electrogravitic communication

For a discussion of the science of Townsend Brown, his experiments and his ideas.

boys, boys

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:26 pm

Boys, boys. <g> Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Postby Chris Knight » Tue Dec 12, 2006 7:53 pm

No, we're not fighting :wink: It's just an area I do not wish to discuss in detail at this time on the forums.

However, I invite everyone to read the partial Journal No. 4 located at: http://www.qualight.com/journals/ where Townsend theorizes on some aspects of corresponding electromagnetic/gravitic effects. We can certainly discuss that.

Andrew
Qualight, L.L.C.
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Follow the Bouncing Links as they Go Around in Circles

Postby Paul S. » Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:15 pm

Let me give you some idea why this business should not be taken lightly.

Somebody just sent me a link to this page:

http://www.esolibris.com/articles/ufo/a ... act_02.php

...which has a biography of Townsend Brown that may be familiar to some of you (Gavin Dingley ring any bells?)

Much of this looks like a lot of the same myths and misconceptions that we have been finding here in the rabbit hole, but particularly because of Andrew's statement a few posts earlier, I was sorta stunned to (re)read this:

It is a little-known fact that Faraday made the following profound statement as far back as the late Victorian age: "Electrical capacity is to gravity, as inductance is to magnetism".

Well, did he now? And wouldn't that serve to underscore the same point that Andrew has attributed to Townsend Brown from like 150 years later? Wow, who'da thunk...!?

So, do the obvious thing: Google "faraday Electrical capacity is to gravity, as inductance is to magnetism" and you find the same axiom in a couple of places:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/wave13d.htm

http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/charge-time.htm

http://www.fengshuiseminars.com/articles/heartlink.html

The first link is quoting Gavin Dingley's article almost verbatim; the second appears to be paraphrasing Dingley. And the third has something to do with Feng Shui, the ancient art of arranging furniture -- but also appears to be quoting the second linked-article, which is paraphrasing Dingley.

But after that, I can find no references to Michael Faraday ever having made such a statement. At least, not here on the 'Internets.'

Now, admittedly, I have not read all of Michael Faraday's works. Maybe I should (fat chance). But my point is: here we have clear example of a writer attributing a quotation to a famous scientist, and that quotation being accepted as fact by other writers, and then finding its way into circulation when there doesn't appear to be any evidence that the original quote was ever actually uttered.

Did Michael Faraday actually say such a thing? Fine, somebody find chapter and verse for me, and I'll concede the argument, i.e. that we've known for over 150 years that every electrical impulse has a gravitational equivalent, and we've just selectively ignored that fact for a century or two.

Absent that chapter and verse, then I would like us all to refrain from recirculating myths and misconceptions -- hence the challenge to Andrew re: "every electromagnetic effect appears to have a corresponding electromagnetic-gravitational effect."

If Andrew doesn't want to get into the details, fine, I can accept that. But I would sure like to know if Michael Faraday ever said what Gavin Dingley quoted him as saying.

Sound reasonable?

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Faraday Redux

Postby Paul S. » Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:17 pm

I also Googled "faraday gravity," which led to this:

http://www1.umn.edu/ships/religion/faraday.htm

The year is 1849:

Faraday's evidence suggested that no gravelectric effect existed. Yet in September, he was at work on yet another test, again using his earlier successful work on electromagnetic induction as a model. The apparatus followed the design of an 1831 experiment where a metal bar oscillated through a wire helix. Again, no "success." And again, Faraday retained the same conviction that had promoted all his earlier work. He presented his findings to the Royal Society in November, 1850, noting that the results "do not shake my strong feeling of the existence of a relation between gravity and electricity, though they give no proof that it exists."

So, Faraday wanted to believe in a "gravelectric" effect, but was stumped coming up with proof. Fair enough. But I'm still trying to find any evidence that Faraday himself equated the "gravelectric" effect to capacitance, as Gavin Dingley has now propogated all over the 'Internets.'

--PS
Paul Schatzkin
aka "The Perfesser"
"At some point we have to deal with the facts, not what we want to believe is true." -- Jack Bauer
Paul S.
Sr. Rabbit Chaser
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Psych Ward

Faraday

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:25 pm

Interseting to me that the name Faraday is even coming up, but it is flashing at us rather consistantly. Mr. Frolov? Why was it that you named your company in Russia .......... Faraday? Could you add to this discussion? Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Postby Chris Knight » Tue Dec 12, 2006 11:06 pm

Paul,

Sounds good. It was not my intention to appear as though I was quoting Townsend or implying he had made such a statement. It is merely my conclusion after studying his work.

