What exactly is gravity?

walt willis

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,329
Sorry to see you don't like fact based physics. Maybe you are the one not keeping up with the pack. I'll never make an assumption. I don't believe theories even have a place in science.

Science: Does a spinning mass really lose weight?
The obvious question may be: What is weight?
Back in 1965 Corso's brother-in-law shared above top secret information about anti gravity experiments being conducted at Los Alamos labs.
He explained how it was built to reduce weight around 89% as is spun a mercury inside a super conductor at around 50,000 to 60,000 RPM.
It also affected inertia and time by the same degree.
If we knew this back in 1965 just think what we now have today?

On another note: A neighbor friend shared other information after I told him my story.
His high school friend said while he and his son were jogging outside of a secret Naval base on the big island Hawaii they stopped to witness two navy men using a wave ray weapon to make a small animal vanish into thin air.
Truth may be stranger than fiction?
I also was given super secret information back in 1975 about the same type of device being built at Edge-wood arsenal.
Got that from a famous retired Navy professor I studied under.

Gravity? Who gives a shit about gravity?
I would spend more time and concern thinking about what a third world war would be like!
 

NaturalPhilosopher

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
1,176
The obvious question may be: What is weight?
Back in 1965 Corso's brother-in-law shared above top secret information about anti gravity experiments being conducted at Los Alamos labs.
He explained how it was built to reduce weight around 89% as is spun a mercury inside a super conductor at around 50,000 to 60,000 RPM.
It also affected inertia and time by the same degree.
If we knew this back in 1965 just think what we now have today?

On another note: A neighbor friend shared other information after I told him my story.
His high school friend said while he and his son were jogging outside of a secret Naval base on the big island Hawaii they stopped to witness two navy men using a wave ray weapon to make a small animal vanish into thin air.
Truth may be stranger than fiction?
I also was given super secret information back in 1975 about the same type of device being built at Edge-wood arsenal.
Got that from a famous retired Navy professor I studied under.

Gravity? Who gives a shit about gravity?
I would spend more time and concern thinking about what a third world war would be like!
very cool walt.
yeah all kinds of stories like that
even my dad said his father was shown a handheld laser rifle in the 50's that blew up cinderblocks.
they didn't plug it in. Lasers were only invented in the 60s.

yeah exactly...if you follow all the breadcrumb clues you can easily reproduce all this tech
antigravity is produced by any orgone charged object that also spins.
was my discovery and replication ^
only certain materials can store orgone energy like a battery so it can build up to useful antigravity levels.
mercury is one of them.
so is certain aluminum alloys
 

NaturalPhilosopher

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
1,176
I mean civilians have also claimed to accomplish antigrav with mercury as well:

1)spartak m. polikov mercury vortex setup
2)otis carr(tesla's bellboy) X1 flying saucer with mercury filled gyroscopes
3)marconi's mercury vortex drive
4)tesla turbine designed originally to pump mercury(not air or water)for his undisclosed flying craft
5)edgar fouche TR3-B used high pressure mercury vapor plasma rotated by EM fields.
6)ancient hindu vimanas, used mercury boilers that rotated the vapor above it

so what is it about mercury?
when these systems of just rotating mercury were done on youtube, no weight anomalies detected.
what's missing?

alchemists said there's another form of metallic mercury called philosophical mercury.
appeared the same but had some form of energy

otis carr built the X1 flying saucer disc. His technician Ralph Ring flew in it.
carr claimed if you rotated it the same axial and rotational direction as the earth it would get heavier.
if rotated the same axial direction but opposite rotational direction it would produce antigravity.
 

walt willis

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,329
very cool walt.
yeah all kinds of stories like that
even my dad said his father was shown a handheld laser rifle in the 50's that blew up cinderblocks.
they didn't plug it in. Lasers were only invented in the 60s.
Cool, we were blessed to have been give those secrets. I had to promise three time I would never share the secrets with anyone.
And here I am as I waited until they all died before talking.
The government can't kill a dead person?
I did feel bad not telling what I know with some family members and friends before they died.
I.m angry that the air force officer lied to me when he said back in 1959 that our government would soon tell the American people about the aliens I saw and asked me to remain silent until that time.

The good news may be we now have the internet and cell phones with good cameras that could be a game changer?9669
 

NaturalPhilosopher

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2017
Messages
1,176
Cool, we were blessed to have been give those secrets. I had to promise three time I would never share the secrets with anyone.
And here I am as I waited until they all died before talking.
The government can't kill a dead person?
I did feel bad not telling what I know with some family members and friends before they died.
I.m angry that the air force officer lied to me when he said back in 1959 that our government would soon tell the American people about the aliens I saw and asked me to remain silent until that time.

