3.3K views

Uploaded by Jason Verbelli

facebook.com/Verbelli
Written by Jason Verbelli

- Secrets of Magnets and Hidden Sciences - Jason Verbelli
- Walter Russell - Optic Dynamo Generator
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 12 - Lessons 45,46,47,48
- John Searl and the SEG Presentation
- The Geometry of Implosion
- SEG Experiment by Dr Paul Brown - 1986
- Free Energy Flyer for the Public - With Working Links
- John Searl Anti Gravity the Dream Made Reality
- New Light on Space and Time by Dewey B Larson
- SEG Mock Up Verses SEG Prototype - Stages of R&D
- Nature s Harmonic Unity - Samuel Colman
- Nothing but Motion by Dewey B Larson
- Five Fold Symmetry by Istvan Hargittai
- Water Structurizers
- Goethe Theory of Colors
- Charles Steinmetz Theory and Calculation of Alternating Current Phenomenon
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 5 - Lessons 17,18,19,20
- Aquapol Cosmic Dehydration by Wilhelm Mohorn
- Charles Steinmetz Theory and Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena and Oscillations
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 6 - Lessons 21,22,23,24

You are on page 1of 70

CERN

Academia vs. Quackademia

Science vs. Psyence

or

Occams Razor vs. Nonsense

compared to latest "discoveries" by CERN and the so called "Higgs Field".

Were going to go over the Higgs Model and why the explanation as its

presented is absurd and backwards. Phenomenon is real, but the

terminology and diagrams are sorely lacking.

In the Higgs diagram below, they show massive particles being generated

at the bottom by a massless particle on top. The arrow starts at the top of

the hill indicating that a massless particle somehow creates a hill by

curving space and then magically gains mass as it travels a straight path

down the hill following the vertical line.

mass. Right off the bat, theres already major problems that violate

common sense as well as their own conservation laws.

That ball on the top of the hill really should be red. To symbolize the nose

of Bozon the Clown.

In Searl's diagram, it shows the inverse. The rollers orbiting the stator IS

the mass at the bottom in the trough. But the trough of what?

Certainly not some non-existent curvature of space.

The blue lines in Searls diagram (which are cut off at the equator in the

Higgs diagram) are representative of magnetic field lines. Something real,

accepted, measurable, observable by anyone with iron shavings,

compasses, ferrofluid, etc.

There are satellite magnets orbiting a stator ring like planetary gears. With

unique magnetization resulting in high frequency waveforms. That when in

rotation at critical speeds generate a spiraling flux cone (frustum) for the

path of "electrons" 90 degrees to the tangential field lines propagating Up

the cone. Which causes them to converge and condense, accumulating

negative energy. (compressed electrons)

Part of the problem here is the model for the electron. Its commonly taught

that an electron has mass. And a negative charge. So, if a bunch of mass

is converging and condensing, it should form a solid ball. But for every

positive theres a negative. So, if theres positive mass, then there must be

negative mass.

If positive mass is said to curve space and make a well. then an

accumulation of electrons should make a well. Not a hill.

Therefore, the model of the electron is backward. (at the very least)

It should be thought of as negative mass with a negative charge. (The

math for a negative mass and positive charge works out the same as a

positive mass with a negative charge.) Look it up.

magnetized positive mass rotating to accumulate and condense negative

mass (electrons). That can be visualized and makes sense logically.

Rather than virtual particles popping into existence because of a curvature

of space resulting from no mass. (which contradicts their own logic since

their own model requires mass to curve space in the first place)

In their model, the massless particle bends space into a hill FIRST and

THEN a massive particle is generated as a result. Does that make Any

sense? You dont need a PhD to know thats absurd. Any PhD who

believes that and tries to justify that with erroneous equations must have

Permanent Head Damage.

http://www.diracwasright.com

I think the rings in their grid are supposed to be B fields

(which are oriented incorrectly 90 degrees).

I think the lines in their grid are supposed to be E fields.

They do not propagate out into space forever in straight lines or flat planes.

First a well with straight lines and now a "hill" with straight lines on 1

plane that aren't even connected to anything. Magnetic field lines loop

around in 3 dimensions. The erroneous grid in the Higgs diagram

represents nothing in reality.

Nature is all about Spirals:

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n29/Therealverbz/John%20Searl/Toru

sFlowMed_zpsk0kmsxyi.gif

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n29/Therealverbz/John%20Searl/ETor

usFlowMed_zpsidm5zxcy.giforiginal.gif

They just show a straight well in a non-existent "fabric of space". To show

a spin in Einys curvature model equates to Frame Dragging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging#Frame_dragging_effects

(which, in reality, is a lag in a rotating magnetic field)

Casimir Effect proves that. Watch from 36:20 to 36:33

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SiuTk2ZiyU#t=36m20s

Make sure to watch that entire link which elaborates on the signifiance of

magnetic waves and how they generate a BEC while in orbit around the

stator.

Antarctica? Why never at the North Pole, or 90 degrees to the Equator?

How would they account for the multiple planes of Pluto's eccentric orbit

with their graphs?

