The Rotating Gravity Field

[Einstein]

Hi guys,

It's been a while since I really posted anything new. But I think I have something to contribute. I have been doing lots of trial and error with my tesla coil-gravity experiments. Just recently I implemented an idea I came across quite a while back. The surface area of the bismuth disk I have at the top of my tesla coil is not the optimum size. I did some checking with larger metal plates and determined that the optimum sized surface area seems to be very close to the surface area of the wire in my secondary coil. So I had to fabricate another metal disk out of bismuth. This disk was 7 inches in diameter as opposed to 4 inches diameter of my initial bismuth disk. I have a variable tap point secondary coil. I can tap into anywhere from turn number one, to turn number fifty two. Also I have been using a variable capacitor in conjunction with the coil. But this particular experiment I was just using three doorknob capacitors with a total capacitance of 1410 picofarads. At turn number 27 I noticed an interesting gravity effect that does tend to support my theory on how a rotating gravity field should behave. To recap on the rotating gravity field just a bit, depending on the rotational speed, the radius of a rotating gravity field terminates at the radius at which centrifugal force exactly balances the inward force of gravity. At this particular point no attraction or repulsion is present. But if the radius is increased just a bit, the field becomes an antigravity field. The slower the rotational rate is, the larger the gravity field becomes. But rotating gravity fields could account for the expansion of the universe. That is my theory alone. No one else to my knowledge has ventured into why the universe is expanding. So I have a little video here that tends to support my rotating gravity field concept.

Antigravity

In the video you can clearly see that both the wood disk on the right and the aluminum disk on the left are initially attracted to the aluminum disk in the center. But the aluminum disk on the left bounces off. And it is my interpretation that the aluminum disk on the left bounced off with enough momentum to propel itself outside the gravitational attraction radius of the rotating gravity fields that both disks would have. The aluminum disk on the left winds up in the repulsion area of the rotating gravity fields. And thus it stays that way, even when I turn off the tesla coil. The repulsion effect lasts several minutes. Because of the persistence effect I have to wait quite a while for the disks to neutralize so I can repeat the experiment. But I have been doing this experiment everyday for the last week, and it is repeatable.

There is another interesting observation that I thought would be of interest. I have another video of the aluminum disks in antigravity mode.

+&-Gravity

Here you can see that as my finger gets close enough to the disks, the gravity attraction still persists even though I have the tesla coil turned off. Yet the aluminum disks are still repelling each other.

In theory if the radius of the gravity field were to increase, the gravity field strength would increase as well. Right now I believe the attractive radius is just over one inch in radius.

It is my belief that all forces behave the same way, electric force, nuclear force, gravity force, and magnetic force. The similarity to electrically charged bodies is very striking. In fact I could say it is identical if only I make the charge on the proton the same as on the electron. Like charges only repel because the charge fields could be rotating faster when voltage is applied. Thus making a repulsion type of charge field. So the faster it spins, the smaller it's attraction radius gets. But if I do that, then that means I have found a way to create a unified field theory. And I didn't do it with a whole lot of math. Just experimental observation and lots of intuitive thought.

So, am I really playing with a form of gravity? Or another idea I had, could this be the weak force? And if this is the weak force, then just maybe all that stuff Bob Lazar said about that UFO craft he got to work on really was true.

 

[RainmanTime]

Einstein,

But if I do that, then that means I have found a way to create a unified field theory. And I didn't do it with a whole lot of math. Just experimental observation and lots of intuitive thought.

I bet you knew I was going to respond to this, huh? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Until you can faithfully, mathematically model any effect you are seeing, you really won't know what you have or what is going on. That is for certain. All you will have is your conjectures about what you think is going on.

And now we really need to "talk" about making some serious improvements in your experimental methods and video data capture. Because with the quality of the short video clips you provide, you can't really quantify anything that is going on. Here are some serious criticisms that you might think about adopting solutions for in your future videos.

1) You really need to add a time base reference, as a very minimum. If you camera has the feature, turn it on so it adds a digital clock.

2) You need to make the clips longer, and the length will be defined by the point where all objects are again static and unmoving....either with the coil still on, or after you have turned the coil off. Your first clip should have continued to run until a static position was reached for each object.

3) After the end of the first clip (the extended version of this clip where everything comes to a stop), you should then make another clip where you take some uncharged object (such as a plastic pen with the metal pen tip removed) and insert it between the plywood disk on the right and the metal disc it is "stuck" to. Show what happens when you push in the direction of the metal disc slightly, then take it out and let it stabilize. Then do it again this time inserting the plastic pen and pushing in the direction of the plywood disc. Then again, after statis is reached, now show what happens as you use the pen to push the metal disc on the left slowly towards the metal disc on the right.

4) This gets to another criticism: The motion of your hand in clip #2 is erratic and not carefully planned or executed. Why not completely re-do this clip without your hand just jerking around randomly. Instead move your finger SLOWLY in directly along the "x" axis that goes through the center of the disc. SLOWLY move your finger in...I mean at a constant rate over several seconds of video. SLOW is key because it gives more samples of video, thus more data.

