Anti-Gravity: Solved! (not kidding)

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by filledcup
i suppose i would describe it as any form of audible or inaudible signals. and would add they are usually accompanied by a magnetic field.

Hmm.. Well, the term is usually used to denote a quantified measurement of some type of wave or cycle. So, in general, audible or inaudible would deal more strictly with sound. The mass majority of items that can be measured with "frequency" are inaudible, and a large portion of the light spectrum is not even visible.

but arent sounds usually accompanied by a frequency which houses it's channel? that why i included audible. i think your scientific perspective says the same thing. see how i used the term signal. a quantified measurement of some type of wave or cycle is the same as one complete wavelength of a signal/tone and capturing it's complete signature not so?

Do you believe all frequencies are accompanied by a magnetic field?

possibly, depending on their application. it may be that some generate significant visible effects, while others havent been significant enough to yet be observed or detected. but where there is sound there is vibration. even if that vibration only disrupts certain types of particles in it's channel and not actual physical matter. no?

reply to post by filledcup


All I have to say Fill is, bust a nut home fry. It's people like you that tinker until
one day they totter. What is it you need for power,. would three phase do ?

OP: Thanks for the thread, this is fascinating stuff to me. I cannot wait until you devise something to put your theory to use.

I've always been fascinated by the Pyramids in Egypt, and then later on when I found out about it, even more fascinated by Leedskalnin's Coral Castle. Reading your first post, a lot seems to correlate to his work. He himself said, as you well know, that he discovered the secrets of the Pyramid builders.

"I believe now that i can harness an experiment that will greate an electric engine, which lifts everything above it or surrounding it as a chassis off the ground, by generating a gravitational field." So this is why Leedskalnin had his flywheel underground? According to your theory, it would make sense.

Edit: DID he have his flywheel underground??

Neat idea. Now if you can actually access negative energy by using complex number properties associated with the quality factor of paired solenoids, then I'd like to see it. Perhaps it's something like treating the field lines like a 3D diffraction pattern and knowing how to make use of interference patterns? (But in this case the diffraction loops back with various intensity bands onion-skinned in toroidal patterns from a bar or ring shaped solenoid.) I'm just trying to visualize the basics though, it would take somebody with much better math or physics knowledge to really make sense of those details.

Even if that is proven possible, it's still going to take a serious amount of energy to exert a force comparable to negative mass though. Within the gravity well of a planet, the level of power that could be reasonably put in might not do much. However that's not all bad. A little itty bit of virtual negative mass is all it would take to build a working warp drive in a microgravity environment. (And time would be on your side vs. typical reaction mass based propulsion.) I wonder if it could be scaled to the size of a cube-sat project?

reply to post by randyvs


well i have no idea really. ill only know for sure if i need more power if i discover i need more power that i dont have lol. hope that makes sense.

reply to post by pauljs75


maybe.. maybe...

Originally posted by clay2 baraka

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
Here's the interesting thing. I actually work with sound, and acoustics. I'll tell you straight up, there is no science that points to any anti gravity principals.
So bring your tech forward. Make your fortune.
Or, as reality dictates, stop believing in fairy tails.

Well done, a video showing that you can use other forces to counter act the force of gravity. In this case air displacement from speakers.

You can also blow a piece of paper with your mouth. Or suspend a metal ball in between magnets.

Neither is anti gravity, both are alternate forces working on the subject to overcome the force of gravity.

Notice the video you posted doesn't claim anti gravity.
Try again.

Originally posted by oldetimehockey4
OP: Thanks for the thread, this is fascinating stuff to me. I cannot wait until you devise something to put your theory to use.

I've always been fascinated by the Pyramids in Egypt, and then later on when I found out about it, even more fascinated by Leedskalnin's Coral Castle. Reading your first post, a lot seems to correlate to his work. He himself said, as you well know, that he discovered the secrets of the Pyramid builders.

"I believe now that i can harness an experiment that will greate an electric engine, which lifts everything above it or surrounding it as a chassis off the ground, by generating a gravitational field." So this is why Leedskalnin had his flywheel underground? According to your theory, it would make sense.

