Gravity Test / Boyd Bushman

[junglelord]

I thought I would like to pursue a discussion and try to recreate a experiment based only on one statement by Boyd Bushman.

He claims to have dropped two equal weights and one landed last each time. He claims to have done this 9 times. The one that landed last was always the two large and powerful neodymium magnets bolted together N/N. He had both weights in two "rocks" so from the outside they both looked the same and I assume had the same effect with air resistance. I would like to recreate his basic experiment. I would also like to know why the magnets landed last. I believe he said he had them land about 6 feet in height/time apart. He said the altered field in the falling body reduced its mass/body equaivlent and cancled out gravity to a certain extent. Lockheed building 500, height 59 feet, 12:20 PM, 1995, Dec 12. Location West Solamen Texas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OEMbZEacaw
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 6626962537

Seems like a simple way to investigate Electrogravity as a model. The one drawback to recreate the experiment is the cost of the two neodymium he used. They were ten thousand dollars for two (five grand apiece). It would be important to use the exact same strenght, weight and dimension of magnets. Other then the cost of the two magnets we would want to use some high speed camaras, equal time release mechanism, and we should have a go. Seems elemental and important based on Boyd Bushmans claims about his experiment and also a way to begin investigations into some proof of electrogravity.

It was suggested by Dave Smith that we should ask Mythbusters to do the experiment. It would be a good way to see if he is honest or if its disinformation. It is expensive but I assume he chose the weight and strength of Magnets for a predetermined effect,not by happenstance. But with how small and how weak a magnet combination would one be able to reproduce a observable effect? If its true, what is happening and why? Is it the rotation combined with free fall and intersecting magnetic planes that causes the effect? Why would that reduce mass/body and alter gravity if his assumption is also correct? What do the two magnets weigh when bolted together at rest, compared to when they are two seperate magnets? Compared to the mathematical results when dropped? When and where does the effect produce results from which variables?

He says there are at least 7 significant forces, some we do not know yet. So a model is difficult to create if he is again correct about forces that have yet to be named.

This is his list or the list of the interviewer, I am not sure which but I have some questions as to its validity of the list based on work by Meyl and Thomson. Ie the Strong Force is the first one that is not needed in their respective models (no one has isolated a Gluon as far as I know), and why is Magnatism the fifth force? Is that common? It makes sense to me, but I am not used to seeing it included that way, but I like it.

About Gravitons, I am still waiting to see one isolated. He does claim that he believes Antigravity is a Force. If one looks at the Dipole Electro-Gravity Longitudinal Field models it is indeed a Push/Pull Force, hence the antigravity portion is actually one half of a two sided coin. Since we are supposed to live in a Holographic Duality Universe, that would make sense in that paradigm.

1 Strong Force (Atomic Binding/Gluons)
2 Electromagnetism (light/photon)
3 Weak Force (W/Z Boson)
4 Gravity (Gravitons)
5 Magnatism (Magnets)

Could the Aether, Scalar/Tempic Field be one of those missing Forces?

[Rick]

There is a certain amount of misinformation/disinformation in what Boyd said in the video clip. When he dropped the magnets through the copper tube. The magnet induces a current in the copper and that current creates a magnetic field that counters the fall of the magnet. He also let the interviewer's comment go by (a statement that aluminum doesn't conduct electricity). A similar effect (to the copper tube demo) will occur if you drop a sheet of aluminum between the poles of a horseshoe magnet. The sheet will fall slower than without the magnet.

I have to wonder if Boyd's magnet drop experiment may owe it's effect to the fact that the magnet was falling through the Earth's magnetic field. Of course that may still be the stuff of a propulsion device.

[junglelord]

Yes I believe it is Eddy Currents that cause the magnet to fall slower in the copper tube. I have done that one many times. But thats what I am looking for from the group. Lets tear it apart and explain it or disprove it. To be clear the only thing I am interested in is his experiment. We can leave the rest of his discussion at the door for this thread. That is quite sufficent and real world to start and end with that one statement and experiment. If it is correct, then yes why is it so and what does it tell us about Nature? What is she saying in that instance?

Certainly the Magnetic Field of Earth vs the idea of Electro-Gravity and how to seperate the two if they are both valid models from the results is a question to wrestle with. Certainly we know the Earth has a magnetic field and that would be valid. It would be interesting to know the two magnets would fall slower even if it was only intersection of the Earths Magnetic Field, I would find that interesting but understandable. I think we are clear on what a Magnetic Field is if most of us have read Howard Johnsons Secret World of Magnets.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34317/Spintro ... rd-Johnson

We also know that the Earth has Gravity, but what is gravity?
How do we formulate a conclusion based on a positive result with the different variables that must be delt with? Some of them possibly not understood or even recognized. Or is it disinformation?