5) The second and third motions of your hand in clip #2 is also terribly random, and these events really show nothing because you are disturbing a system that is already undergoing and oscillation, so you cannot quantify the effect of your finger on the already moving system of objects. Again, I think you need to break this up into a set of clips.

Clip 2a should, as I say above, just have your finger move slowly, steadily towards the disc. Allow the disc to move where it may, but don't jerk your finger away. Keep it moving at the same, slow rate.

Clip 2b should again begin from a static condition as does the original clip #2. Now moving your finger again slow, and at constant velocity, insert it into the gap between the two metal discs. SLOW! The clip should not end until your finger is static in the middle of the discs and the motions of the discs around your finger has ceased.

Clip 2c should again begin from static. And again SLOWLY move your finger from the right side of the picture, at a constant velocity, towards the plywood disc. Keep moving your finger and keep filming until either you touch the disc or the disc has moved to a stationary spot elsewhere.

Finally, if this "gravity effect" that you claim is present does take awhile to "wear off" you should be prepared to present a much longer clip, WITH the running time clock, to show how the effect "wears off" over TIME. This clip would not end until the 3 discs are back to their original positions before the coil was turned on.

Do you see what I am getting at? Most of this is all about experimental techniques and methods. I hate to say it, but yours don't look so good from these clips. All you are doing is exciting a dynamic system in a random manner, and not showing ANY sort of instrumented results. What do you expect people to think? I must be honest and say they look rather ho-hum to me because of the items I have mentioned above. You need to be more systematic and precise in how you run your experiments.

Can you work on improving these things and re-doing the video clips? It will certainly help in the analysis process! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

 

[Einstein]

RMT

I can make longer clips. The camera I used will allow me to increase the interval up to 15 seconds. The only reason I chose the 5 second version was because the file size does increase with larger intervals.

Until you can faithfully, mathematically model any effect you are seeing, you really won't know what you have or what is going on. That is for certain. All you will have is your conjectures about what you think is going on.

I do have to point out that it isn't mathematics that define our reality. It's the other way around. We can't pick and choose just any type of mathematics to describe what is going on. I still have basic questions about this, that would better be answered by experiment than mathematics. For instance, would it be safe to assume that time still remains unaltered? My temperature tests have indicated a couple degree drop in temperature of the disks.

Finally, if this "gravity effect" that you claim is present does take awhile to "wear off" you should be prepared to present a much longer clip, WITH the running time clock, to show how the effect "wears off" over TIME. This clip would not end until the 3 discs are back to their original positions before the coil was turned on.

I'm pretty sure I don't have video equipment that could record for that length of time. The wood disk will sometimes stay stuck to the metal disk all day long. But the metal disks when bonded will usually separate after 45 seconds. But this repulsion time is much longer. I haven't timed it yet. I'll see what I can come up with.

 

[Einstein]

I have three more videos demonstrating the antigravity effect, the persistance effect after the tesla coil is turned off, and gravity like attraction with the tesla coil turned off. RainmanTime suggested I make my videos a little longer to see how the gravitized objects settle down. My camera will allow up to 15 second clips on the auto run setting.


Combo Field

Repulsion

Tesla coil off

There is a change I made to the base parameters of the tesla coil operation before taking these videos. I chose to increase the amount of capacitance on the primary coil from 1410 picofarads to 2350 picofarads. The resulting tap point on the primary coil wound up on turn number 15. As a result of the change, it becomes apparent that the metal plates are initially repelling each other rather than attracting as in previous videos. I'm still using my rotating gravity field theory as an explanation for the change. The field is merely rotating faster resulting in a smaller attraction radius. Outside the attraction radius there is a repulsion field. With the results of these experiments I now have some engineering guidelines on which direction to take in my continued research on this phenomena. By using a smaller capacitance on the primary coil, I get a bigger gravity field, or using my theory, a gravity field rotating more slowly. There is also one more parameter I have been adjusting which does contribute to a bigger gravity field. I noticed one day that if I adjust the length of the spark gap while the coil is in operation, my metal plates went from a state of nonattraction to strong attraction. By increasing the length of the gap, the resistance goes way up making the capacitor take a little longer to discharge. Over a small increment of time there is less change in current flow. So it appears that the key to making larger gravity fields would be to make the voltage change as much as possible with as little as possible current change.

Now of course I am fast approaching a time when it will be to my advantage to mathematically describe this phenomena. This last week I have had some very interesting thoughts on the direction to take in a mathematical description. RainmanTime has offered some assistance in this area. Although I know that even a mathematical description may take a little trial and error as well. The interesting thoughts I had were concerning the radius between the two apparent fields my experiments suggest are present. That radius would describe the surface of a sphere where both the gravity and antigravity effect would be zero. A zero point. I think that is the key, literally, even though that radius appears to describe a sphere, it may just be mother natures way to make a mathematical point. In math we are taught that there is nothing smaller than a point. It has zero dimensions. But on the outside of the zero point sphere there is an expansion force present. Almost like extra length was being created. That is when it occurred to me that all the length in the universe is positive. But, could all the length within the sphere of a gravity field be negative? It does appear that if the length between objects is disappearing, that could account for apparent attraction. I like this approach. It would introduce the concept of negative length as a way to balance out all the positive length present. So if anyone ever asks you, what is smaller than a point? Tell them negative length.