There are a few corresponding effects he did discuss that are in the public domain and I can point out in the forum:

1) The gravitational transceiver (as per your LV lecture) - radio waves
2) Gravitational "heat" (Journal No. 4, p. 18 ) - heat, IR, secondary radiation
3) Spontaneous heat generation (Journal No. 4, pp. 131-133 ) - energy storage and short circuiting
4) EM spectrum (Journal No. 4, pp. 57-summary on p. 64 )- EMG spectrum
5) Quasiluminous gravitic radiation (Journal No. 4, pp. 64-68 )- light

I agree, there are an enormous number of documents.

Andrew
Qualight, L.L.C.
Chris Knight
Keeper of the Flame
 
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 5:35 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Postby wdavidb » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:41 am

Maybe I can be of some help with this.........

You have to take into account the relationship between the internal dynamics and the external dynamics having an inversely proportional relatioship in order to maintain a balanced field.

Now, the reason why this would not be obvious is because the underlying force is focusded to the center of field and the closer you get to the center of field the less gravity is present.

So you have a perception problem with this; as it is assumed that the gravitational effect should increase to the center of field and it doesn't.

But, an electrical charge is tied directly to gravity as both are nothing more than a dynamic response to the condition of field. Where gravity remains proportional to the electrical component, in terms of a very large ratio.

On top of this you have your highest gravitational potential across the surface curve and as the mass of the system increases so does the gravitational potential across the surface curve, but on the internal side of things the gravitational potential is actually decreasing in proportion to the increase of energy focused to the center of field.

Now if that doesn't cause a bit of confusion I don't know what would.

I don't know who said what way back when, but I do know that without an underlying force focused to the center of field and inversely proportioanl internal and external dynamics your system will do one of two things, either fold on itself or explode.

This is the primary reason why gravity control is so difficult to grasp.
Last edited by wdavidb on Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
wdavidb
Junior Birdman
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Salt Spring Island BC Canada

Postby wdavidb » Wed Dec 13, 2006 2:43 am

One more very important point............

You caannot access the internal dynamics of field from the external portion of field, no hard you try.........all you can do is extend the external dynamics inward.
wdavidb
Junior Birdman
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Salt Spring Island BC Canada

YES YES YES YES

Postby Mikado14 » Wed Dec 13, 2006 3:16 am

Paul S. wrote: "Electrical capacity is to gravity, as inductance is to magnetism".[/i]



YES YES YES YES

It is about time someone said it. Remember the young Townsend asking Dr. Biefeld what component?

I will shut up now.

Mikado

But what happens when you take a very large capacitor with symmetrical plates along with a very large inductor and then charge up the tank and then..... Just the musings of someone trying to "kick start" a lead ball.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

HA that's a good one "too many notes"

Postby Trickfox » Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:39 am

Did someone say "Too many note"???

too many notes for what brain to manipulate?

If there is Artificial Intelligence behind it, too many notes simply does not apply.

Only Shannon theory applies!

Trickfox
The psychopropulsier (as pointed out in the book The Good-bye man by Linda Brown and Jan Lofton) is a Quantum entanglement project under development using Quantum Junctions. Join us at http://www.Peeteelab.com
Trickfox
The Magician
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Quebec or Montreal

Postby wdavidb » Thu Dec 14, 2006 10:06 am

Mikado,

The last thing you want to do is charge it up, as this results in a self defeating exercise.

It may appear to be the right thing to do, but this is back to front or simply backwards.

Like I said earlier it is not for a lack of technical skill, but for an incomplete perspective that the task is such a challenge.

This charging up idea keeps eveyone chasing the rabbit, but the rabbit always manages to escape somehow.

Not too long ago Hal Puthoff told me that we are incapable of generating sufficient energy to achieve gravity control at the present time..............which when you think about does not sound too rational. If this were the case how could gravity exist in a dynamic state? Fortunately gravity gets along quite well without our excessive ideas regarding energy. Of course the energy required is available and easily accessible to anyone who cares to consider the idea.

It is not a question of adding energy, but a question of modulating the energy remaining relative to a modular field system. So the energy is already in place and it is simply a matter of modulating that energy to achieve the desired effect.
wdavidb
Junior Birdman
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:29 am
Location: Salt Spring Island BC Canada

reply

Postby Mikado14 » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:24 pm

wdavidb wrote:Mikado,

The last thing you want to do is charge it up, as this results in a self defeating exercise.

It may appear to be the right thing to do, but this is back to front or simply backwards.

Like I said earlier it is not for a lack of technical skill, but for an incomplete perspective that the task is such a challenge.

This charging up idea keeps eveyone chasing the rabbit, but the rabbit always manages to escape somehow.