If rotation is important to a positive result however we achieve it, either via Earths Magnetic Field and or Electro-Gravity, what would a increased frequency of rotation achieve as far as further reduced effects of mass and or antigravity? I have a sneaking hunch that rotating magnetic fields do more then we presently understand. Can anybody build this up or shoot this down?>


I have this from Wilbert Smith and Rotating Magnetic Fields and Weight.
http://www.treurniet.ca/Smith/RotorPics.htm

Certainly the Searl effect needs to be looked at
http://searleffect.com/
http://searleffect.com/free/articles/artextra.html

and the Hutchison Effect.
http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html

When being interviewed Boyd Bushman when questioned will admit to the public stuff that is correct because he can do that without getting into trouble, or so he claims. Is that disinformation or is that scientific validation to back up the Hutchison Effect with his own Skunkworks Lab facts?


Patents for such devices
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6933644-claims.html

How does this translate into a Birkeland Current model of two same poles very close together rotating? Can we make a relationship to that? If so what can we say about the similar models and similar effects on mass and or electro gravity? Or is that apples and oranges? After all one state of matter is solid the other plasma. Or do the rules apply across the different transitions of matter? Certainly Birkland Currents follow magnetic ropes and the poles. Is the Bushman experiment cutting or intersecting the planes as opposed to following the magnetic ropes so to speak?

[bboyer]

There is a certain amount of misinformation/disinformation in what Boyd said in the video clip. When he dropped the magnets through the copper tube. The magnet induces a current in the copper and that current creates a magnetic field that counters the fall of the magnet. He also let the interviewer's comment go by (a statement that aluminum doesn't conduct electricity). A similar effect (to the copper tube demo) will occur if you drop a sheet of aluminum between the poles of a horseshoe magnet. The sheet will fall slower than without the magnet.

I have to wonder if Boyd's magnet drop experiment may owe it's effect to the fact that the magnet was falling through the Earth's magnetic field. Of course that may still be the stuff of a propulsion device.

There's this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boyd_Bushman. Guess the source has to be considered, but the information is either valid or it is not. Sounds reasonable, but then I wouldn't really know one way or the other, tho' I suspect it's probably close to the truth.

[junglelord]

Well I was hoping for more feedback. It is a simple experiment albeit with expensive magnets. What does it mean if it is a valid test. We need to recreate his experiment to see if it is valid and then determine why.

Anyone care to jump in? Make a statement, hypothosis come to mind, anything to prove or disprove?

[Rick]

"Gravity"/"Gravitation". Often the distinction doesn't matter in a discussion but we ought to use the correct term so that when it does matter there is no confusion factor. "Gravity" is an acceleration, "gravitation" is the attractive force operating between material bodies. Even Boyd used "gravity".

[junglelord]

Good point, but does not gravity cause acceleration to be more percise? Or we not looking at both in this experiment?
Are we not looking at a change in rate of acceleration (free fall constant) as well as between the change in mutal attraction of the two bodies? (change in apperant mass)
Does this experiment change both parameters, or only one, and if so which one?
Thanks Rick. Now I am totally confused.


Naw just joking. I think if Boyd is correct about the mass reduction aspect, then mutal attraction would decrease. Now if he is talking about intersecting planes of magnetic force, then I would think that would effect acceleration via the rotation of the magnets in question when intersecting earths magnetic field which is still the third variable.


Certainly rotating magnetic fields are not fully understood, nor the properties that they effect concerning, mass, gravity, gravitation, etc. Concrete angular momentum, like in Wilbert Smiths work and Searle, also plays a role. Here Smith and Searle do see concrete angular momentum becoming involved with changes in constants. Now thats where we need you plasmatic. Help us out here. There is a disconnect in QM between subatomic spin which does not follow any concrete models....and yet concrete spin does affect gravity, mass, gravitation according to Smith, Searle, etc. What is the missing connection?

Mass, angualar momentum, sticks in the mud with the standard model. I think the work by the group who picked up on Smiths work would state with no doubt that angular momentum both Aether and Concrete is a powerful tool to those who can command it. I imagine that too be true. When one combines controlled concrete angular momentum to controlled sub atomic angualr momentum, one is truly in control of matter and energy I would think.

[Rick]

"gravity cause acceleration to be more percise": "Gravity" IS acceleration - a rate of change in velocity.

[junglelord]

Acceleration. Is that a thing or a unit of measurement? Is that not a unit of measurment? It is a constant according to the current model. Bushman says not under the right conditions. That would imply that he is effecting the gravitation field which would change the unit of measurement "acceleration", or supposed constant.