It's all using straight lined graphs and talking about curvatures of space

and fabrics of time and dark matter and empty space and black holes and

Things That Do Not Exist!!!

Rotating superconductors exist. Plasma exists. Magnets Exist. Waveforms

Exist. Casimir Force exists, Coherence exists. Which reaps the physical

manifestations of the mathematical interpretations they want to achieve.

Is there a dense object in the center of the SEG?

No.. It's Hollow! But there's mass in a ring AROUND what they would

consider the "dense ball". O_o

Where is the mass to generate the magnetic fields for their space

curvature? A "massless particle?" Lol That sure makes sense.. O_o

If positive mass generates a well, then why would zero mass generate a

hill?

Wouldn't "negative mass" generate the opposite of positive mass? If a

proton is positive, aren't "electrons" supposed to be negative?

Wouldn't zero mass just be "flat" according to their own model?

Once you get to zero, that's it according to them.

No negative inertia. No negative mass.

So why then isn't the rest of their graphs just a bunch of gopher hills

randomly placed? Hey, there's no mass over there... let's arbitrarily put a

hill! Does that make Any sense people?!

O_o

Wait... let's look at that model for space curvature again...

BECAUSE THERE'S NO MASS ACCORDING TO THEIR MODEL!

So why not just have arbitrary hills everywhere else if no mass makes

hills? O_o

How come the graph (with what's supposed to represent the magnetic field

lines) just stops at the lip around the hill? Where does it go?

How can the graph represent space curving if they say space is empty?

O_o

The intersection is (0,0) Above the horizontal line is Positive...

Below the horizontal line is Negative... A Massless particle would be ON

THE ZERO LINE at (0,0). Not in any quadrant nor on any part of the X or Y

axis other than (0,0). Hey CERN... that means the ball below the horizontal

line is a NEGATIVE NUMBER. NOT ZERO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system

Taking a step back.... do you folks Really believe a particle can be more

massless than another non-existent massless particle?

O_o

They are saying there are different degrees of Zero now?

So now 0 is different than 0.00. Which is different than 0.0000?

Which has more volume then? Lol INSANE!!!

I think some people really need to go back to school and learn about the

concept of ZERO 0 . Absence of.

You cannot have something be more zero than something else.

There is no such thing as a massless particle. No such thing as nothing

becoming something.

CERN: There only exists positive mass and then different degrees of zero/

masslessness. There is no such thing as negative. (only 1 side to a coin)

Logic: There exists positive and negative of any state in the universe. Zero/

0 being the absence of or neutralization of those opposing states. There is

no such thing as varying degrees of nothingness.

uummm Dont the points on CERNs graph fall BELOW the 0 line of the

X axis? Thats negative territory.

If No Mass means (0,0) then what would (5,-2) be?

According to their own diagram, that means Negative Mass.

"You Could Be Sued for Millions and Ridiculed for Centuries"

May 15, 2009

Dear Dr. Kaku:

This open letter relates to your disparagement of energy-producing

devices which at this juncture in time are demonstrably critical to our

nation's survival. And I write this letter as a Ph.D. experimental

nuclear physicist with qualifications that I believe allow me to speak

to the subject in question, namely production of energy using

nonconventional means.

I ask that you read this letter carefully and ask that you not dismiss it

out of hand in the manner of many of our country's physicists.

Recently, on the popular late-night radio program, "Coast to Coast

AM," which reportedly has a listening audience of millions, you

indicated that investors call you up daily and ask whether certain

inventions will work. Characterizing those devices as "perpetual

motion machines" you said they were impossible to make. But that

can be proven to be a false statement. Such devices can exist if

negative mass electrons can be introduced into electronic circuits and

possibly certain machines.

They can also exist if other forms of negative energy can be created,

and apparently they can. Finally, it appears to be the case that gauge

transformations could allow such devices to work. This would not

involve a violation of one of the most important laws of physics,

namely energy conservation, either, Dr. Kaku. I believe you assume

that such devices do violate the laws of physics, which is also an

assumption that appears to be made by others.

Dr. Kaku: You appear to believe that the universe has 11 dimensions,

many of which are supposed to be hidden. Why would that be true

while creation of energy using negative mass electrons or using

gauge transformations would be impossible? Could you be wrong,

sir? Undoubtedly you think you are not wrong, but could you be

wrong, sir?

You might say to me that negative mass electrons have never been

seen. But those many dimensions you believe in have never been

seen either. And is it not true that we physicists for decades have

used negative mass electrons in our theories in order to reach

agreement with experiment? And wasn't the positron discovered

because Dirac invoked the existence of negative mass electrons -approximately 80 years ago?

Perhaps it is true that we physicists have not yet observed negative

mass electrons, but does that mean they do not exist?

Now let me ask you this: Have you ever examined even one of the

devices that you tell investors cannot work? I suspect you haven't.

There are in fact inventions that produce energy without having any

kind of conventional fuel. You may see one work in a web page of

mine linked to below. But perhaps you think you don't even need to

look. Could that be the case, Dr. Kaku?

Perhaps you simply "know" these devices can't work. Might you not

also have said many years ago that airplanes could never fly? Before

the Wright brothers were flying airplanes, renowned scientists said it

was impossible. So, I ask that you examine the video linked to

below and I ask that you examine other such videos.

