Gravity Driven Universe

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

User avatar
KHAN2012
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:14 am

Gravity Driven Universe

Post by KHAN2012 »

A very interesting hypothesis

http://gravitydrivenuniverse.org/

Masters’ controversial new thesis turns conventional science on its head. It shows how everything starts with gravity. We live in a gravity-driven universe where gravity isn’t just another force, it is actually the dominant, driving force that shapes all the others. Gravity is not a property of matter. It is not even a property of space. In fact, space, time and matter are all properties of gravity.

“If you know what gravity really is you will find energy at any point in space, just as Nikola Tesla predicted,�says Masters. He can explain how matter was created, where it comes from, and even how to get electricity from gravity.

User avatar
silverfox
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:07 am

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by silverfox »

Well Kahn...

I got as far into it as...

"The value in convincing the scientific community that gravity is the most powerful force, and even mother of the other three, is enormous.

Assuming I am correct and we are in accord, it would become a game changer; off-the-shelf technology would run our factories, light homes, and give the U.S. military the ultimate advantage."

Anything about that particular passage strike you as maybe being just a wee bit odd?

The scientific hypothesis itself is hardly new, incidentally, and I have come across a variety of TOE's, (theories of everything), that share many similarities but none of them have ever mentioned giving the U.S. military "the ultimate advantage", whatever that might be, or beggar the question as to over whoever or whatever such an absolute power might be used on, or for, at the military or it's political master's discretion.

All I can conclude from that is that this is highly contrived piece of disinformation and propoganda. Leaking out certain facts that are going to require public acceptance and acquiesence somewhere along the line while badly distorting and obscuring the real reasons for it and what is actually intended as a result when that point in time arrives.

That it is "God" based notion of the most traditional sort in how the material is presented and aired and debated on PBS in the U.S. all looks like a very well calculated move to manage and manipulate the more naieve and fundamentalist Christian right and have them safely onside.

The main idea is to essentially pre-empt any opposition that may inadvertently see or deduce that hidden agenda by giving all of those who clearly do not want to believe there might be one a false sense of confidence and a willingness to simply dismiss any critics out of hand as run-of-the-mill paranoids, conspiracy theorists, political malcontents, or simply Godless atheists, untill it is simply too late and that plan has become a fait-accompli .

Everything is of course in a perpetually spin and at such a high rate of speed it takes on all the characteristics of a quite solid and relatively stationary "objective reality" for our quite limited perceptions.

We know that of course, it's simply that the effect is so utterly convincing that most people simply cannot commit themselves to believing it, including a majority of scientists, who do, in fact, know even better, yet cannot bring themselves to do so anywhere except within the confines and security of their labs or classrooms.

That is a fundamental betrayal of our human intelligence, in my humble estimation, and the quintessential key to all of the problems that we craete for ourselves and just keep right on creating as if there's no tommorrow; never suspecting that the "dininfo" that it's based on is what it is, either, untill it will be far too late to do anything about that as well.
Fondest Regards from the Fox
User avatar
KHAN2012
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:14 am

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by KHAN2012 »

Very interesting silverfox, yes.

http://gravitydrivenuniverse.org/Gravit ... iverse.pdf

A quote from this article:
Attachments
quote.JPG
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

Roy Masters seems to be a highly contraversial character - considered to be a cult leader by some. That doesn't mean he is wrong. I find myself rather sympathetic to many of his views. Like the blind men trying to describe an elephant - we can end up with many different perspectives on what this universe is all about. Often the main differences are just semantics. He seems to be describing an aether-based universe, and it gells with a lot of what I believe.
User avatar
KHAN2012
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:14 am

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by KHAN2012 »

Yes, Roy Masters does have some controversial views. I find it interesting that he is a relatively well known radio talk show host who does not need to take such risks as he is currently doing by claiming to have discovered a form of free energy from gravity.

There must be something to his claims. Perhaps he has rediscovered a type of Nikola Tesla zero-point energy device?
bluesgtr44
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1970
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: U.S.A.

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by bluesgtr44 »

Very interesting reading, Khan. Thanks! I find some of this along the lines of what Ed Leedskalnin, of Coral Castle fame, had been mentioning in some of his publications. He talks about the magnetic field generation and the such. Very interesting fellow he was....

http://www.leedskalnin.com/LeedskalninsWritings.html


Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
ben125
Dabbler
Dabbler
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:19 pm

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by ben125 »

I tried to post comments on Roy's "physics" ideas at FHU.com. Eventually there was back and forth between myself and Roy. He dared me to call in. When I told him that I would if he got a "semi-impartial moderator" for the discussion he immediately clammed up. You see, he only wanted me to call in so he could play a game. Likely the game would either be that he would simply say that I shouldn't listen, or he would get frustrated with the discussion, tell me that I'm "brainwashed by the system" and then hang up.