Correct me if thats wrong.

Since no one has isolated a graviton or a gravity wave, nothing is for sure. One must either stay neutral or take a path of exploration, so then in my mind it is a field force which agrees with the current model. As to what fields create gravitation effects is under scurency it would seem. Is it a primary field. Is it a superposition of two fields, as I suspect. Is it driven by particles (gravitons) or Fields (electrogravitic)?

[junglelord]

It is clear from my new approach and the valid objections of plasmatic and the valid questions involved with gravity that we need a seperate thread solely for "gyroscopic forces".
http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/v ... ?f=8&t=512

[junglelord]

I hope we can use this thread as a vehicle for "Gravity as a linear thread" (as I did not make one on gravity yet, and I have the other forces in question started as such), dispite the inital title we could build this one into that.


I thought since we should do that as the thread asks what do we not know about the fundamentals of gravity in essence, it would be appropriate to put the link from Thunderblogs on the Black Hole Paper by Stephen J. Crothers. After all we need to show proof that indeed Black Holes even from the initial concept were based on an inaccurate account of the Schwarzschild Radius Paper. Its also nice to see where we may have been steered wrong.
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -05-10.PDF
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblo ... mology.htm

[lizzie]

I have a sneaking hunch that rotating magnetic fields do more then we presently understand in both realms. I also suspect somewhere inside there is the symmetry to connect the concrete gyroscopic to the angular momentum sub atomic that at present seems to have a disconnect

Rotating Magnetic Fields
http://www.pxarchive.de/home//tech/rotate.html

About strange effects related to rotating magnetic systems
http://www.rexresearch.com/roschin/pitkanen.pdf

Levitating Magnetic Gyroscope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWGpTKqDtZM

Magnetic Gyroscope
http://www.americanantigravity.com/arti ... Page1.html

Magnetic Levitation
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/G ... ation.html

MAGNETIC INDUCTION GYROSCOPE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=get ... =AD0402691

The Falling Gyroscope Experiment
http://www.josephnewman.com/Falling_Gyr ... iment.html

Theory of the Gyroscopic Particle

[StefanR]

Coming back to the tubes for a moment. The eddy-currents were also on the APM site. On the main pagethere is linked to this:

http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/eddy.htm

The Eddy Current Demonstrator, prepared by The Magnet Source, and distributed by Edmund Scientific Co., makes the retarding effect of eddy currents very evident. The demonstrator consists of a piece of 14 mm copper tubing 332 mm long with plastic end caps, a magnet in the form of a cylinder, and an iron slug of the same appearance and weight. My magnet weighed 13.0 g, the slug 13.5 g.

A freely-falling body starting from rest will require 0.26 s to fall the length of the tube. If the iron slug is dropped from the top of the tube held vertically, it chatters around inside, so it takes longer and nothing is learned. It is best just to drop it beside the tube to see what 0.26 s looks like. When you drop the magnet through the tube, it takes much longer to come through, about 4 s, which is remarkable. Don't drop the magnet outside the tube -- it is fragile.

A magnet produces a pure magnetic field in its rest frame. Anything moving with respect to the magnet sees an electric field in addition to the magnetic field, that is roughly proportional to the relative velocity. An electron free to move, as in copper, will be set into motion by the electric field it sees. In the case of a length l metre of wire moving with speed v m/s in a magnetic field of B tesla, the electromotive force is e=Blv volt, so if the resistance of the wire is R ohm, the current is i=Blv/R ampere, if the circuit is closed. This current is called the eddy current, since it flows in closed loops in a conducting plate like eddying water.

In the eddy current demonstrator, we do not have a uniform magnetic field B, nor a definite length of wire l with resistance R. Indeed, what we have is a field problem. If we knew the magnetic field of the magnet as a function of position, and the resistivity of the copper, we could calculate the current density at every point in the wall of the tube. We do know, however, that this current, whatever it is, is proportional to the speed v.

When a wire in which a current i is flowing is moved at right angles to a magnetic field B, the force exerted on a length of wire l is F=Bli. Again, this is a field problem with the eddy current demonstrator, but knowing B and i as functions of position, we could again determine the total force F exerted on the currents in the wall of the tube, which must be equal and opposite to the force exerted on the magnet when we hold the tube still. We then find the equation F=mg=B2l2v/R. We do not know what B, l, and R to use in this equation, but we can reckon that doubling B will quadruple the force, but doubling the size of the apparatus will only double the force, since both l and R are proportional to size.

If the length of the tube is L, and t is the time of fall, then t=B2l2L/Rgm. The only parameter we can easily change in the demonstration is m, by dropping the magnet and slug together. There is a danger that adding the slug will change the magnetic field, but perhaps this will not change things greatly, only spreading the field out a little. On trying this, I find that the time of fall is halved, to 2 s rather than 4 s. This is consistent with the observation that the retarding effect of eddy currents is proportional to speed, an important result.