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/Steven%20Mark/Step

hen_Mark_video2.mp4

(Please give the video time to load -- as the file is large. The small

black device shown in the video is producing the power. Then a

larger unit is shown.)

Here is the link to another web page of mine that has links to more

such TPU videos. I can assure you the TPU device works, sir. For

the sake of our nation and the world, I ask that you take the small

amount of time needed to examine these videos.

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/Steven%20Mark/Steve

n_Mark.htm

Please don't say that the above demonstrations were faked, Dr.

Kaku. There are many engineers who examined the device. And

some demonstrations were made outdoors, far from any possible

sources of energy.

transformations. Those would be the same kind of gauge

transformations that, for decades, you theorists have been telling us

allow for electromagnetic energy non-conservation, but then say

don't have any practical applications. And we know that theoretical

physicists are never wrong, don't we? So the device cannot work,

can it? So why then does it work?

Could it be that gauge transformations do have practical

applications? Could it thus be that theoretical physicists could be

wrong about the impracticality of using gauge transformations to

make energy? I think so.

Do not gauge transformations lead to electromagnetic energy nonconservation? And is it not true that in your analysis of free energy

devices you assume that electromagnetic energy is conserved? That

is a grave inconsistency, sir. And arguing that gauge transformations

lead to no change in the electric and magnetic fields is not at all

convincing as the question relates to energy, not electric and

magnetic fields.

Would you say that gauge waves cannot exist? And if you do allow

that they can exist, would they not carry energy, possibly in both

positive and negative forms?

Where then am I wrong, Dr. Kaku? Or could I be right -- along with

many other Ph.D. physicists and engineers who are regularly

dismissed as crackpots?

You have said that you greatly respect the work of Nikola Tesla, and

surely you have studied his inventions and his life. If so, then you

might be aware that Nikola Tesla was planning to transmit power all

over the world in a way that you would surely say is impossible. But

you must know that Nikola Tesla was a very careful experimenter

who tested every idea before employing it. What then is the answer

to the implied dilemma?

So, Nikola Tesla was just a wild man, right? A nut. While Michio

Kaku and his 11 dimensions make wonderful sense. Or could you

and others be wrong about what Nikola Tesla was doing? Could it

even be the case that Tesla was using electromagnetic theory that

included the very gauge transformations that physicists of this era do

not include? Is that not possible, sir, and if not, why not?

Therefore, if I may speak freely, I would say that while millions or

even billions of people live in desperate poverty, and while millions

of Americans lose their jobs because we don't have this kind of

technology -- you tell people that such technology is impossible,

when it isn't.

Is everyone who disagrees with you and other leading theorists a

crackpot, Dr. Kaku? Was Nikola Tesla a crackpot? I would

strongly suggest that he wasn't at all a crackpot but was one of the

greatest inventors in the history of the world -- and I believe you

have also said as much. So why then would you dismiss Tesla's

ideas about free energy?

I must say that I have seen many smirks in association with

production of free energy -- Smirks -- while millions of Americans

lose their jobs and the United States falls into a terrible economic

decline. Smirks. Is that appropriate, sir? I would say not.

But the matter does not end with the above TPU units. There is also

the work of Thomas Henry Moray who was able to produce an

estimated 50 kilowatts of power from a tabletop unit that my analysis

indicates involved employment of negative mass electrons which Dr.

Moray apparently captured in very special circuits he built -- many,

many decades ago.

Here is a link to what I have written about Dr. Moray's work. There

are many more links on the Internet: Please do take the time to

investigate. A world desperate for energy waits.

http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/Energy/index.htm

Robert W. Koontz, Ph.D.Experimental Nuclear Physicist

The URL of my web site is given below.

There is a link on the main page to my bio:

http://www.DoctorKoontz.com/

No, there's nothing between the plates.

The plates are PUSHED together from the outside.

According to Einstein's model of gravity, (which he said isn't a force) The

Casimir effect would generate infinite curvature of space which requires

infinite mass at which point the entire universe instantly falls in the well and

is destroyed... Fail!

Casimir Force doesn't destroy the universe, nor does it generate infinite

mass or ANY curvature of space, nor is there dark matter in between the

plates pulling them together.

It's not that you generate a massless particle which then bends space

which generates massive particles... Lol

You spin massive particles with uniquely imprinted waveforms to generate

helical magnetic flux lines. And in rotation the "electrons" converge and

condense. Creating the PHYSICAL MANIFESTATION OF THE

MATHEMATICAL EQUIVALENT to "dark matter".

Only way to generate those flux lines I know of is through rotating uniquely

imprinted waveforms. In Searl's system, that generates cooper pairs.

(bosons) There is no Higgs Boson... Because a massless particle can't

make a hill out of space first of all. Misconception. It's an accumulation of

negative energy.

The tip to the Higgs Field Diagram shows a Compounded Spherical and

Rounded Cone. Like how they think a black hole forms a well with a

closed tip.