One posting I tried to submit was this:

Roy's input can be relevant and useful. He'll tell you that you need to separate from the emotion of anger and not have your buttons pushed by others. He is, however, a dichotomy. People often get hooked on him because they cannot see where he departs from sensibility and becomes insane. His writings in physics serve as a beautiful opportunity for people to pull away from him. As an engineer I can easily well argue that his understanding of physics is almost non-existent. He says he "loves science". What he loves and romanticizes is the concept of being a revered scientist. Any technologist looking at the cover of his gravity thesis and seeing his picture next to an image of Einstein can readily identify his egomania.

Roy has no grasp of basic physics; ideas like conservation of energy and propagation of light. It's as if he has a chip on his shoulder for not having an education and childishly wants to feel that he has divined the unified field theory without having that education. No math, no experimentation, no accounting for all known observable phenomena pertinent to what he's writing about: Just a deep rationalization that the whole scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to suffocate original thinking. Roy is taking advantage of an audience of emotionally debilitated people who have a need to ingratiate themselves to him- telling him that his theory is brilliant or that he doesn't look like he's 80 years old (when he clearly does).

The biggest thing to watch out for is if he tries to raise equity financing to build some machine based on his theory. I've seen this in industry. He would no doubt blow any such money and either say that he learned a lot and just needs a little more money to finish, or he'll blame the "powers that be" for his failure. If he "loved " science he would read all he could get on the topic, maybe take some courses, network with scientists and temper his self delusion until it became rational, level-headed thought.

For the record, neither push gravity nor kinetic ether are new concepts. Both ideas have been repeatedly rejected for good reasons. They go back in various forms to 1690. Roy might have known this if he merely knew how to surf the internet. If Roy believes he has a novel idea, he should subject it to scrutiny prior to announcing to the world that he is 99% certain that he's right. He's 99% ignorant on the topic.


I then added:

[Note: If this letter isn't posted it may still be illuminating to the FHU screeners.]

It did lead to a few emails between myself and a screener.
User avatar
KHAN2012
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:14 am

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by KHAN2012 »

"Electric power is everywhere present in unlimited quantities and can drive the world's machinery without the need of coal, oil, gas, or any other of the common fuels." -- Nikola Tesla

"Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point in the universe.... it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature." --Nikola Tesla

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 535911834#
ben125
Dabbler
Dabbler
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:19 pm

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by ben125 »

Roy sees space as filled with a “time wind� consisting of a rivers of particles racing in every conceivable direction simultaneously. As a result he sees light as a particle accelerated to “the speed of light� by the time wind. Before going into much detail, this raises certain points. First, neither push gravity nor kinetic ether is a new concept. Both ideas have been repeatedly rejected for good reasons. They go back in various forms to 1690 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage's_ ... ravitation). Secondly, if light is being dragged along by “time wind�, how is it that we are able to generate and propagate electromagnetic radiation of different wavelengths and frequencies and therefore energy levels? Also, if this time wind contains so much energy, how come it does not rip our hand apart when we pass it through space?

Looking at his specific writings we can make the following comments:

Finding God in Physics

pg. 113

"Contrary to the traditional view of lightning, I believe that wherever a column of moist air possesses sufficient density and reaches high enough into the atmosphere, the everpresent electric charge surrounding our planet is conducted to ground as lightning bolts."

Clouds move through the air and pick up static charge. In addition, clouds contain ice crystals. The crystals smash into each other further enhancing their surface charge. When the associated charge density (voltage) exceeds the dielectric strength of the air, it discharges to the ground as lightning.

pages 150-151

"light does not need its emitting source for power."

Light needing its emitting source for power is, however, commonly observed, measured and engineered.

"Light slows down through the denser media of air, water, or glass, but upon emerging from the other side of any of those media, light instantly accelerates back to its precise former velocity."

Photons don’t “slow down� in a piece of transparent material. Their net speed is reduced because they keep getting interrupted in their motion by striking electronic bonds in the solid. The electrons absorb the photons and then re-emit them in the original direction of propagation. This occurs again as the photons hit the net set of bonds and so on. This process takes a finite amount of time and thus the net speed is reduced.

"If I throw a baseball through a plate glass window, will it emerge from the other side at the same velocity? Of course not. Then how on earth do photons do it?? From what source do they derive the power to regain their velocity?"

The loss of energy from light is indicated in the lowering of its frequency and not in "slowing down". Blue light has more quantum energy per photon than red light. When light passes through a "clear" solid, it can experience lowering of its frequency and/or a drop in its intensity.

"light is either pushed by an ether "wind", or "light has some kind of infinite, self-regulating, internal propulsion. Obviously, the first is the only plausible line of inquiry".

Light exists as an electric wave interchanging into a magnetic wave and back again. It does not draw on internal propulsion because its energy isn't spent by pure motion.


Gravity Thesis

Page 14: “Do you want evidence that space-time is a three-dimensional shaping force from the smallest symmetries of fundamental particles and beyond to the shaping of stars? Then ask your professor why raindrops are spherical; he will tell you it is surface tension. Then ask him to explain why perfect ball bearings form when molten metal is poured into space. There is no surface tension there.�

Molten metal in space forms balls because of surface tension. The idea that there is no surface tension in space is silly.

