The origin of the GRAVITATION.

[SHADOW]

Sans faire dans le conspirationnisme, cela n'a rien de nouveau.
c'est pour cela qu'internet est un outil de large diffusion des idées mais pas des brevets.
La diffusion par le net d'une preuve physique du fonctionnement d'une conception reste le seul moyen de contrer cette main mise.
Votre conception semble intéressante mais frayeuse à réaliser pour une vérification
J.B

Without going into conspiracy, this is nothing new.
This is why the Internet is a tool for the wide dissemination of ideas but not patents.
The dissemination by the net of a physical proof of the functioning of a design remains the only way to counter this hand put.
Your design sounds interesting but daunting to perform for an audit.
J.B

[Mikhail]

Oui, c'est ne pas si facile à faire des protos et ça coute cher, mais c'est facile à vérifier par les simples calculs arithmétiques.
Je donnée l'exemple de calcul du moteur (voir les liens en signature). C'est très simple : - sans l'eau le moteur est parfaitement équilibré, le côté gauche pèse pareil que le côté droit, les éléments à volume variable (les flotteurs) sont identiques. Sous l'eau on aura le déséquilibre permanent à cause de poussé d'Archimède. C'est tout.

Yes, it's not so easy to make prototypes and it's expensive, but it's easy to verify by simple arithmetic calculations.
I gave the engine calculation example (see links in signature). It's very simple: - without the water the engine is perfectly balanced, the left side weighs the same as the right side, the variable volume elements (the floats) are identical. Under water we will have the permanent imbalance because of Archimedes thrust. That's all.

[WaltzCee]

Your messages gave me the idea to write a book too. I will describe in detail how it all started and what obstacles I had to overcome. I think the book will be interesting and exciting. Also, now you don't need to type on the keyboard, just dictate and the computer writes. Nothing complicated, I have been using the computer for 45 years, everything will turn out as it should.

I'll buy a copy just to support your efforts.

Hopefully you'll raise the bar above Ken Behrendt.

[Senax]

Yes, it's not so easy to make prototypes and it's expensive, but it's easy to verify by simple arithmetic calculations.
I gave the engine calculation example (see links in signature). It's very simple: - without the water the engine is perfectly balanced, the left side weighs the same as the right side, the variable volume elements (the floats) are identical. Under water we will have the permanent imbalance because of Archimedes thrust. That's all.

Hi Mikhail,

Do you view gravity as a static field where allowing a body to fall and returning to its original position cannot generate energy. This seem to be the conventional view.

Or perhaps do you take the dynamic view of Heraclitus:

It is impossible to step in the same river twice

and see gravity as a wind blowing vertically down (a view I and Collins take) in which case their is a potential for generating energy.

Or perhaps you take some other view.

[thx4]

Do you view gravity as a static field where allowing a body to fall and returning to its original position cannot generate energy. This seem to be the conventional view.

Comme je sais tout, j'ai envie de vous dire qu'il est inutile de croire nécessaire de remonter à la hauteur d'origine.
C'est l'erreur commune que font tous les chercheurs et ceux qui ont arrêtés de chercher. Je vous met sur une piste virtuel dans votre esprit la tout de suite, mais cela va faire son chemin.
Le gravité fait le job, tu pars a midi et tu reviens vers 13h, mais si tu ajoutes l'inertie, tu pars vers 12 et tu reviens vers 11h, voir plus...
Comme dirait un qui à mal fini, "comprends qui le peut".
A++

As I know everything, I want to tell you that it is useless to believe necessary to go back to the original height.
This is the common mistake made by all researchers and those who have stopped searching. I am putting you on a virtual track in your mind right now, but it will make its way.
Gravity does the job, you leave at noon and you come back around 1pm, but if you add inertia, you leave around 12 and you come back around 11am, or more...
As someone who finished badly would say, "understand who can".
A++

[Mikhail]

and see gravity as a wind blowing vertically down (a view I and Collins take) in which case their is a potential for generating energy.

Or perhaps you take some other view.

Hello,
I believe gravity is the result of the movement of ether vertically downward "gravity like a wind blowing vertically downward".
The Earth sucks up ether like a vacuum cleaner. I think that inside the Earth there is a kind of reactor - a central star - which produces matter from the sucked in ether, as a result of which the planet Earth grows in size, expands like an inflated balloon, that's why there are earthquakes, volcanoes and the movement of continents.

[Senax]

Thanks.

[Senax]

I believe gravity is the result of the movement of ether vertically downward "gravity like a wind blowing vertically downward".
...

Do you think the gravitational aether is discontinuous like air or water, i.e. is made up of particles, or do you think it is a continuous undifferentiated field as assumed in SR. ?

[Georg Künstler]

gravity always is interacting between two objectss.
The objects are moving, both, when you have space between them.
So there is not only one object moving, always two objects are moving together with gravity
Gravitation is a pulling force.

If you are an observer, standing on the earth, then your eye sees one falling object, the other object the earth is not moving,
But in real, both objects are beeing moved, so the eye lies to you, because you, as the observer are moving along with one object the earth.

So you use only one Frame of Reference (FoR).

[Mikhail]

Do you think the gravitational aether is discontinuous like air or water, i.e. is made up of particles, or do you think it is a continuous undifferentiated field as assumed in SR. ?

I think it's energy. Everything in the universe is energy. There is only energy and intelligence. The universe is intelligent energy.

gravity always is interacting between two objectss.
The objects are moving, both, when you have space between them.
So there is not only one object moving, always two objects are moving together with gravity
Gravitation is a pulling force.

Explain then why two huge ships in size and mass, which are side by side in the port, do not attract?

If you are an observer, standing on the earth, then your eye sees one falling object, the other object the earth is not moving,
But in real, both objects are beeing moved, so the eye lies to you, because you, as the observer are moving along with one object the earth.

So you use only one Frame of Reference (FoR).

Whatever coordinate system you use, gravity always acts vertically downward, towards the center of the planets, or rather, towards the central reactor, which converts / compacts energy into matter. Matter is compacted energy. Therefore, when matter contacts antimatter, matter annihilates, it turns back into energy.

[Senax]

Do you think the gravitational aether is discontinuous like air or water, i.e. is made up of particles, or do you think it is a continuous undifferentiated field as assumed in SR. ?

I think it's energy. Everything in the universe is energy. There is only energy and intelligence. The universe is intelligent energy.

Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?

[Mikhail]

About God, each must decide for himself. I'm not asking you if you believe in God. This is not a religious forum.

The universe is fractal. Everything in the universe evolves from small to large, from inside to outside and from simple to complex. It can be compared to a computer program.

[Senax]

About God, each must decide for himself. I'm not asking you if you believe in God. This is not a religious forum.

Well, you did say:

I think it's energy. Everything in the universe is energy. There is only energy and intelligence. The universe is intelligent energy.

That is a quasi religious statement which implies to me that you don't believe.
Your answer to my question confirms it, for me at least.

As to you not asking me if I believe in God.
In view of my avatar I would have thought the answer to that is obvious to a Frog. ;-)

[Mikhail]

I'm not a frog and I don't study avatars.

[Senax]

I assumed you were French.