But theres a major difference between a very tight conical frustum and a

closed cone. ABSOLUTE FAILURE!!!! Why call it a black hole and then

give a diagram for a closed well as if bending the meniscus of water?

the Iris of a camera. Is there a ball of invisible dark matter at the center of

an iris getting more compact? Thats how absurd the model is.

Thats like saying the Pupil of your eye is compacted dark matter that

generates the iris and sclera and holds the rest of your eye together

FAIL!

Time to circumcise the sombrero homes.

An open frustum cone is not a closed well. Sort of defeats the entire notion

of a singularity/ infinite densities/ dark matter/ curved space/ empty

space, etc. Should look more like a bundt cake mold.

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk

Observation where stars where seen behind the Sun. So they

ASSUMED space must have curved to allow to see behind the Sun.

But the same observation is explained by coronal discharge, Plasma

Cosmology and actual things you can duplicate in a lab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGZ1GU_HDwY

To me it looks like the math works either way if you turn the diagram

upside down. (Or look at it in the inverse)

How do you know that the so called fabric of space isnt really being bent

by massless particles into a hill from the other side of the meniscus?

The model for positive matter again shows Earth in a closed well.

And they say the well is generated by the mass of the Earth

But they just said a hill is generated by a massless particle

2 sides of the same meniscus...

Why isnt the Mass of the Earth generated by Massless particles by pulling

the fabric of space from the other side then?

Massless particles bend space now.. so why not state that all matter is just

the result of massless particles combining on the other side of the

meniscus of nonexistent curved space?

See how laughable this is?!

If 1 side of space sinks, then the other side must raise by my simple mind.

Sorta the whole idea behind looking at a parabolic dish from both sides. 1

side is convex, the other side is concave. 2 sides same bowl.

If you state 1 thing you have to account for the scenario in the inverse.

Cant just have a well on 1 side of a meniscus without making a hill on the

other side by default. Is there only 1 side to a coin now too CERN?! Only 1

side to the bundt cake mold? Only 1 side to a sombrero?

If you make a divot on 1 side of a coin. Then whats on the other side of

the coin? A HILL

If you have a divot on 1 side of a bundt cake mold whats on the other

side? A HILL

So, by Einsteins logic, there should be 2 worlds. 1 on either side of his

non-existent meniscus of the fabric of space.

AS matter makes a divot on this side, then simultaneously a massless

particle would be making a hill from the other side. Ok by that logic,

which one generates the other?

Neither.. Why? Because the entire model is bullshit.

This is such a joke! Massless particles pulling the fabric of space into a hill

collecting matter NOT ONLY IN THE TROUGH OF THE SOMBRERO

BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MENISCUS

Absolutely Ridiculous.

CERN is trying to smash together 2 incoherent fermions in hopes of

coupling them together to make a coherent boson. (which they dont even

label in their erroneous diagram.)

O_o

Are they insane!?! (They must be since they're repeating their actions

expecting different results. It's like a pathetic gambler who needs just 1

more loan. They have the formula to win this year right? What a joke.)

Analogy:

That's like pointing 2 flashlights with white bulbs at each other in hopes

that it will someone isolate a particular bandwidth and make a laser beam.

So they spend more and more money on brighter white bulbs. Expecting

that by intensifying current failures with a more expensive set up will

somehow reap their results. O_o

If the square peg isn't fitting through the round hole.... you don't continue to

push harder. You try something else... (I learned that all by myself when I

was less than a year old!)

In order to even generate their higgs field, you need to have something in

an orbit first. Then it generates the frustum out of magnetic field lines which

then tighten like an iris. Might be so tight that you THINK its a closed

convex or concave shell, but theres a HOLE.

Not that theres a stationary massless ball particle that magically pulls

space to a hill to make a sombrero (while simultaneously mass is pushing

a well on the other side to fill the hat).

And then 1 ball particle of mass is generated in the trough of the sombrero.

Even in their diagram they show TWO divots but only 1 stationary ball

Which means that 1 ball would need to orbit on the Z axis around the Y

Axis while maintaining the same plane on the X axis at ( , -2). But always

staying 5 points away from the fulcrum/ shaft of the Y axis according to this

graph to make a circular orbit on 1 plane.

Cant have a stationary single ball make 2 divots in 2 points of space at the

same time. Nonsense!

At least grow a pair and have 2 balls for your 2D diagram cross section.

Whats the cross section of a torus look like?

dynamic orbit motion of at least 1 ball (cylinder) orbiting around the cone

(frustum) of the circumcised sombrero. (that means you need fermions/

electrons to spin around in a ring at high frequencies)

Funny CERNs own facility is an open Ring yet they cant recognize a

cross section of their own model. and conclude a closed well.

Must be all that dark matter in the center of the 17 mile facility. Or their

skulls for that matter. Lol

Here's a small list of costs for CERN..... JUST FOR THE YEAR 2008....

$21.5 Million for Extra Computing demands

$146.5 Million for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Operations

$79.2 Million for the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator

$158 Million for Tevatron Operations at Fermilab for Collider and other

neutrino physics programs

$62 Million for US CERN Scientists

Single year 2008 Expenditure TOTAL from the US Dept of Energy in its

ongoing investment in CERN & related activity = $467 Million Dollars

Numbers drawn from page 69 of CERNs 2008 budget form.

months full time work and a team of less than a dozen personnel.

If my taxes go to pay for Cern's crap... is there a way I can opt out please?

Just put that money toward Professor John Searl instead please.

Occam's Razor... It'll cut the cost.

That 1 diagram is from page 115 from just ONE of Searl's books. Here's a

picture of 25 of his books. The other 60 or so were on the shelves. Couldn't

fit them on the table... or the others in boxes...

Watch some leading University or CERN itself publish a new diagram soon

showing a "dynamic higgs field" with a swirling grid up the cone instead of

a "static higgs field" like in their current diagrams and understanding.

They'll probably try to attribute it to rotational frame-dragging and/or

LenseThirring Effect or a rotating Kerr "hill".

http://albert51.tripod.com/bhole.htm.

They would have to claim it's the result of a spinning massless particle.

Which is so laughable it's pathetic. At least call it negative mass.... or more

specifically, a rotation of an accumulation of "electrons". Condensed from

converging at the conical and tangential flux lines up the FRUSTUM.

(See why Im so frustrated!)

If they make a new sombrero model with a twist and claim credit, just look

back on this note and diagram and push to get Searl the support he needs.

Invest a fraction of the funding into Professor John Searl so we can

actually have a unit to Display these effects. Not just get a new diagram

with a twist and a claim they discovered it to justify their last billion dollar

budget.

LOTS more to discuss and share and show in context. Lots.

did it for me finally.

Same mass equivalent can be present in the form of negative energy

(gravitational mass), but will manifest in the form of a ring. Not a dense ball

like positive mass. (Inertial mass)

http://www.dirac-was-right.com/negative-energy.php

Things to think about that will screw up your day.

Positive Mass with a Positive Charge (Proton)/ Positive Inertia

Positive Mass with a Negative Charge (Anti-Proton)/ Negative Inertia

Positive Mass with a Neutral Charge (Neutron)

Negative Mass with a Positive Charge (Positron)/ Positive Gravity

Negative Mass with a Negative Charge (Electron)/ Negative Gravity

Negative Mass with a Neutral Charge (Photon)

Positive Mass compact to spheres. Negative Mass condense into a torus.

"Electrons" Have a negative charge. But are they really positive mass?

You can change the sign of mass, but it won't change the charge.

http://phys.org/news/2015-01-magic-quantum-revealed-coldatoms.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412084525.htm

transitory to a negative mass with a positive charge.

Thought of something with the orbital electron theory to explain it in

terms of this comparison photo.

Mass equivalence from multiple spheres to 1 torus.

If there are 2 alleged electrons orbiting in the inner shell, to me, that

means the negative mass equivalent of 2 electron balls but in the

form of 1 ring. So the mass of 2 ball electrons is there, but equally

distributed in a torus instead of 2 spheres. The torus becomes twice

as energy dense.

If there are 8 electrons in a shell... that means the negative mass

equivalent of 8 ball electrons is evenly distributed in a ring. More

energy dense, but still 1 ring.

1 ring per "shell".

As for the double slit experiment. That would be a 90 degree version

of what you see in the Walter Russell image.

Russell's image is showing an aerial view. Parallel to the meniscus of

water compared to the double slit experiment which is perpendicular

to the meniscus.

But if you were to see it head on, it would look like ripples in a pond.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo

That's why it's so confusing for people.

Because they ASSUME they are shooting ball particles, when really

they are sending expanding rings which look like waves from head

on. Because electrons have mass (negative). But mainstream says

all mass is positive. So they assume a ball particle and see a wave,

then make up a fantasy about how the ball becomes a wave as soon

as you look.

So you're not shooting 1 electron from a gun in the form of a ball.

You're shooting an electron at a specific energy density at which will

form ripples regardless. But the amplitude of the ripple will change

depending on how energy dense.

In the Poincare Conjecture, it's ASSUMED the ring shrinks down to a

"point." NOPE

A ring cannot become a point.

But at the Planck scale... when it WOULD become a point... you get a

"gravitational collapse" because the energy is converging at the

center of an iris. Has no where to go, then MUST do something else.

(phase transition)

Negative mass CANNOT form a sphere or point.

So it collapses like a cavitation bubble to form another ring.

But like how an "electron" jumps to a higher or lower energy state and

"jumps electron shells".

What happens is that the large ring become a more energy dense

smaller ring. Folds in on itself after reaching a critical compression

(condensation)

Or the inverse is a smaller ring expands to become a less energy

dense larger ring.

"electron orbitals" as concentric circles of varying thickness. (almost

like layers of saturns rings)

More electrons per shell = a thicker more energy dense torus per

concentric ring. Instead of using multiple balls per shell on an

imaginary ring of equal thickness per shell... you have to use the

same mass equivalent but distributed in actual torus.

I think this helps explain the 1/2 spin BS in quantum theory.

You can't have a solid ball with 1/2 spin.

Doesn't work. a ball can spin 1 way OR the other.