Not too long ago Hal Puthoff told me that we are incapable of generating sufficient energy to achieve gravity control at the present time..............which when you think about does not sound too rational. If this were the case how could gravity exist in a dynamic state? Fortunately gravity gets along quite well without our excessive ideas regarding energy. Of course the energy required is available and easily accessible to anyone who cares to consider the idea.

It is not a question of adding energy, but a question of modulating the energy remaining relative to a modular field system. So the energy is already in place and it is simply a matter of modulating that energy to achieve the desired effect.


If you read my response, I was actually poking fun at a post from Jim about taking 50 - 100 kV to kickstart a lead ball. It appears that my humor was taken as an interrogative to theory.

Since you have brought the subject up let us look upon it a little further.

Your group wants to take a transceiver, a spherical lead ball in place of the antenna, put all of this, and I will assume the operator of the device as well, into a giant Faraday cage. I wouldn't do it quite tht way but for the sake of an argument, OK.

Now, you seem quite adamant about the use of the term energy and the use of that word. You claim no technical knowledge of communication systems of the EM spectrum, don't know where you stand on the EG spectrum, if there is. My theories and/or axioms might be different and are mostly empirically acquired.

Further, in keeping with the subject, the transceiver will operate under the current understanding of electronics which is based upon three elements: Voltage, Current and Resistance, all interralated, and power will be consumed.

So, if we look at this system, we are going to use an instrument that utillizes a science that has a poor understanding of the universe in the concept of wasting energy or the improper use thereof as the foundation for a communication system that is the complete opposite.

Perhaps within the universe, there are laws to each path you follow and there are relationships between those paths.


wdavidb wrote:This charging up idea keeps eveyone chasing the rabbit, but the rabbit always manages to escape somehow.


As to charging something, that was brought up by your group, not this forum. But perhaps there is something to it.

I have found closed minded engineers, scientists etc in my lifetime when it comes to "known" physics. Perhaps you might be a little too far in the opposite direction. There is a relationship to everything within the universe and that relationship is dependent upon the result you are looking for. Our science works quite well for what it is. Is it perfect? No sir, it is not. Do we understand how the universe works, No sir, we do not. Is man ready to accept how the universe works, at this time, no freakin' way.....but there is hope, I see it here in this forum and it is the ONLY reason I am here....oh and to have a game of chess with Mr. Twigsnapper, selfish as that is, there you go Elizabeth, I quess I do have an agenda <g>.

David, you are not alone in your .....theory? .....but accept the fact that you will need engineers that have imagination, intuitiveness, tenacity, a flair for creativity, the ability to invent what is not available and a host of other attributes. To imply that their understanding is flawed at the onset will only be self defeating in the goal you wish to achieve.

Take this post for what it is, just a post and an opinion.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

something about islands

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:30 pm

David,

Is there something about living on an island that promotes this sort of thinking ..... or this sort of thinking that promotes living on an island .... or .... a thousand points in between?

Why do you like where you are living? I ask that because I have been considering an area of Washington state, not too far away. I just wondered what brought you to your island. (and I don't mean ... car .. train ... plane!)

Visiting Summerland might be an interest for me, just to see what the other guys are doing. Have you ever been there? Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Thank you

Postby Elizabeth Helen Drake » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:39 pm

Thank you Mikado.

Regarding fine engineers and mechanics. There is a need (you see it, or you wouldn't be here)

You yourself know that if a mechanic hadn't helped a certain scientist on his way across country ... a whole lifetime of work would have been lost. bees and flys and such don't do well stranded in heat.

And Townsend Brown technically was an engineer, no mechanic. Thats why he valued having a fine mechanic in the family. He counted on him.

I don't think things have changed a whole lot, do you? Elizabeth
Elizabeth Helen Drake
Sr. Research Asst.
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:11 am

Re: Thank you

Postby Mikado14 » Thu Dec 14, 2006 3:50 pm

Elizabeth Helen Drake wrote:Thank you Mikado.

Regarding fine engineers and mechanics. There is a need (you see it, or you wouldn't be here)

You yourself know that if a mechanic hadn't helped a certain scientist on his way across country ... a whole lifetime of work would have been lost. bees and flys and such don't do well stranded in heat.

And Townsend Brown technically was an engineer, no mechanic. Thats why he valued having a fine mechanic in the family. He counted on him.

I don't think things have changed a whole lot, do you? Elizabeth


Unfortunately, I do believe things have changed. There is a lack of couth as well as respect, it is all about "me". I hope that in the fullness of time, no pun intended, that it will go full circle.

But I still stop to help the stranded motorists.

Mikado
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy
Mikado14
Mr. Nice Guy
 
Posts: 2343
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 1:49 pm
Location: Somewhere in Pennsy

PreviousNext

Return to The Science of Townsend Brown

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron