Do you guys believe in general relativity?

Karma: 0
Offline

Posts: 1

First of all, I would like to congratulate this project on its efforts in creating and researching quite possibly what would be the greatest scientific discovery of the new millenium.  I only wish i could be a part of it though i am just a college student interested in physics and astronomy.

now to my question:

I see you guys use the word "aether."  Isn’t this term defunct from modern science?  If in real life general relativty is correct (which numerous experiments have proven it to a great deal of accuracy) , wouldn’t it nullify the possiblity of controling or counteracting gravity simply because GR provides a geometric description of gravity and that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells mass how to move.?"

Karma: 0
Offline

Posts: 57

Quote from: Event Horizon on August 17, 2006, 01:00:07 AM

First of all, I would like to congratulate this project on its efforts in creating and researching quite possibly what would be the greatest scientific discovery of the new millenium.  I only wish i could be a part of it though i am just a college student interested in physics and astronomy.

now to my question:

I see you guys use the word "aether."  Isn’t this term defunct from modern science?  If in real life general relativty is correct (which numerous experiments have proven it to a great deal of accuracy) , wouldn’t it nullify the possiblity of controling or counteracting gravity simply because GR provides a geometric description of gravity and that "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and spacetime tells mass how to move.?"

I will try not to make this post too harsh. 

Hello there, if you are going to look into this subject seriously then you have to do some serious research on it and learn the long history of people, and experiments.  In mainstream "university", a theory is forwarded to the students, about the universe, about matter, about gravity, about how everything comes together.  The "aether" was abandoned because mainstream scientists could not work their theories around it, and because of their ego’s, they did not think with an open mind about their theories, constantly checking and rechecking them, as any good and unbiased scientist would do.  The "aether" is just a name to describe an underlying force, ultimately, you can assign whatever name to this you choose as long as you understand what is it representing and what is being talked about.  Now here’s where it gets difficult, because if you truly want to learn about this, you will have a hard time doing so in your mainstream university (most of the time).  Like I mentioned, look at past inventors and scientists who were doing things even back in the late 1800’s.  It is important to mention that this also goes together with free energy and people like Nikola Tesla who understood electronics at a much higher level.  Why is this relevant to the "aether" you ask?  Because, the aether is being discussed and described in how it plays its part in the overall production which is Gravity Control.  The advanced knowledge of how to control gravity, and how to operate a field within a field is the key to a cleaner planet and free energy for everyone (that includes electricity, or kinds of magnetic energy).  This is 1 very big picture Mr. Event Horizon, and if you are to understand how the aether fits, you must understand the other parts of the machine, so to speak. 

No theory is ever completely solid, and that is why we must continuously test and improve our sciences.  If you are interested in Einstein, then study his life closely, because even he has made some interesting remarks about the aether.  I don’t want to go too much into the direct properties of the "aether", because I don’t want to steal David’s thunder, I’m sure he would like to let you know the complete story on the aether, and how it relates to what is taught in most schools.

If indeed you are taught that it is not possible to control gravity than I recommend you LEARN EVERYTHING YOU POSSIBLY CAN ABOUT GRAVITY CONTROL/ANTI-GRAVITY HISTORY, because if not your mind will be closed to a science that has the potential to change this planet forever.  You can still hold on to the mainstream theories if you need to, but just don’t let go of GC…

Karma: 2
Offline

Posts: 366

Thanks Brocke you worded that very well.

The thing about Einstein……………he was one smart man, but like the rest of us he did not get all of it right.

No one gets 100% of the answers on their own.

One thing he did suggest was the idea of an underlying force, even though he had earlier dismissed the aether as an unnecessary burden.

One of his most amazing statements goes like this……."time is different for every system in motion."  This in itself is the key to understanding a relative universe, but few seem to get it.
I’ve seen text books refer to this statement with a response such as…."what ever that means."  Thinking outside the box is imperative to understanding the dynamics of universe.

Gravity is a dynamic response to the condition of field remaining relative to the system of reference and is not itself a force of any kind.

Gravity is determined on the basis of an underlying force of energy determining the form and function of physical structure.
To suggest that gravity is simply a product of mass is no different than saying energy is simply a product of mass.

Everything is the product of an underlying force of energy, including gravity and electromagnetism.

It is important to understand that Einstein’s original perception of universe corresponded to a static state, as he saw the universe as unchanging, which is why he initially dismissed the idea of an expanding universe.  So his original work is based on a static state rather than a dynamic state.

Do we believe in general relativity………….to a point yes……….but with modifications.

Undoubtedly we exist in a relative universe where all systems maintain a relative relationship, even though that relative relationship involves a non-uniform differential in dynamic potential.

For example; the ratio of energy to mass is not the same for every mass or for every type of material………the ratio of energy per unit of mass is different for every different mass and different for every different material.
If you had an equal mass of hydrogen and an equal mass of oxygen you would not have an equal amount of energy, yet this is not what academic science teaches.  The common belief is that energy is simply proportional to mass, period, which in itself denies the relative nature of universe while attempting to ascertain a relative relationship between energy and mass.