But a torus can fold in on itself like a smoke ring. On 1 side of the

torus will be folding in CW "1/2 of the spin" and the other side will be

folding in CCW. The other half?

A ball cannot have spin. Absurd.

There are six shells for neodymium. Six concentric rings of varying

energy density. 2, 8, 18, 22, 8, 2

Not that there is actually 2 balls orbiting the nucleus in the inner shell,

8 balls orbiting in the second shell, 18 balls orbiting in the third shell,

22 balls orbiting in the fourth Shell, 8 balls orbiting in the fifth Shell, 2

balls orbiting in the valence sixth shell.

To me, it's more like the inner shell has the negative energy density

equivalent to two ball electrons but evenly distributed in one ring.

The 2nd shell has a negative energy density equivalent to eight ball

electrons but evenly distributed in 1 ring.

The 3rd shell has a negative energy density equivalent to 18 ball

electrons but evenly distributed in one ring.

The 4th shell has a negative energy density equivalent to 22 ball

electrons that are evenly distributed in one ring.

The 5th shell has a negative energy density equivalent to 8 ball

electrons that are evenly distributed in one ring.

The 6th shell has a negative energy density equivalent to 2 ball

electrons that are evenly distributed in one ring.

Not that ball electrons randomly pop into existence where ever you

happen to look. Ridiculous fantasy. Lol

Still have to show Dan Winter's donut with the colored spiral.

Which is actually representative of what mainstream would call

"frame dragging". Which is a lag in a rotating magnetic field.

Which causes an inverse centripetal spin of negative mass UP and

AROUND the outside of a frustum cone that forms in the center of the

donut like an iris. (Not down the inside of a cone like ball particles in a

water vortex)

Then the energy converges and condenses around the ever

decreasing radii of the iris field which then collapses like a cavitation

bubble through the donut to form a toroid shape itself again. But

because of the tangential field lines converging, the collapse

manifests as a swirling donut. (dynamic)

Like a "Kerr Black Hole" (which is NOT a well resulting from a positive

mass sphere) More like the iris of a camera.

You cannot shrink a sphere of positive mass to make a ring.

Nor can you cannot form a sphere out of a negative mass ring.

They are 2 different shapes and states.

Einstein called that the equivalence principle which is why he thought

gravity and inertia were the same.

That's like saying a sphere and a ring are the same. FAIL!

Relativity is for linear moving Spheres and positive mass.

Absolutivity is for non-linear spinning Rings and negative mass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space

Pink Line on the square grid in the upper left corner represents E Field.

Red Line in that grid Represents B field.

You can transpose a Square grid into a torus where we see the correct

orientation of electric to magnetic. The 3rd Vector is rotation.

The Pink Line and Red Line are 90 degrees to each other. Just as

magnetic and electric forces act on each other.

How to get them to interact?

What is half of 90 degrees? 45 degrees.

So you take the 45 degree angle of the square grid and when you

transpose it onto a torus, you get a swirl or wave if you trace the path.

Which means a dynamic motion of both electric and magnetic forces.

Moving in the SAME direction, which accelerates the system.

The numbers correlate with weights/ densities needed to make the unit.

Cannot deviate from certain numbers or the unit won't function. Like how a

tuning fork won't hit a desired pitch unless it's precise.

behaves the opposite of positive mass. (spheres)

The negative mass (electrons/ ring) move in epicycles in the SAME

direction as the positive mass (orbiting rollers) in the SEG.

The coherent grid in green shows randomness converted to order. Like the

incoherence of energy all around us in ambient energy form.

But in this system, it's in a controlled imbalanced state. Which means the

energy is conserved, represented by the 34 at a constant. Regardless

which way you add the numbers, always the same. Regardless which way

you move the energy, it's always one. Always a Bose-Einstein condensate.

As opposed to the other state which is resistive and subject to Fermi-Dirac.

The waveform as imprinted on the rollers and stator interact to form

another wave which acts as a gear and impels the rollers around the

stator. As a cascading energy conversion takes place.

Making random into order. Dropping the temperature and generating an

electric current as an open system.

Apparently, random electricity is heat and inertia while organized electricity

is cold and gravity.

Understanding the SEG - Reality of Costs/ "Blueprints" - Mock Up vs

Prototype - Coherence vs Chaos - History of John Searl - Current Status of

Project & Context:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/217826903/Understanding-John-Searl-s-SEG

FAQs:

http://searlsolution.com/contact2.html

Searl Playlist:

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL648B9EAD08EF537F

Searl Sites:

http://www.SearlMagnetics.com/

http://www.SearlSolution.com/members/technology5.html

http://www.SwallowCommand.com/index-4.html

http://www.SearlAerospace.com/

3rd Party sites:

http://www.SearlEffect.com/free/allaccess/allaccess.html

http://www.JohnSearlStory.com/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/134608782/John-Searl-and-the-SEGPresentation

Professor John Searl Album (Facebook):

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.409237198301.184888.68358

3301&type=3

Professor John Searl Photobucket Album:

http://s108.photobucket.com/user/Therealverbz/library/John%20Searl

There are many people trying to COPY Professor John Searls work.

