Anti Gravity Acheived And Confirmed

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection

Originally posted by 1010011010
Hello, Savvy.

I have read your Anti-Gravity Experiment Report and it got me genuinely intrigued. The results pf your experiment are interesting and fascinating.

As a fellow engineer to another, I have a question for you.
You have stated in your report that the pH of your test objects has changed, as well as their mass. How are the changes in pH and mass related to anti-gravity? How do these changes prove that the test objects were in fact under the influence of anti-gravity.

I'm looking forward to your reply.

Best wishes.

Hi Ya
Thanks for your interest.
Though in the report, it is clearly mentioned which objects in question prove AG
Change in ph may only indicate some ionic / and or molecular changes or even some
yransmutation. The lab could not spectro the water as orbital distances of electrons
in the hydrogen atoms are too close for their x ray equip.

Though the expt has probably gone viral with the tptb. Darn my e mail is totally cleaned out.

Cheers

Hi again. Thank you for your reply.

Another question: How can you be certain that the pH changes are due to anti-gravity and not some chemical process?

Also, you forgot to answer the second question How do the changes in mass prove that you have achieved anti-gravity?

I look forward to your replies.

Best wishes.

reply to post by 1010011010


Hi,
Really, if you read the report and this thread carefully, you will get a clearer picture.
Notwithstanding, the objects that provide visible proof of time dilation, prove AG.
Ph / mass changes/ transmutations indicate some strange chemical processes occuring
in the AG environment. Though I rather not go into the physics of the transmutations here
on ats.
Suffice to say, the objects in question with me included no longer
belong entirely to this universe.

Cheers

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by 1010011010

 

Hi,
Really, if you read the report and this thread carefully, you will get a clearer picture.
Notwithstanding, the objects that provide visible proof of time dilation, prove AG.
Ph / mass changes/ transmutations indicate some strange chemical processes occuring
in the AG environment. Though I rather not go into the physics of the transmutations here
on ats.
Suffice to say, the objects in question with me included no longer
belong entirely to this universe.

Cheers

Thank you for your answer.

I am asking these questions because I couldn't really read it out from your report (not meant to be an insult, just thought you should maybe expand your explanations of certain effects, connections, etc.)

New question
You say in your report that the mass of the test objects changed. Is that supposed to be weight (but you accidentally wrote "mass" because you weren't paying attention ) or are you really talking about mass?

Looking forward to your answer.

Best wishes.

reply to post by 1010011010


Your ques is addressed somewhere in this thread.
Notwithstanding, when I discovered the AG effects in the 1st week of Mar 2010, I suspected transmutations as well, so the word mass was intentionally used to hint at transmutations for the physics savvy persons
and alas rest is history.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by 1010011010

 

Your ques is addressed somewhere in this thread.
Notwithstanding, when I discovered the AG effects in the 1st week of Mar 2010, I suspected transmutations as well, so the word mass was intentionally used to hint at transmutations for the physics savvy persons
and alas rest is history.

Thank you for your answer.

Don't you think that some other processes (maybe chemical) could have lead to the changes in mass and pH?

Best wishes.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Hi Folks.

This is to share only the results of my R & D on my patent pending invention.
The results I'd like to share are on the link in my signature.
Subsequent to posting the link some analysis were carried out in scientific labs as under.

1. Sample Mercury showed, on testing in an Elemental lab,
Mass %s Mercury Hg(80) 99.77 % and Strontium Sr(38) 0.23%

2. Sample Tomato as compared to a Normal Tomato showed, on testing in an Microbiolab,
Ph 4.0 and Total Microbial count of 74 CFU/ML While a Normal Tomato was PH 4.6
and a Total Microbial count of 8 CFU/ML.
Both Sample and Normal Tomato were Negative in E.Coli and S. Aureus pathogens
Sample tomato was always in ambient conditions for 25 days and an avg temp of 27 deg C
prior to testing in the lab

Again a point to note would be that this thread is intended to only share the results and not to
discuss the underlying technlogy, and classical /quatum physics or the math involved.

Cheers

The term Anti-Gravity would mean than whatever object you are able to take out of Gravities effect would appear to shoot away from it's possition at massive speed as the object may not be effected by Gravity...but EVERYTHING ELSE...THE EARTH....IT'S SOLAR SYSTEM...OUR GALAXY....UNIVERSAL EXPANSION WOULD STILL BE HAPPENING....SO....B.S. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


Now, now. We are just trying to get a better grasp of Angelic Resurrection's results. He is obviously an able engineer but has some problems explaining his findings.

reply to post by 1010011010


AFAIK he has no intention of "explaining" his findings at all - he is just telling the world what they. According to him.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Well, I am sure Angelic Resurrection will explain his results, methods etc and answer our questions. After all, he claims to be an engineer and there isn't a single self-respecting engineer who would leave such questions unanswered.

