APEC 3/20, Part #2 - Benjamin Solomon - Gravity Modification Experiments

Transcript

okay this is part two it's the experimental evidence um yeah this was a big question every time i start looking at data i always ask myself where do i begin actually start anywhere anywhere when you don't know somewhere is better than nowhere so where do i begin is a good question but don't wait for an exact answer and i put this in in all my presentations simply because when i was researching a paper i think in finance or statistics i cannot remember this was about a year back i found this paper on a journal site and they showed me the first two pages if i wanted the rest of the paper i had to pay for it so i was googling some more and i found this link on this on research game and uh so i said hey that's an opportunity to get some papers free so i clicked on it and i found exactly the same paper same outline same style same wording and then i looked at the name what's a different name i said oh my god is this what's happening in academia so when you when you find a paper please investigate was that person the original author of that paper was it somebody else interstellar trouble versus interplanetary travel gravity modification will give us interplanetary travel light takes between 30 minutes to an hour to get to mars [Music] and so if we can do that kind of travel that fast we can on we can answer the question let's do our lunch on months um but interplay interstellar travel that's a totally different issue because the reason why gravity modification cannot get us interstellar travel is because it's still bound by lawrence fitzgerald and mutant and gravitational transformations so you cannot use gravity modification to do interstellar travel but at least it'll give us interplanetary travel and we can build a commercial interplanetary civilization while we prepare to do in the planet interstellar trouble and why is this case because probabilities are not bound by these transformations and their time invariant so we can say i'm here now in the next instance i'm over there so that is why i say that we have to understand probabilities we have to ask the questions what how does nature implement probabilities and how do we control probabilities i put forward a few papers on how photon probabilities can be controlled using electric fields and when i saw jerome as magnetic field experiment where the photon was deflecting i said hey that's it we have to look into that much deeper and that's that's one of the reasons i would like to talk to him because yes we can do experiments to prove why engineer this is robert gorda 1926 march 16th practically 95 years ago as a society we have to ask ourselves the question do we want to take another 95 years get to interstellar trouble no my internal goal is 20 40. there are two other reasons why engineering is important because it we we use engineering to prove that a hypothesis is correct and we use engineering to prove not just that hypothesis is correct but it is valuable but a more important and more in the background uh reason for why engineering is correct uh is necessary is because we need to use engineering to develop design principles so that we do not spend three or four hundred experiments like i did in 2000 i'm trying to figure out what's going on if i could do five experiments and know what was going on and say this is this this that would be great but no i had to spend that years reproducing my experiments three to four hundred times before i finally said hey i'm not getting anywhere i'm a little bit stubborn in that sense maybe a little bit slow um and if necessary we can look at an engine and see how we can reverse engineer it and then learn from it so what's the purpose of an engine this lady shows us with their first facial experiment um expressions that yes there is an important reason for a purpose for an engine it is to provide a means to arrive at a destination the whole point of travel is to arrive at a dista at the destination it's not about velocity it's not about power it's not about energy it's about arriving at a destination and therefore two important things important vectoring and modulation vectoring is telling us where to go which direction to point our rocket set or our arps or gravity modifying engines which direction to point at and the second important is modulation how soon or how late do you want to get to that point and that with that you attenuation and amplification comes accepted that there is energy in the picture but we don't want to talk about how we use the energy to define how we arrive at a destination then we can include probabilities as part of the process of the purpose of arriving at a destination the experimental evidence okay uh okay i'll get to this first okay this is the new equivalence non-linear transformations and linear transformations give identical results and you can show that with numerical modeling you get the heavenly bodies in our solar system and we can use the classical method and we get the escape velocity you can convert that escape velocity into time dilation and take that time dilation and plug it into lawrence fitzgerald transformation and ho a and behold we get the exact same equations the margin of error is trivial you cannot show this you cannot prove this at least i do not know how to prove this analytically but you can prove it numerically you have to build the models look at the numbers in photon shielding there are three different equations with regard to photon shielding and they all give within a certain operating range they all give identical results so the question now is which is the correct equation here we see that that is an equivalence nature behind all this there's something that's going on that makes linear motion and non-linear motion equivalent gravity is an iron field and we see if you look at the orbital velocities which are tangential to the