Edit: DID he have his flywheel underground??

edit on 15-7-2013 by oldetimehockey4 because: forgot to ask.

not sure. that might have something to do with how he generated or amplified his electrical power. might have some application for the battery core.

Big oil will never let you get away with this.

reply to post by filledcup

Very interesting read, It seems you and I have followed similar lines of research. Once again I say be careful... Many different groups do not want such technology being public. But we need an effort to push it into the mainstream.

Onto one of the statements you made about power or not having enough power. Might I suggest instead of attempting to make an anti gravity device that you slightly edit your thinking and focus on an energy generation device based on similar principles. Then in turn you may solve your original issue.

Although he isn't popular to mention, John Searls research (which is more and more being proven correct) about magnetic imprinting and frequencies inadvertently deals with the issue you speaking about.

++ To you for attempting "The Impossible"

Originally posted by Mandrakerealmz
reply to post by filledcup

 

Very interesting read, It seems you and I have followed similar lines of research. Once again I say be careful... Many different groups do not want such technology being public. But we need an effort to push it into the mainstream.

Onto one of the statements you made about power or not having enough power. Might I suggest instead of attempting to make an anti gravity device that you slightly edit your thinking and focus on an energy generation device based on similar principles. Then in turn you may solve your original issue.

Although he isn't popular to mention, John Searls research (which is more and more being proven correct) about magnetic imprinting and frequencies inadvertently deals with the issue you speaking about.

++ To you for attempting "The Impossible"

edit on 15-7-2013 by Mandrakerealmz because: (no reason given)

thanks.. John Searls sounds interesting. ill check him out.

regarding power.. ill cross that bridge when i come to it. power generation may be one of the unexpected results. not so unexpected now lol

Originally posted by filledcup
but arent sounds usually accompanied by a frequency which houses it's channel? that why i included audible.

They are accompanied by a frequency in the same way as your body is accompanied by a weight. But, in both cases, it is not really an independent variable.

i think your scientific perspective says the same thing. see how i used the term signal. a quantified measurement of some type of wave or cycle is the same as one complete wavelength of a signal/tone and capturing it's complete signature not so?

Well, a wavelength of a wave/cycle is just one quantification that can be done. So, the wavelength is a lot like frequency, or the weight of your body. It may or may not contain the full data set for any given item. A signal or a tone can be seen as different types of waves or cycles. But really, the word itself does not matter quite as much as the concept behind it. That said, it will be easier to gain acceptance with your idea if you use the terms in the most concise and accurate way possible. If you are going to be using sound (which I think you are), then tone could be applicable. Signal is a little more vague. This is all just semantics though, so if you get the math and data in order, then it will become less relevant.

possibly, depending on their application. it may be that some generate significant visible effects, while others havent been significant enough to yet be observed or detected. but where there is sound there is vibration. even if that vibration only disrupts certain types of particles in it's channel and not actual physical matter. no?

That may or may not include magnetism. When talking about a cycle inducing a magnetic field, we are usually referring to electricity. Sound itself does not necessarily induce a magnetic field, though sound can be produced by a magnetic field.

Do you feel that a magnetic field can be induced by any wave in any medium? You might have trouble measuring this.

Either way, dont waste too much time on here, you have work to do. Learn and grow from whatever experiments you happen to do!

Originally posted by neilarm
Big oil will never let you get away with this.

ur not supposed to post one liners

lols

Originally posted by Serdgiam


That may or may not include magnetism. When talking about a cycle inducing a magnetic field, we are usually referring to electricity. Sound itself does not necessarily induce a magnetic field, though sound can be produced by a magnetic field.

indeed. that is why i need both generators and sensors. of course, the more spectrums i can work with the more i can explore for applications. pretty sure tho i can access the required spectrum to build the device. id like to monitor various ranges independently to see if there is resonance on any of them beside the ones i will be intentionally working with. readings and data.

Do you feel that a magnetic field can be induced by any wave in any medium? You might have trouble measuring this.

indeed, if someone were to pursue this they may have difficulty tracking the pattern of the field thru solids. but that is not my aim. altho, perhaps some sort of sonar-like application may be able to visualize the field. like x-ray or something, that passes thru the object and replicates the pattern of magnetic flux within the object.. just speculating.

