Falling Linearly

[rlortie]

Frederic,

Now that you have given us a first name, how about sharing some more personal info. Send it by private post if you wish to stay incognito.

If you build personal trust, I for one would be a little more liberal in joining your thread. Full name, location and a short depiction of personal life style are always a good relationship builder.

You have posted some interesting material here that I would endeavor to respond to, if you were to come out of hiding.

I am not interested in what makes rocks fall after throwing them. But the ripples the cause when falling in water does!

Falling linearly can easily be related in another thread topic here that would augment the thinking of both.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Wheeler...

Those models that have spherical weights placed on rubber sheets are intended to demonstrate how each planet in our solar system is in it's own "gravity well" and that energy must be expended before another smaller mass can "climb" up out of the well of a large mass so that the small mass (which could be a spacecraft) can make it over to the next larger mass (like another planet).

Sometimes these rubber sheet models are intended to demonstrate how a mass can distort the 3 dimensional "fabric" of space-time. Of course, to properly do that, one would have to thrust the sphere into some sort of 3D cellular matrix of rubber pieces to show the distortions that would exist all around the sphere. Using a 2D rubber sheet is only a convenient and partially accurate way to represent this Einsteinian type space-time distortion.

However, as I continue to study such things as gravity, energy, light, etc., I am finding myself moving away from the warped space-time model for gravity toward a simpler to visuallize model that pictures the gravity field around a mass as consisting on a continuous outflow of subatomic particles or gravitons. Once this is assumed, it is possible to begin to rationalize such phenomena as gravitational force, acceleration, inertia, etc. solely in terms of the interactions between the gravitons emitted from objects.

I suspect that this new approach to gravity and inertia will, in the coming decades, eventually displace the models advanced by Newton and Einstein.

As Einstein keenly observed, our state of knowledge at any point in time is "provisional". That is, it is the best and simplest that can be reasoned based on the available data. But, as time passes, more data is obtained and old models begin to become inadequate to rationalize the new data. That is when a revolution can occur in a science. I expect to see several revolutions in physics in my time...


ken

[Wheeler]

Wow
Thank you Ken.
How you have such a wide area of understanding in so many areas of science is truly outstanding.
You will see the next change in understanding in your life time.
I plan on being one of the contributors of this next phase.

[LustInBlack]

Wheeler : As I understand it ..

I don't understand how you can say that you can change a gravity model, when you don't really understand it in the first place; your last comment about Ken, make it clear that you didn't know what he is talking about ..


Anyways, I just don't understand what you are trying to create . .. .

[rlortie]

LIB,

Does anyone understand what he is trying to create?

Ralph

[Wheeler]

It somewhat easy to understand.

Look up subjects on opposition to Einstein's theories.
A new wave of information is available to study.

Ralph if you understand how a ball rolls down hill, I think you could understand some of the web pages out on this. You may have to spend some time on it, but it is worth the read.

I however do not wish to try to explain my take on it, because many people who post about this subject have more knowledge than myself.

Basically Einstein did not tell us what gravity is.
He painted a picture of what gravity might be.
A good book is called The elegant universe by Brian Greene. It has some of the ideas in it.

edit Chapter 3 is a good place to start
We ain't talkin string theory either.

[LustInBlack]

Wheeler : Well, all I can add to this discussion, is that nobody really knows what gravity is, we just feel and see it's effect.. I still don't know what you are working on (wheel, theory..), can you post a picture of your actual work, so we don't fall off-topic, or if it's to be kept secret, a Private message would be appreciated !

Thanks !!

[rlortie]

I do not believe it relevant to spend time researching theoretical papers on gravity. It is like breathing, you do it and live with it without thinking.

You are not going to change it, but we must learn how to utilize it to your advantage. This you will not find in any papers in opposition to Einsteins
theory's. For once again you are talking theory.

You will find the answers in Besslers writings that predate Einstein.

Newton, Einstein and his opposition are not going to admit that Bessler found anything contradictory to their beliefs. Findings that would knock them off their scientific pedestal, A pedestal that society has placed under them and society is not going to admit they did wrong.

Do not give me theorys, I would rather have hands on facts. facts such as gravity cancelling CF or assisting CP.

If one thinks about it, there is a lot to be considered here that is relevant to Fletchers thread "symmetrical"

Wheeler, stick to and study your common and often mention of waves on water. The plain physics of this phenomena holds that which you keep tripping over and dismissing, and I am not talking about animated pictures of a penguin swimming.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph wrote:

I do not believe it relevant to spend time researching theoretical papers on gravity. It is like breathing, you do it and live with it without thinking.

Well, one of the reasons that we have to "live with" gravity and can not change it is because, aside from the mathematical descriptions given of the phenomenon by Newton and Einstein, we still know relatively little about its true nature. However, I am confident that that situation will change in the coming decades. As we finally begin to understand what gravity really is, then we should be able to artificially control it. For example, it might be possible to "shield" the gravitational interaction between two objects (like the Earth and an aircraft) so that one of them no longer feels the pull of gravity and has weight. According to Einstein's "Equivalence Principle", anything that can negate the gravitational properties of an object should also negate its inertial properties. Thus, we might be able to effectively render objects such as air and spacecraft both weightless and inertialess!

