not emit or otherwise radiate energy of any kind, i.e. heat or EM waves, what do we have? I think we would have a thing that cannot be seen, felt, heard nor measured in any way and therefore cannot be observed. Furthermore it will no longer interact with energy in any way and therefore does not exist, we can call it a no-thing.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if atoms are made up of waves, which I think they are, then they cease to exist if these waves stop oscillating. If I am following this thread correctly then the transference of energy is what causes these waves to oscillate in the first place or at least allows them to continue on. This describes a symbiotic relationship between energy and mass. Absolute zero is the point at which there is no motion and no energy transference.

It doesn't have anything to do with emitting light / radiation. When that happens, that's the act of transition, and it emits a photon and the electron drops down the orbital shell.

Yes, a quantum leap. As far as I understand this it has everything to do with emitting/transmitting light and/or other EM radiation. This is how we are able to observe an object in the first place.

He describes the concept of an atom that does not emit energy and is static in this state yet it is also being bombarded with energy and therefore is pulsating between a 'rest' and 'energized' state. if we average out these two states we get a standing wave and what appears to be a solid piece of matter or a solid atom that appears to be static, not moving, yet this is not really what's happening. This object is not motionless nor is it really at rest, it is only static relative to our perspective.

The process of oscillating waves between an electric and magnetic component, as is described in the videos, not only creates the standing waves that we observe as matter but it also creates energy, in small amounts, in the form of heat or EM radiation. We have not been able to observe anything at absolute zero nor can we bring anything down to this temperature because this is a definition of nonexistence. Again maybe my understanding of the term "absolute zero" is incorrect but the way I understand this is that it is the point of nonexistence.

Zero point energy of the electron means it will keep spinning.

It seems like we are going back and fourth between the concepts of particles and waves indiscriminately. I understand both concepts, for the most part, but this mixing up of the two is confusing. When you say "spin" do you mean electrons or a rotation of the atom in space? Is this electron a particle or a standing wave?
To be honest I still use the concept of particles even though I don't think any really exist. The theory of the wave structure of matter is difficult to fully accept.

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.

reply to post by tauristercus


Good question.

It's not really the radius of a proton man. It's the radius of the Coulombic barrier of the proton. You know, where the attractive strong force is equal to the repulsive electrostatic force.

I actually talked with seattle truth about that same thing and he told me that they changed it to R sub c to be less confusing.. The revised PDF will be online soon he said.

Your question about what forces are slowing down the speed of light is answered in many episodes, including part 17... its the magnetic force components, which aren't conserved.. so they can arise out of nothingness without breaking conservation laws... but they think its mainly gravitomagnetism, cause that's the only one with a long enough range.

reply to post by Devino


I will try to respond to you in greater detail tomorrow.

You are on the right track but you are missing a few things. You are still looking at an atom from a Newtonian point of view.

Newtonian physics says that an electron should continually emit electromagnetic radiation as it orbits, as you are saying.

This is not the case. First of all, thermal heat is light, so you are talking about the same thing when you say heat/ EM radiation / light. Its just a lower spectrum, infra red. Thats why cops can view your heat signature from a helicopter. Your body is an electromagnetic radiator (heat).

Second of all, an electron doesn't emit ANY radiation in a static orbit. The only time it can release radiation is in the amount of a quanta (photon). It's all or nothing. It can't just emit a little bit of energy, like you are saying constantly happens.

The fact that the electron can't release energy is what locks it into the ground state orbital. The other ones are semi-locked.

And I am not sure what you're talking about from the video saying its being bombarded from the rest and energized state.

Can you elaborate?

radius of the Coulombic barrier of the proton. You know, where the attractive strong force is equal to the repulsive electrostatic force.

I don't see what the coulomb barrier and strong force has to do with nucleus, electron interaction. It's nuclear physics, deals with proton-proton/neutron repulsion. According to this: hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu... it is shorter than proton radius.

Thanks for the videos while I eat my morning breakfast.

Nothing like cold fusion and cold cereal in the morning....