If PhD holding professionals are spending millions of dollars to investigate

Searls claims. With success achieving anomalous results Then

theres obviously justification for funding THE ACTUAL INVENTOR

HIMSELF WHO IS STILL ALIVE AND LIVING IN SAN DIEGO, CA.

So many people would love to talk to Nikola Tesla or would get him full

funding if he were alive today. Well John Searl is here and NOW. And

others are spending lots of time, money and effort to reap just a fraction of

what the Searl Effect Generator is capable of.

http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/paul-murads-searl-effectgenerator.html

Murad Technical Data (which cost about $500,000):

http://www.americanantigravity.com/files/documents/Paul-Murad-SEGReplication.pdf

http://www.rexresearch.com/roschin/roschin.htm

Picture of Russian Prototype:

"Russian physicist/ scientist Sergei Godin & Vladimier Roschin have

observed that when the rotor turned clockwise it's weight reduced, and

when spun the other way it gained weight. Such effects can only be

obtained when a device affects the gravitation and inertia of the body.

Experiments continue."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1_xtwsr3Go

Dr. Tom Valone Speaks on Electrogravitics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unMr8l1j2Do

Welton Meyers Account:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Welton_Myers#Searl_Effect_Gener

ator

Arthur Manelas' Magnets:

"The first technology that Arthur demonstrated on my visit was a magnet

that had been poled in a specific way. When you observed the magnetic

field rather than the usual long sweeping waves between north and south,

this had small micro domains. It looked like for a lack of a better

explanation Egyptian hieroglyphics." -- Mark Dansie

http://revolution-green.com/memory-arthur-manelas

Dr. Paul Brown Attempted Magnetization 1986:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/127455220/SEG-Experiment-by-Dr-PaulBrown-1986

SEG Background:

http://www.rexresearch.com/searl4/searl4.htm

Design:

http://www.rexresearch.com/searl/searl.htm

Ultra Efficient LED (for context)

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/09/230-percent-efficient-leds

Podkletnov:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0108005

Dr. Podkletnov describes his force beam generator experiment and his

improvements to increase the experimental gravity-beam. The force beam

is generated by passing a high-voltage discharge from a Marx-generator

through a YBCO emitter suspended in a magnetic field. He described it as

being powerful enough to knock over objects in the lab as well as capable

to punch holes in solid materials. After careful testing, Podkletnov found

the speed of the impulse to be approx. 64 times the speed of light (64c),

which he indicates doesn't conflict with interpretations of Relativity.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html

"Podkletnov claims the gravitational beam is generated by a 3 to 5

megavolt drop onto a 4-inch diameter superconductor, which is enclosed in

a wrapped-solenoid to create a magnetic field around the apparatus."

http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-ongravity-shielding.html

"The beam doesn't disappear rapidly with distance -- in fact, its been

measured at distances of up to 5 kilometers and seems to penetrate all

materials without a decrease in force."

http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-onantigravity.html

"Someone in the laboratory was smoking and the smoke rose in a column

above the superconducting disc. We placed a ball-shaped magnet above

the disc. We found that any object above the disc lost some weight, and

we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect increased."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2157975.stm

http://wri27.com/mp3/gravity.mp3

Gravity as 2nd Order Function

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505194

Dr. Eugene Podkletnov Interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgyAFElQZcU

Where else can we find these little Higgs Field shapes in nature?

to a man-made nanostructure on a revolutionary solar panel

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/06/new-nanocone-solarpanels-will-revolutionize-the-energy-industry-2242003.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Scientists+Solve+Greatest+Superconductor

+Puzzle+Yet/article12800.htm

materials composed of two-dimensional sheets of copper and oxygen

separated by more complicated layers of atoms. When cuprates are

cooled below a certain temperature, electrons in the copper-oxygen

sheets suddenly overcome their mutual repulsion and pair up. With

their powers combined, they behave like a different type of particle

altogether, a boson, which has the unique ability to join with other

bosons into a coherent swarm that moves as one. This bosonic

swarm perfectly conducts electricity. A current flowing through a loop

of cuprate wire will persist forever or as long as the liquid-nitrogen

fridge stays on.'

http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140430-decoding-thesecrets-of-superconductivity

Again, look at all that expensive equipment needed for this kind of

research. If that particular team working on researching

they would be able to explore what they are currently exploring?

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v7/58

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-electrons-cuprate-superconductorsdefy-convention.html

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-science-stumped-einstein.html#jCp

A Counterintuitive Phenomenon:

http://phys.org/news/2014-06-counterintuitive-phenomenoncoexistence-superconductivity-dissipation.html