Actually, if we could somehow render an object artificially weightless and could do so with only a small expenditure of energy, then building a perpetual motion machine would be a cinch. Simply arrange to have all of the weights on a wheel's ascending side weightless while the ones reaching the wheel's descending side are allowed to regain their normal weight. Result...perpetual motion.

But, Bessler managed to achieve a similar effect without the need to artificially alter gravity. In other words, he was able to work with a gravity field at its full strength and get it to keep a wheel in motion. Sooner or later (hopefully sooner...much sooner!) we will find his secret mechanism...



ken

[Wheeler]

Ralph
you forgot to put in a punch.
Anyway thanks for the advice.

Ken
You only had one sentence that was in question to me, and that was this one.

But, Bessler managed to achieve a similar effect without the need to artificially alter gravity.

You can not prove that Bessler did do what you think yet.

I am still thinking he did find the way, but it is possible that it was not true.

[Michael]

Ken, gravity control is sheer crackpot. Let us suppose though that someone did come alsong and figured a way to control gravity, you can bet then that the same system could also and would also cancel out inertia.

Edit, oopps, I had no idea you wrote that as well. Okay then, the reason for this post, you already said before that in your opinion it is impossible to create an inertialess engine.

Einstein said that huh, makes me think even more that he and others knew a lot more about the foundation than we might think.

[ken_behrendt]

Michael...

For my book on the paranormal, I did a LOT of research into the subject and came across some really startling information.

For example, there is the story of St. Francis of Copertino. He was a monk who, upon hearing certain hymns and processionals, would enter a state of ecstacy and actually levitate! These "autolevitations" of his were witnessed by many people and his fellow monks actually had to tie a rope to him once while he levitated and remained aloft for almost two hours! His story is an accepted part of the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

How did he do it? Apparently, for a brief time, he was able to neutralize the attraction between his body and our planet and achieved a state of masslessness and weightlessness. In this condition, he would, like a floating balloon, actually rise in the air and could be blown along with the wind unless his fellow monks attached a tether line to his feet.

I've theorized in past writings that his ability and that of others who have levitated is due to their circulatory systems being able to emit antigravitons in such huge amounts that they neutralize the gravitons normally emitted from their bodies. I believe that is the interactions between the graviton emissions from two objects which accounts for the gravitation force that arises between them. Neutralize one the the object's normally emitted graviton emission with an antigraviton emission of the same magnitude and that object will suddenly lose all of its normally present gravitational and inertial properties.

Now, once we understand this process in detail, we might be able to achieve the same thing with a piece of equipment. That is, it might be possible to generate antigravitons in huge amounts artificially so as to render an individual or a vehicle he was carried in effectively massless so that they no longer had any weight or inertia. Or course, the effect would only be temporary and would only last as long as the equipment continued to emit the antigravitons. As soon as the device was turned off, the object would then emit its normally unnegated gravitons and would possess its normal mass, weight, and inertia again.

I will deal with these concepts in my forthcoming book on UFOs in much greater detail. Suffice it to say that I believe that I now have enough information on how antigravitons are created to be able to propose a device that might be able to create them in abundance. IF I'm right, then this could be a far bigger discovery than the finding the secret to Bessler's wheels would be although I am still "bothered" enough by the Bessler mystery to continue pursuing it.


ken

[Michael]

...

[LustInBlack]

Ken : Without knowing exactly what you have researched, all I can say, is that I don't really believe in those levitation phenomena or paranormal ..

I don't say it doesn't exists, or that it exists.. I say that we should stay out of those phenomena [When talking about Bessler].. They don't possess any clue or scientific value in my opinion.. If we had the body of the monk and did open him up to see his internal organs, and found something unusual, that would be different ..

But at a higher degree, I believe that we can find a way to disturb the inter-communication of particles/fabric, but not by praying...

Bessler, if his story is true, which I believe is.. In contrast, is sound .. It's not a story about levitation or flying ufo, it's simply a wheel that is made to rotate inside a uni-directional field of gravity by using a previously misunderstood mecanism ..

That's something! ..

If we can, then, isolate the "frame of reference" of a system, maybe we can negate/cancel certain physical limitation .. But that's another story..

Step 1 has not been achieved yet. Step 2, is a new universe of possibilities when Step 1 is done .. Think about all you can do next..

We don't need another theory to patch another patched theory.. It has been said, there is not really a need to define the true nature of gravity, if we can find a way to make a wheel rotate perpetually using gravity, we will understand it better . .

But I agree that gravity is something strange, and it's interesting to theorize on it . .

[Paul]

As all added do not consider there both a lot of difference talk about paranormal phenomena and talk about the Bessler history. The science cannot explain these paranormal phenomena (probably do not neither exist) and the science denies the possibility of obtaining OU (PM), both are not reproduceable for the moment. The fact that who believes the Bessler wheel believes also to paranormal phenomena does not astonish me ;-). Life and especially the self-consciouness already seem a "paranormal" phenomenon to me !

Paul