Page 15: “Because of compression gravity, the earth will never cool or lose its magnetic field always rotating from the very same force spinning the elements at the quantum level.�

Also

“Massive bodies capable of magnetic crystallization at their core explain why planets rotate on their axes.�

First, the Earth’s core is not cooling or cooling as fast as one might otherwise expect because it contains
radioactively decaying potassium, uranium and thorium sustaining its heat. Secondly, planets rotate because they can only form from matter which is in a high state of angular momentum (swirling in the same plane). The matter comes together under gravity and the remaining spin represents the conservation of the cumulative angular momentum. In the specific case of the Earth, there is a
strong theory that 4.5 billion years ago a large object struck it off-center creating debris that produced the moon and setting the Earth spinning making it a planet. There is, however, no continuous force being reapplied over and over again to the Earth’s rotation.

Page 25: “The gravity field within a certain type of rotating wheel is not equivalence; it is real gravity. It
requires no uniform acceleration; has no resistance; flows forever continuously doing work (work being pushing astronauts against the interior and keeping them grounded).�

Also

“As a space station rotates forever with 360° of gravitational force radiating from the axis against the
peripheral wall, it will produce work forever.�

First, the static pressing of astronauts does not constitute work. Secondly, a rotating object represents a
very finite, single state of energy. If it performed work, it would have to lose energy from its rotation. To produce work forever the rotating space station would represent an infinite amount of energy. We can, however, stop the rotation with a very finite amount of energy and the rotation will not begin again on its own.

Page 27: “If there is no gravitational field, what then could push a weightless astronaut against the peripheral wall of the space station?�

This is simply centripetal force toward the center.

Page 31: “Electrons actually spin from the field and not the copper coil. It is the changing magnetic state thatmpulls electrons from the field into the copper windings.�

There are no electrons in the electric field. The field emanates from the electrons flowing through the wire.

On a recent broadcast of his Saturday science program, Roy said that the Earth’s magnetic field is due to iron in the core forming a “perfect magnet�. The Earth’s core is largely iron with a little nickel. This cannot form a permanent magnet. Such material is ferromagnetic at room temperature requiring an external magnetic field to bring out its own amplified field. In the case of the Earth’s core, however, even this does not apply. The core is hotter than the Curie temperature of all ferromagnetic materials
and all magnetic material in the core is only paramagnetic responding only slightly to an external field. It is generally regarded that the Earth’s mild magnetic field is generated from slight electrical currents forming from the molten metal flow in the outer core which in turn is enhanced by coupling with ferro- and para-magnetic material throughout the Earth’s entire structure.
User avatar
Mikhail
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 238
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 9:54 am
Location: France

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by Mikhail »

User avatar
KHAN2012
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:14 am

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by KHAN2012 »

Resistance to acceleration and gravitational attraction between two masses, arise from one unifying principle.

Perpetual motion is prevented by the simple arithmetic of vector addition in a closed system. Counteractive vectors only allow for a finite number of cycles in a closed system.

Each cycle of a closed system subtracts from the initial
starting energy of the system due to counteractive forces like friction, ohmic resistance, etc.

http://www.cheniere.org/techpapers/on_t ... ssible.htm


We develop the major principles of emerging overunity EM power systems as open systems far from thermodynamic equilibrium, freely receiving excess energy from the active vacuum. Such systems were arbitrarily omitted from Maxwell's theory by curtailment. Heaviside's reinterpretation and simplification of Maxwell's equations did retain such overunity EM systems as one major subset. Lorentz then regauged the Maxwell-Heaviside equations by arbitrary symmetrical regauging to provide still simpler equations and a further reduced subset of permissible Maxwell-Heaviside systems. Lorentz regauging erroneously discarded the entire class of Maxwellian EM systems not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the active vacuum.




User avatar
KHAN2012
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:14 am

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by KHAN2012 »

An interesting anti-gravity video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIkLMv5fdNI
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Post by nicbordeaux »

What then is the definition of a "closed system" please ?
ben125
Dabbler
Dabbler
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:19 pm

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by ben125 »

It's a system (like a set of entities) isolated from its surroundings and any effects from the surroundings (e. g., heat, radiation, matter).
John Lindsay
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 79
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2003 8:20 pm
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

re: Gravity Driven Universe

Post by John Lindsay »

Couldn't get to his web location for some reason, although the idea that something is seemingly flowing in all directions and that where I shine my flashlight is just piggybacking "whatever", has crossed my "mind". As far as TOEs, theories of everything, perhaps "we" are a pure musical tone with an infinite variety of timbers which can be whatever they want to be, since this is a thought universe anyway and all "phenomena" are in one "location"-a singularity with infinite "expanding-depth"? Only Time will tell ;)
Post Reply