If the poles of the cylindrical magnet are at its ends (iron filings could show this, messily; a compass shows this to be the case, in fact), the magnetic field passes through the tube walls at top and bottom in opposite directions, producing eddy currents that are essentially rings about the tube, flowing in opposite directions at top and bottom, and moving with the falling magnet.

[StefanR]

Let me state for the moderator that I'm not posting this as an invitation for other posters to talk about Flying Thingies, but I only post this as it contains a collection of ideas of what may pertain to what junglelord asks about electrogravity.

http://www.astrosciences.info/NegativeGrav.htm

[junglelord]

It was Meyl that taught me to understand Eddy Currents vs Potential Currents.
Thanks StefanR for that.

This question and answer from Dave Thomson is interesting to quote here. It begins with a quote I sent him from Wilbert Smith

Wilbert Smith quote

"We know that gravity is not all Newton visualised. Far from being a basic force in nature, it is really a derived function, and is the consequence of a dynamic condition, not a static one. We know what goes into its makeup; we know its formula and we have a pretty good idea of how to go about bringing it under control. We have conducted experiments that show that it is possible to create artificial gravity (not Centrifugal force) and to alter the gravitational field of the Earth. This we have done. It is Fact. The next step is to learn the rules and do the engineering necessary to convert the principle into workable hardware." (26) That statement was made in 1959. The question is, what has been achieved since then?

It has been claimed by some that Smith turned away from orthodox scientific work to the more metaphysical aspects of what he termed 'the new science'. Such was not the case. He carried on his normal scientific work and at the same time delved into the science of metaphysics as a possible answer to the UFO mystery, which apparently produced some concrete results in the laboratory. In the realm of purely orthodox science, Smith was working on the development of an anti-gravity device and believed himself to be on the verge of an important breakthrough just prior to his death.

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/muf ... bsmith.htm
Now my question.

Is it not correct to say the same of APM. Gravity is not a primary function but rather a result of dynamic condition? Wilbert Smith is very clear that to construct Realtiy you must begin with Dimensions that build on each other. That any other method is not logical. You both share the same ideology as far as constructs. New and redefined Dimensions is a priority if one is to rebuild the Universe.

You do have the Vortex = Cube something I harp on and also the Golden Mean Ratio Implicite in the APM Theory. So far so good as I have known that these things are so the moment I saw them. You may have done a better job at fleshing out the details but the basic constructs were clear in my mind and I know your on the proper path as those constructs are found throughout what I have read so far. I am going back and start some notes and this will let us have a more fullfilling discussion about what is needed to help relate models by ideas vs by comparison of models. If you get my drift. I am not so sure the Standard Model makes Dimensions the number one priority, that would lead to a classical mess. If my take on gravity is still a basic correct statment, then it is not a primary force, it is a result of dynamic condition. yes or no?

The dynamic condition is of course the Angular Momentum. Gravity is a result of Angular Momentum which is a Dimension in APM, correct?
Junglelord

Hi Dean,

The gravity seen by the APM is the same gravity seen by Newton. All the fundamental forces are dynamic. This is because the Gforce is dynamic, and the Gforce acting upon dimensions (charge and mass) produces the fundamental forces in real time.

Angular momentum is a unit, it is composed of dimensions, but is not a dimension of itself. At the quantum and subquantum levels, angular momentum is a string of mass moving perpendicular to its length.

The Gforce acts upon the split singularity (which results in electrostatic and electromagnetic charge), to produce an Aether unit. Thus, the Aether unit is also dynamic. The Aether unit absorbs primary angular momentum (non-material dark matter), to produce a subatomic particle (onn). The subatomic particle, even if it doesn't move anywhere, is dynamic as long as it exists. There is no such thing as static physical existence.

The subatomic particle contains primary angular momentum. Primary angular momentum possesses mass. The Gforce acts upon the mass of the subatomic particles to produce the gravitational force. The string of mass (ligamen circulatus) is moving through the Aether unit and this movement creates electromagnetic charge. The Gforce acts upon the electromagnetic charge to produce the strong force. The Aether unit, in which the LC is moving, is the source of the electrostatic dipole. Whichever side of the Aether unit the subatomic particle is on, it takes that polarity of electrostatic charge for its own. The Gforce acts upon the electrostatic charge to produce the electrostatic force.

The forces that cause movement are in turn caused by the Gforce. The Gforce is the source of all dynamics in the Universe. Everything that moves is able to move because of the Gforce.

Dave