I would suggest taking Brocke and Herschel’s advise and read the available material.

Karma: 0
Offline

Posts: 2

Once you progress through your degree you will find that Einstein equates the curvature of spacetime with the ‘flow’ of momentum and energy. You could call these components of the ‘aether’.

Karma: 2
Offline

Posts: 156

Hi Event Horizon.  Your name indicates where we all get sucked in or at least being on the edge or knee of the event, the point of many possibilities.  Welcome.

Until the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1889 where they tried to detect the aether and failed, the sea of energy, the aether, the underlying force was a given in science.  But since their experiment that ‘proved’ there was no aether or perhaps dark matter, belief that there even was an aether fell into disfavor and was ignored by science, save quantum mechanics, struggling for survival against Einstein and others.  In 1927 Einstein was quoted to have said, ‘there must be an aether’, but because it hasn’t been resolved to this day you must look to the fringes of science to find anything at all.  Semi legit science has quantum and string theory but we like to think that David Barclay has the best handle on things right now.  David is also a craft furniture maker and is handy with a lathe and says he might be able to build a non working model.

Which brings us to an important point.  We can actively promote the spreading of the word to those interested in gravity control but we need allies in academia.  We have no funds for experimentation which leads us to believe that there is a certain segment of science students, like Brocke and perhaps yourself, that may be filled with the same compulsion, that antigravity is possible and would solve many problems.  Our problem is we have no models (but David is at his lathe as we speak) and we have no machines. 

And so, we need your help.  We need to find people like you who would make Project Unity a science project and if successful, would not only rate you a credit but might just help kickstart the era of antigravity.  And I like to say that we could grease the wheel of gravity control with just one drop of oil.

We think there is a compulsively driven small group of student scientists out there who are as compelled as we are.

I think if we could create a world network of students, many with thoughts of experiment and access to facilities, many with machinist capabilities of the same bent, we could produce models and machines and in the process maybe secure your feeling of security before you even leave the nest.

Don’t be disappointed if you don’t find many colleagues who share your compulsion.  We estimate that over 99% of the world population has never even given thought to antigravity.

But you guys (non genderly speaking) are out there.  We need to organize this force into a cohesive quest for gravity control.
We need your brains and abilities to come up with more models and machines that perturb the aether and time.

We live in times of great possibilites and we think the students of the world are in the best position to set the course for our quest.

And truly, sorry guys, we don’t have money to do this corporately.  You have to want to do it. 

Think of www.gravitycontrol.org as a possible portal to funnel your antigravity projects.  We answer all enquiries, perhaps in some cases not what you want to hear.

Update:  We are in touch with Professor Hal Puthoff at the Institute For Advanced Science and Alexander V. Frolov, famed Russian scientist who claimed that he perturbed the aether and time and could not get a patent because they said it was impossible.  There has been some communication with Dr Hal and if Frolov re proves his former experiment, these two science guys might get together. 

But because it is "might  be and could be and maybe would’, so we will be asking of the students of the world to help prove Project Unity. 

It all depends on how you feel.  We are compelled to continue.  Whatever it takes.  We are forwarding the idea of gravity control as if it were a lens.  And if we focus it well enough, we will usher in the new energy beyond oil.

What’s your name, Event Horizon, and does this interest you?
Jim

Karma: 2
Offline

Posts: 366

Speaking of students, at least those who attend classes, it would really give your career a kickstart to write a paper on the relationship of energy to mass, as described on this site.

It seems that the accepted perception of energy is a bit fuzzy, as the ratio of energy per unit of mass is not the same for all materials.  This should not seem too surprising, but I’m sure there are those who would argue the point.

E=MC2 is a bit crude and not very accurate, at best this is a very general statement in that a greater mass of the same material has the greater energy, but the lower ratio of energy per unit of mass.  So the smaller mass has the higher ratio of energy per unit of mass.

When we talk about atomic or nuclear energy we are not referring to energy per say, but to a potential of resistance which we have come to view as actual energy.  Unfortunately this is not the case, as it is impossible to extract the actual energy from an atom and force it to radiate.

Energy is always focused inward and never outward, which means our nuclear technology provides no actual energy, but in fact depletes the available energy that would otherwise be available to us.  A no win situation.

The only true energy of universe is an underlying force of energy which sustains and perpetuates the form and function of physical structure, without which all physical structure would collapse or fold on itself and poof no more physical structure.

It’s like the phantom neutrino, which was invented to explain a perceived discrepency in energy.  Unfortunately there was no missing energy and no need to invent the neutrino which was thought to be responsible for this mysterious theft.

If the nature of energy had been known at the time and the relationship of energy to mass had been accurately defined we may never have heard of the neutrino.

If the smaller mass of the same material has the higher ratio of energy to mass there was no missing energy, just a misunderstanding of the situation.

So a little help from the academic crowd would be much appreciated.