- Secrets of Magnets and Hidden Sciences - Jason VerbelliUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell - Optic Dynamo GeneratorUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 12 - Lessons 45,46,47,48Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- John Searl and the SEG PresentationUploaded byJason Verbelli
- The Geometry of ImplosionUploaded byJason Verbelli
- SEG Experiment by Dr Paul Brown - 1986Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Free Energy Flyer for the Public - With Working LinksUploaded byJason Verbelli
- John Searl Anti Gravity the Dream Made RealityUploaded byJason Verbelli
- New Light on Space and Time by Dewey B LarsonUploaded byJason Verbelli
- SEG Mock Up Verses SEG Prototype - Stages of R&DUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Nature s Harmonic Unity - Samuel ColmanUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Nothing but Motion by Dewey B LarsonUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Five Fold Symmetry by Istvan HargittaiUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Water StructurizersUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Goethe Theory of ColorsUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Charles Steinmetz Theory and Calculation of Alternating Current PhenomenonUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 5 - Lessons 17,18,19,20Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Aquapol Cosmic Dehydration by Wilhelm MohornUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Charles Steinmetz Theory and Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena and OscillationsUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 6 - Lessons 21,22,23,24Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 8 - Lessons 29,30,31,32Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 11 - Lessons 41,42,43,44Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Beyond Newton by Dewey B LarsonUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Quasars and Pulsars by Dewey B LarsonUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Magnetic Presentation PDFUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 3 - Lessons 9,10,11,12Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Viktor Schauberger Living Energies With Callum CoatsUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell's Home Study Course - Unit 10 - Lessons 37,38,39,40Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell Genero - Radiative Concept or The Cyclic Theory of Continuous MotionUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses - Charles Proteus SteinmetzUploaded byNick

- Charles Steinmetz Theory and Calculation of Alternating Current PhenomenonUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Magnet Related Info and Links (2/10/19)Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Halton Arp -Seeing Red.pdfUploaded byordo
- Introduction to the Extinction Shift Principle: A Pure Classical Replacement for Relativity by Dr. Edward DowdyeUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Charles Steinmetz General Lectures on Electrical EngineersUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Gravity is a Push by Walter C Wright JrUploaded byJason Verbelli
- M.J.disney - The Case Against CosmologyUploaded byvlv
- M.J.disney - The Case Against CosmologyUploaded byvlv
- SEG Mock Up Verses SEG Prototype - Stages of R&DUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Nature s Harmonic Unity - Samuel ColmanUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Dr. Bob Beck ProtocolUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Magnetic Presentation PDFUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Five Fold Symmetry by Istvan HargittaiUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Water StructurizersUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Take Back Your PowerUploaded byanon-517522
- Charles Steinmetz Theory and Calculation of Transient Electric Phenomena and OscillationsUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Charles Steinmetz Radiation Light and IlluminationUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Notes on Walter and Lao Russell (Anonymous)Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Walter Russell the Message of the Divine Iliad Vol 2Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- SEG Experiment by Dr Paul Brown - 1986Uploaded byJason Verbelli
- Charles Proteus Steinmetz Theoretical Elements of Electrical EngineeringUploaded byJason Verbelli
- SEG Mock Up Verses SEG Prototype - Stages of R&DUploaded byJason Verbelli
- MYT Engine - Raphial MorgadoUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Atomic Suicide - Walter and Lao RussellUploaded byJason Verbelli
- Electric Discharges, Waves and Impulses - Charles Proteus SteinmetzUploaded byNick
- Goethe Theory of ColorsUploaded byJason Verbelli

- Information document about entirely novel energy technologies and other fundamentally new developments in science and technology & Funding call for an independent research facilityUploaded byFrank Lichtenberg
- BCS Theory of SuperconductivityUploaded byHarsh Purwar
- acm_matsc_150308Uploaded bysayhigaurav07
- B.E.mech. Syllabi(1 8)Uploaded byRaajeshkrishna
- nphys3187.pdfUploaded byHữu Trần
- exam2_solUploaded byjavad76
- The Ising Model of a FerromagnetUploaded byJirawit Ratanapreechachai
- iitkanpur syllabus.pdfUploaded bySahil Chadha
- Marine-r2008-Sem II to ViiiUploaded byRickson Viahul Rayan C
- Pinch Effect in ConductorsUploaded byabhiknit
- 83.6khzUploaded byAnonymous o7bhrwXtWG
- Eugene Podkletnov Physica C (1992)Uploaded byNullpunktsenergie
- SMESUploaded bySyamasree Raha
- 317vas - 2nd Thoughts Regarding STLUploaded byapi-3734703
- 2nd Sem CSE R2013 Syllabus - Cse TubeUploaded byCSETUBE
- SYLLABUS.pdfUploaded byVishnu Prasadh
- 25th_IPhO_1994Uploaded bySohamDixit
- Ginzburg LandauUploaded byIvan Ion
- DTU EP syllabus.pdfUploaded byParth Chopra
- Super Conductivity notesUploaded byvasudevan m.v
- super qnqUploaded bykdtkop
- Development of High Temperature Superconducting Transformers.pdfUploaded byBen McConnell
- zener - the eee association newsletter [march 2011]Uploaded byrishav556
- SyllabusUploaded byvaneetjain
- Solid State TheoryUploaded bySourav Sen Choudhury
- gökçenUploaded byGökçen Aslan Aydemir
- Yuan Localized and Itinerant Dichotomy of Electrons in Co Doped BaFe2As2Uploaded byManojKumar
- SQUID Gal Aviv PaperUploaded byvirgus6413
- JNTU Syllabus Books for EEE(R07 Regulation)Uploaded byDoanh Le Cong
- Cryo ReportUploaded byManas Rane