mass you can see that uh the knife field is has a acceleration in this downward direction and i won't get into that because i've already explained a little bit more quite a bit of this in a previous in the previous slides so we know first gravity is an eye field second um oh yeah this portion these are the equations i used to model i used uh analytical equations that are constructed for the model of distortion and the gravitational field and therefore you can get the center of mass and there's a function here y which determines the distribution of the mass and i found out through [Music] the difficult way i found out that this equation is not integrable so i had to use numerical modeling to solve it i had a friend who was a much better mathematician than me um this was when i was living in the in colorado who try to break it up comes from a family of mathematicians and it couldn't be broken up it wouldn't be simplified and then later reviewer came back and told me this equation is not integrable so i'm happy so you can see that this is the classical method and this is the g singular z squared method of calculating that and the errors are parts million it's trivial and the y function i told myself it's not enough to just model a sphere what happens is particles are not really spherical in shape in some of my later work i showed that particles have different structures and so um are they still valid under different structures i used about 10 different distribution of masses and i still came back with gc look how c squared so i'm i'm satisfied i'm happy somebody need somebody with better mathematical skills and i wants to go ahead and prove this analytically which cannot be done uh go ahead okay now mechanical motion you take a string tie a ball to it and you rotate it so this is the pivot here this is the string and you have the greater the radius the greater the velocity the lower the radius the lower the velocity so you have a nine field here and the acceleration of the ball is away from the pivot and what is holding it together is the tension in the string then we have some physicists come along and said centripetal forces don't exist what centrifugal forces don't exist but what do you mean centrifugal forces don't exist there must be equal and opposite reaction there are two forces one is the ball trying to run away from the pivot the other is a string holding the ball back to the pivot so when somebody sell tells you that centrifugal forces don't exist because it's outward motion it's not correct when i feel structure tells you that it is an outward motion it is the tension in the string the centripetal forces that holds prevents the ball from flying out of control so there are a lot of these sort of mistakes in physics so you have to be very very very picky when you read something so i use some random number generators generated different angular velocities different radiuses and i found out using the classical method these are the numbers of of the uh acceleration and these are numbers using the knightfield method and the error is trivial so g g is equal to tau c squared works in gravitational fields and books and mechanic works with mechanical forces so i was cheeky enough to find if you could ask the question does liquid brick wheel experiment work see what late we did was he took a 50 pound wheel spun it to 3000 rpm and then he did this over his head it was practically weightless and you'll see lots of videos of people deriding lately experiments is that what they teach us in university to deride other people's experiments to deride anomalies no anomalies are there there are red flags telling you hey there's something going on you need to investigate hello i'm here don't ignore it look at the anomalies they have something to tell us so i built a model numerical model i had to model the x and y velocities on the disc and the uh x and y uh y and z velocities on the rod and these uh the rpms he used um actually watched the video and timed everything to see what was going on so that i wanted to get as close as possible to what lightweight was doing and then i built a model and then i used a regression eq regression to summarize the data and you get this equation acceleration is spin times rotation times multiplied by the square root of the hypotenuse this hypotenuse and a scientist who doesn't ask questions will tell you hey that equation is wrong because the units are wrong no if you ask the question how do i get it it's a regression there is a one coefficient of regression that is 1 which has the units of square root of meters which makes the quest the equation correct so sometimes it's a little bit annoying when people say hey you know you're wrong without asking questions ask questions and then tell me come to a conclusion tell me i'm wrong so this is the model results of of the acceleration across the disk rotating spinning disk and i looked at it and i said oh no this is going to go to zero so many thousand data points i bet you it's going to go to zero it turns out that the average of all those thousand points is never zero it is some value that obeys the formula i just showed you what happens is that the the disk is observing an acceleration that is orthogonal so the force so this is uh spinning this way the rod is rotating this way the force is orthogonal to the spin and the rotation and its upwards are downwards okay and whether it's upwards or downwards depends on the sense of the spin if they are when you're looking at it if the sense is the same then they are towards you if i remember correctly if i recall correctly if they are different then the sense is away from you um and the model results shows that the average acceleration is there's a certain value determined by the equation but the wheel itself experiences tremendous stresses due to the difference from the average acceleration and then in 2018 i went to uh metric that's the only time