Either way, dont waste too much time on here, you have work to do.

Learn and grow from whatever experiments you happen to do!

edit on 15-7-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

will do my friend, and thank you again for your contributions and advice.

interesting thread..when i started reading i was thinking sounds like john hutchinson..lol, i have nothing brainy to add to this but i was a neigboor of john's when he lived in new westminster and got to chat with him occasionally, interesting and eccentric guy..i never got the vibe he was a fraud as some have suggested.
will be watching

reply to post by filledcup


If your interested in some recent info on John Searls research I would recommend these videos It discusses the magnetic principles he discovered. Very interesting stuff.

reply to post by Mandrakerealmz


thanks. ill be sure to check them out at work tomorrow
right now i need to find my bed lol.

cheers

This is some great work you have done. If the coral castle ànd the pyramids could be built this way the solution always had to be right in front of us. I too thought for some time sound and frequency vibration had somthing to do wit it. The correct frequency makes objects not there at all. You could put your hand right through them, or make them invisible. I would love to see your work. Congratulations on the discovery.

Originally posted by filledcup
indeed. that is why i need both generators and sensors. of course, the more spectrums i can work with the more i can explore for applications. pretty sure tho i can access the required spectrum to build the device. id like to monitor various ranges independently to see if there is resonance on any of them beside the ones i will be intentionally working with. readings and data.

Generators and sensors are the foundation for pretty much any experiment, so you are on the right track. I will assume that when you say spectrum, you are referring to sound. One obstacle to overcome is testing all of the qualities of even the audible sound spectrum. If you havent thought of it, it might not be a bad idea to attach a flat plane to a few different audio transducers. Each one will have its own characteristics, no matter how controlled of a signal the transducer receives.

There will be ranges of resonance on all of them, but it will change according to several different variables in everything from air space, to transducer motor, to coil, sensor placements, refraction/reflection, and even down to the materials used. There also may be several different types of resonance that come into play. Every single "speaker" out there has its own timbre/tonal qualities, so it needs to be considered into the results.

Each part of the diaphragm (cone of the speaker) will also have a different distinct quality, which I figure you know, since that is the entire idea behind cymatics.

At its core, you seem to be exploring an introduced movement through a medium. Over time, energy fractals out through the Universe in accordance with specific barriers. So, what you are looking at with cymatics could be seen as a "2d cross-section" of the sound that is being emitted by the transducer in 3d space. If you could set up a testing platform with a 3d plane, instead of 2d, it would be rather interesting. Just dont expect anything other than "to learn," and all of this stuff is really quite incredible.

indeed, if someone were to pursue this they may have difficulty tracking the pattern of the field thru solids.

I think that we could come up with a way to identify a created magnetic field, but there needs to be a magnetic field created in the first place. This may or may not come into play with what you are doing though, since you know your idea better than I do.

reply to post by filledcup


There are two fundamental forces - gravity (or attraction of two particles) and electric force (repulsion or attraction due to a charge).

It is well known that electric forces are much stronger than gravity.
It is also well known that Earth acts like a charged particle.

However the mistake is there is no free energy. You need a source of power, a source that can produce very large amount of electric current.

Rest is just ship design. The charge flowing on the surface of the ship would produce a repulsive force that takes away the ship from earth. Adjusting the current level can make the ship descend, hover, or fly away.

A practical ship will combine the electric repulsion with particle beam for propulsion. You need particle beam in space where there is no charged object nearby. The particle beam can be created from a gas like helium or metal particles like iron, energized in a particle accelerator and ejected from the engine at high speed.

Building a power source is the key - a current generator which is small enough yet very powerful.

For a 20 ton ship, you will need 100MW current.

For a split second while reading the main science forum and coming across the thread title, there was a large spark of interest in mind as I immediately thought of an article I read a few months ago of particle scientists testing the gravitational interactions of anti-matter. As soon as I read, "I've always believed sound/frequency to be key" I could already tell where this was going.

For those interested in real science, this is perhaps the best shot science has at proving the existence of anti-gravity. Of course, this is about as probable as the faster than light neutrinos being correct so don't hold your breath.