Of course, I understand that he is reluctant to provide certain information as it could affect his work but all questions that I and some other users have stated regard only the clarification of certain parts already stated in his report. After all, some things are not apparent to everyone (I am one of those people) and I think it would only be fair of Angelic Resurrection to answer these questions and help us understand.

If Angelic Resurrection really is a good engineer who understands his field (and I am certain that he is), he will have no problem with answering a few simple questions regarding his own research/innovation.

I, for one, am looking forward to his replies.

reply to post by 1010011010


I've already said it;s a chemical, though essentially nuclear, process initiated by time dilation. Bear in mind that in AG environment electromagnetism
goes super luminal and lot of usually unexplainable,( by hitherto known physics anyway ) effects start happening when you go superluminal.
Even a second year college chinese waitress, that I met in Miami Fl, said that, your AG discovery, changes all of physics.Her major was physics.
Reverse ques to you: Will an ordinary bottled drinking water sitting on your table change its ph value?

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by 1010011010

 

I've already said it;s a chemical, though essentially nuclear, process initiated by time dilation. Bear in mind that in AG environment electromagnetism
goes super luminal and lot of usually unexplainable,( by hitherto known physics anyway ) effects start happening when you go superluminal.
Even a second year college chinese waitress, that I met in Miami Fl, said that, your AG discovery, changes all of physics.Her major was physics.
Reverse ques to you: Will an ordinary bottled drinking water sitting on your table change its ph value?

Thank you for your answer.

How does time dilation initiate the "chemical, though essentially nuclear, process"? Is the time dilation so large it sped up the chemical process? And what exactly is the connection between anti-gravity and time dilation?

And another question that just popped into my mind: Your thread title states that you have "Achieved and Confirmed" anti-gravity. Has your work been peer-reviewed? If so, by whom? In short - who confirmed your findings?
I am most certain it has been peer-reviewed since that is a crucial part of every research and I just want to know who did the review (not trying to insult you or destroy your credibility, I am genuinely interested).

As to your question: I think the answer is obvious.

I look forward to your answers

Best wishes.

reply to post by 1010011010

10100...I do not imply that I have a dislike for A.R....if fact we both seem to know an old German Drinking Song.
BUT....and sorry A.R....I know a bit about Cosmology and Physics and what is being talked about IS NOT ANTI-GRAVITY....nor could actually achieving Anti-Gravity have any practicle use.

I can't remember the name of the short story but it was by Issac Asimov...the story about how two Scientists and Physicists spent their lives fighting over who would achieve Anti-Gravity FIRST. FIND and read this story about how Anti-Gravity ALMOST became the source to committing the PERFECT MURDER.

It will also explain why Anti-Gravity's use is impracticle and what is practicle is the use of CREATING GRAVITY in a way to Fold Space so that a Craft could use Gavities Singularity to Fold Space and Travel from any point in the Universe to any other point....instantaniously. Split Infinity

reply to post by SplitInfinity


But he is so confident of his results. That MUST mean he's onto something and I am sure he will explain his findings in terms everyone can understand. Failing to do that would indicate a lack of understanding for his own research.

reply to post by 1010011010

Although I do not wish to explain the physics of AG's conn with time dilation nor the physics of the nuclear reactions in the test objects in question, here on ats, The graph ( Not to scale ) and some objects in the report, do show time dilation and AG. Nuclear process? Now take your bottle of drinking water on your table and dilate its time and get it to occupy 6 spatial and 2 time dimensions and lo and behold nuclear restructuring will start taking place.
I have acheived and I have confirmed AG ( thru visible proof )
Peer review? High profile individuals were invited to witness but no one turned up.
But since I have more than sufficient reason to believe that the results have gone viral with the TPTB
would also mean peer reviewed by them. Though I am not seeking any peer review without a license aggreement nor is any peer review required, since there is already visible proof.
Cheers

SI no I do not know the story about the Perfect Murder, though your point is taken.
But yes My starship will most certainly travel instantaneously to any part of the universe/s, though navigation will be of essence and currently I am the only pilot in the world who may know how to.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by 1010011010

 

Although I do not wish to explain the physics of AG's conn with time dilation nor the physics of the nuclear reactions in the test objects in question, here on ats, The graph ( Not to scale ) and some objects in the report, do show time dilation and AG. Nuclear process? Now take your bottle of drinking water on your table and dilate its time and get it to occupy 6 spatial and 2 time dimensions and lo and behold nuclear restructuring will start taking place.
I have acheived and I have confirmed AG ( thru visible proof )
Peer review? High profile individuals were invited to witness but no one turned up.
But since I have more than sufficient reason to believe that the results have gone viral with the TPTB
would also mean peer reviewed by them. Though I am not seeking any peer review without a license aggreement nor is any peer review required, since there is already visible proof.
Cheers

SI no I do not know the story about the Perfect Murder, though your point is taken.
But yes My starship will most certainly travel instantaneously to any part of the universe/s, though navigation will be of essence and currently I am the only pilot in the world who may know how to.