i've left been out of this country in the last 21 22 years because i have seen no interest in leaving going out and seeing what's going on there outside in the outside world i met this guy gabriel rico away avio uh he's with advanced dynamics his own company and he was presenting at this workshop conference and i was presenting a paper on photon probabilities and the properties of photon problems and randomness and that sort of things and uh he had a demonstration he solved lightweight's big weight uh big wheel experiments by using sophisticated mathematical theory he had not until i talked to him he had not heard of late with or his experiments so the non-english speaking world has their own research that's going on that in a lot of ways is more advanced than what is going on in the english-speaking world because the english-speaking world they tend to deride anomalies and i have no clue why that's going why that happens so what he did was he demonstrated uh a rudderless model submarine at the madrid naval acamet academy that was turning and i uh you can look up this youtube video it's around minute five where you actually see the submarine turning no rudder and then in his presentation he opened up and showed what was he show diagrammatically what was in his moral submarine it was liquids big wheel experience uh experiment there it was and i said here i don't have to do the experiments anymore this guy has already done it for me without even knowing anything about lightweight so let's look at electromagnetism you have a nice furry ball that's electron and this is the plane of the knife field and the knife field is created by the mechanical motion of the electron upwards with the magnetic field going into the slide and by left-hand rule you have a velocity on this side that is parallel to the mechanical motion and on this side you have uh electromagnetic velocity that is anti-parallel to the um mechanical velocity and so therefore we get a gradient of spatial velocities an eye field with an acceleration that's going in this way and so when you look at the calculations again this is all based on random number generators you find that this is the acceleration using the classical method and this is the acceleration that's using the knightfield method and the errors are trivial so knightfields and g is equal to how c squared works for gravity mechanical forces and electromagnetic forces but note here the key thing here is you have two sources of velocities the mechanical and the electromagnetic that becomes key to developing rotation-based gravity modifying devices leaked constructing partner enough um i read both these papers it took me a year to read both his papers say and that's all i did i didn't do anything else just read this papers read reread it reread and read it i wanted to understand what he had focused on and what he had not focused on he pretty well clearly documented his work more uh much more than most people do and so i was able to figure out that he had shown there was weight gain and weight loss but his focus was on weight loss and the reason why his experiments are important is because they will show us whether it is mass or matter that's cause gravitation so the basic essence of this of this um uh by layered disk the top part is super conducting and the bottom part is not and if you look if you spin something you're 20 something centimeters across um the acceleration here the g forces are 98 g's and that the mass is 0. 0.95 kilograms i got it from an email from him maybe about 10 years ago and so you get 98 g's at the edge it's going to break up obviously didn't any of the researchers who try to reproduce this experiment do that simple basic calculation and say hey we have to do something about the 98 g's no so he observed weight loss um the inner radius that's around here the inner radius was between 0.9 uh 0.1 percent and 0.25 percent and the outer radius here was between 0.3 percent and zero point uh i cannot read that 0.5 percent i think weight loss so that tells you that there's a radial effect and what is that radial effect too that's a question that needs to be answered um now let's step back step back a bit if it was a pure superconducting disc that was not bi-layered then we'll see that an asymmetric field will have net cancelling effect so the force field of the magnetic force field will have a force in that direction uh will be cancelled by the opposing symmetrical field that has a force in the opposite direction and similarly the bottom layer i will cancel the top and this bottom will cancel this bottom and this bottom will cancel that top so it's net canceling so with the symmetrical field you cannot see anything um also the side downward forces on the side will be canceled by the output forces and so that's the uh the fields are symmetrical they're net cancelling so but if you put in a bi layer a second layer um for example uh this bottom layer as sparkling have done what we see is that magnetic field is now asymmetrical because the bottom layer uh magnetic field has been tracked by this uh bottom layer of this supercontracting yes so we have a net effect so in effect we should see some net forces here and some net forces here which particle enough states that when the disk is stationary it does observe a force but he missed the electric field that's why many times when people try to reduce uh reproduce his experiments they didn't get any results firstly because of the g's that cracks the discs secondly because they didn't convert the superconducting field into an asymmetric field and from this i arrived at the conclusion i published this around 2011 2012. you do not need the superconducting magnetic field all you need is the magnetic field it goes back to the uh three-step schema the source of the field the field and the effect so we don't care about the sources we just need the field and the because we want to investigate