The good news may be we now have the internet and cell phones with good cameras that could be a game changer?View attachment 9669
well I'm glad you're here waltwillis
I listen to everything you say

so what's your opinion about how to produce gravity/antigravity?

it is pretty wild that the predicted scifi future in the 30's came true in the 50's. just secretly.
 

Einstein

Temporal Engineer
Joined
Dec 24, 2004
Messages
3,660
welp, like I've said before I don't share the best stuff
that's strictly mine, sorry.

most people here are pretty nasty.
so I learned to protect myself
maturity takes time

I recommend you treat people with more respect from the get-go.
never know who knows what.
this is a gentlemanly pursuit. not a competition.

as someone that has accomplished a lot of the tech, this stuff requires super high virtues.
it's really dangerous.
I apologize if I've offended you. It was not my intent. I do like the content you post. I might get a little heated over the mainstream perpetration of pure bullshit. But please don't feel it is directed at you. It is not.
 

walt willis

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Messages
1,329
well I'm glad you're here waltwillis
I listen to everything you say

so what's your opinion about how to produce gravity/antigravity?

it is pretty wild that the predicted scifi future in the 30's came true in the 50's. just secretly.
I only know what I was told back in 1965.
I did ask the same question after my teacher shared those super secrets with me.
I also did ask where he got the information.
He said it came from a family member that he stayed with one summer that was working at the Los Alamos labs.
He was tasked with designing the new science lab at a new high school being built.
I later learned the name of the person around three years ago to be Col. Phil Corso, his brother-in-law.
At the time I was given those secrets I had a very hard time believing what I was told.
The time travel info was way off the hook for me to believe.
I regret not telling him about my face to face meeting with three grays as a 8 year old on the farm.
Also the time I reported seeing saucers and the visit the next day from two air force people and a "Man in Black" when I was 13 years old.
Corso's son is still alive and gave an interview in 2018:
 

Harte

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2005
Messages
3,732
Thing is, the earth is moving around itself, it is moving around the sun and the sun/solar system may also be moving in the galaxy and the galaxy also may be moving so when you add all that movement it may well add up to light speed.
Those velocities aren't additive unless you stipulate what reference they're moving with respect to.
There is no still point to use as a reference. Velocity and acceleration are entirely relative. Thus, "Relativity."

Depending on where the observer is, the Earth (by their measurment) might well be approaching the speed of light. You'd have to be observing us from what to us appears as the edge of the visible universe though. But were we to observe the observer - looking back at them from Earth, it would be them that is moving almost as fast as light.

You know, once the speed of light is reached there is no "observing."

Also consider the higher dimensions. It may also be that matter which is made up of charges, that the charges themselves are moving at light speeds within the matter. I admit it may also be inaccurate on my part in some way, but the experimentation in some way works out.
One can always say "maybe higher dimensions are involved." But in the case of gravity, Relativity explains everything we can observe about it (and still predicts some things we can't observe yet) without resorting to higher dimensions. If you want those, you have to look at unified field theories like M-Theory or String Theory.
The higher dimensions are for resolving the differences between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Harte
 

HikuTechy

Junior Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2020
Messages
26
Those velocities aren't additive unless you stipulate what reference they're moving with respect to.
There is no still point to use as a reference. Velocity and acceleration are entirely relative. Thus, "Relativity."

Depending on where the observer is, the Earth (by their measurment) might well be approaching the speed of light. You'd have to be observing us from what to us appears as the edge of the visible universe though. But were we to observe the observer - looking back at them from Earth, it would be them that is moving almost as fast as light.
The fact remains that the bodies are in motion in space and that motions can add up.
If the universe is the reference, then the further one zooms in, the faster things go,
relative to the universe. But like you say this also depends on the point of view in a way.
Sometimes things aren't as simple as saying "only this is right" The earth is still flat for lots of people, that's their perspective. And sometimes the ground may indeed be flat.

You know, once the speed of light is reached there is no "observing."
That depends on perspective and relativeness too then, if you're in a spaceship which is going at the speed of light then you'll be able to see the ship and what's in it, but not much beyond it. (This is the way I see it)

One can always say "maybe higher dimensions are involved." But in the case of gravity, Relativity explains everything we can observe about it (and still predicts some things we can't observe yet) without resorting to higher dimensions. If you want those, you have to look at unified field theories like M-Theory or String Theory.
The higher dimensions are for resolving the differences between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Harte
My perspective is a bit different, which may have caused some discrepancies. It depends also in what way the dimensions are defined. This is what the dimensions are like to me;

There may well be things in those theories which I haven't considered. My perspectives may change in time. I tend to follow the data and go with what makes sense to me.

By the way, what do you all think of this;
from the;
 

Top