Thank you for your answer.

How exactly can you "take your bottle of drinking water on your table and dilate its time and get it to occupy 6 spatial and 2 time dimensions"? Can you describe the process, please?

You say you have achieved and confirmed AG through visible proof. What is this visible proof? Define "visible"?

Witnessing an experiment/event IS NOT peer review. Another team of scientists/engineers has to recreate your results in order to do that. That is, if the theory makes any sense (not talking about your case specifically).
And saying that peer review is not required because there is visible proof is silly. You could have made any number of mistakes and not have realized it (not saying that you have).

I am looking forward to your replies.

Best wishes.

reply to post by 1010011010


That isn't peer review either. The hypothesis and the results stemming from the experiment must be falsifiable and repeatable for them to be accepted, yes, but the people doing the review on the work certainly don't repeat the experiments. A peer review is exactly what it says. A group of colleagues who are experts in similar areas will review the work in the form a of a journal submission and they will judge the scientific content, the writing style, the way in which the experiment was carried out, the results obtained (as well as how they were analysed) and the subsequent conclusions drawn. They will then write back with a conclusion as to whether or not it can be published along with their comments and you go from there. If it turns out that the results really aren't repeatable or someone believes the interpretation of the the results to be incorrect, they will submit a writing to the editor to contest it.

For something such as anti-gravity, the evidence must be as extraordinary as the claim and you can bet that if anywhere did decide to publish it, it would a world of attract media attention and the extreme scrutiny of the scientific community.

What you are definitely correct in saying, however, is that inviting a bunch of scientists to watch an experiment is by no means peer review and nor should the claimed presence of visible proof negate the requirement for an actual peer review. Really, any accepted science has to have some form of visible 'proof'. We call that evidence and simply claiming to have it doesn't mean that you do or that you've interpreted it correctly.

reply to post by 1010011010


Sorry Mate, the process and any more intricacies are not meant for the public domain, just yet.
What the visible proof is clearly mentioned in the report and several times on this thread, You
are going in circles and its quite futile.
Witnesses? These high profile witnesses were also invited to bring their own instrumentation, the best they
could muster from their respective countries and conduct whatever tests and measurements of their choice.
So so much for the peer review, the less said the better.


To Hyper
The field of AG is such a taboo suject that, there is no science journal willing to stick its neck out and publish
anything on AntiGravity or Starship / UFO drives.
So pointless harping on the peer review.

reply to post by Angelic Resurrection


It's not that it's taboo, it's that no one is yet to provide any credible evidence, theoretical or otherwise, to support it. It's crackpottery, plain and simple.

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
reply to post by 1010011010

 

Sorry Mate, the process and any more intricacies are not meant for the public domain, just yet.
What the visible proof is clearly mentioned in the report and several times on this thread, You
are going in circles and its quite futile.
Witnesses? These high profile witnesses were also invited to bring their own instrumentation, the best they
could muster from their respective countries and conduct whatever tests and measurements of their choice.
So so much for the peer review, the less said the better.


To Hyper
The field of AG is such a taboo suject that, there is no science journal willing to stick its neck out and publish
anything on AntiGravity or Starship / UFO drives.
So pointless harping on the peer review.

I am going in circles? Okay. You are unable to provide the simplest answers and obviously don't know what you are talking about. I gave you the chance to explain your results and you failed miserably; you weren't even able to answer the simplest questions other users and I have posted (like what the "Savvy vector" actually is. And no, your report doesn't define it anywhere).

Also, I have read some of your other threads/replies and you seem to fail to grasp even the simplest concepts. I am sorry but you are nowhere near being an engineer or inventor.

At hypervalentiodine: Thank you for correcting me.

Originally posted by 1010011010

I am going in circles? Okay. You are unable to provide the simplest answers and obviously don't know what you are talking about. I gave you the chance to explain your results and you failed miserably; you weren't even able to answer the simplest questions other users and I have posted (like what the "Savvy vector" actually is. And no, your report doesn't define it anywhere).

I did warn you