the effect so i built a model all my models are in excel to do it correctly you need an excel add-in called x numbers because x excel will only calculate to 15 significant digits with x numbers you can go to 250 significant digits for acceleration gravitational acceleration that means uh 249 decimal places now i'm told that x numbers has been revamped and uh x numbers will let you do calculations up to 4 000 significant digits so that's something to think about you don't have to do python code to run your own build your own models to do that it's available in excel so when i build a model i'm assuming superconducting fields are flat essentially fine and you do get this uh small weight loss at the center and big weight loss at the edge and so there's this tangential property here that that there's this radial property here that increases as the radius increases the weight loss increases and then if you mess up your magnetic field um let me go back to this so where the the the lesson here is where you measure the weight loss makes a lot of difference to what you will observe so you don't want to measure the weight gloss here you want to measure the weight clutch at the edge of the spinning disc if that's possible okay so when you mess up the magnetic field you can get things like this a weight loss huge weight loss here at the edge and a substantial amount of weight gain in the middle of the disc and so these cancel out and you get now results or you get weak results so you have to be careful about how you construct the magnetic field because you can get false negatives and in diseases because i've written a couple of paper on diseases based on my data modeling experience the problem with diseases is the false positive here the problem here is the false negatives okay now if we look at the model of a stationary disc without electric field we do see this there's a weight loss at the edge and then some weight gain on the in the center of the disc so asymmetric fields is what we require to do uh gravity modifying modification portal club said that it's also um it has a shielding effect that means if you tilt the disk the weight losses is you don't get a situation when you chill with this there's no weight loss you get this type of situation that even when you tilt the disc you you get some weight loss because it's a shielding effect that shields the gravitational field above you what else if it was if it was a vector effect then when you tilt the disc away you should lose the weight loss comparisons okay how am i doing for time uh comparisons this is based on my experiment the results were from march 2000 this is one of the few results i still have which i documented um this is a circuit that does not have any moving parts in it so as we increase the the voltage the current the weight drops in this example when we switch off the current the weight does uh increase and return to normal but it takes a longer time so there's a latent effect in that and whatever theory that's developed explain this needs to explain that sort of behavior but it's not always that i've seen uh 90 weight loss for about 30 seconds and then complete regain of the weight so the phenomena is um not simple or straightforward it's a little bit complicated but what surprised me was the next slide also from one of the march from the same one of the march experiments is that you have current down here you have voltage up here you have a linear resistance and then suddenly it's gone no matter how much current you apply the voltage is the same i have not been able to produce this and i'm so grateful that i actually recorded this but it this is the reason why i do not believe that [Music] hooper pass are the source of superconductivity i think quantum theory cannot distinguish the two um i believe and i may be completely wrong but this is what i'm thinking out a lot so that you all you guys can hear it and go investigate i believe it is super conducting super conductivity that creates cooper pass not the other way around okay paul miuran and and john brandenburg most of most of you know these people i met them first in 2009 at a specific conference and he put an energy box which is basically um the cell effect generator and they observe seven percent weight loss um but the thing i really appreciate what these two guys did because i'm a visual thinker i need to see pictures i need to see videos in my mind that's what they did for me that was the most important thing they showed me the direction of the electric field in green the direction of the magnetic field in blue and the direction of the pointing vector pointing vectors basically um an energy vector and so from this you can at least i can say a few things but we'll get into it in a minute um so from my interpretation of portland's work that is what is primarily important it's the left hand rule e b and v and the v the gradient of v velocity is what is an i field which causes the acceleration effect in the example they have uh equivalent uh instead of the v they have the s the pointing vector so end of part two we know how naive implemented and they are universal they describe all macro forces the reason why i say only macro force is not all forces because i do not have a fundamental idea of what's going on in the nucleus what binding energy tells me is that the space-time and this is sacral age everything i have said is sacrilege according to the current physician scope so why not add more sacrilege the binding energy in a nucleus alters the space time of nucleus so the space time of nucleus is different from the space time outside the nucleus that's why i cannot say whether g is equal to how c square is still valid inside the nucleus so um so in this presentation you have seen how we have distilled the various important properties to figure out how to do first generation and that's me when i used to shave my head and let's go to part three