SAFIRE

[Open Mind]

Released Sept 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dIreR9h4Ts

The weak point in Wal's dipole gravity is that it relies on gravity to make the dipole which makes the gravity.
Wal's explanation that it all happens at the birth of the universe or the star or something isnt convincing.

Maybe. I can't begin to criticize his approach on that because I don't know enough. But its encouraging to see someone using the EU frame of reference to begin the process of 'spit balling' and brainstorming on the subject of gravity. At least there's a legitimate hope of progress in that direction.

Are you presuming he's saying that the nucleus position in the atom is biased towards earth because of gravity, and that's what creates that electrical dynamic?

[Open Mind]

First occurrence of a double layer in a gravity theory found

Gravitational double layers turn out to be feasible in quadratic theories of gravity. New physics arises.

https://cqgplus.com/2014/03/14/first-oc ... ory-found/

Would he atmosphere of our planet be considered a gravitational double layer? Hmmm.

Its an interesting idea to me, as a total novice. A self organizing layer that has the particular properties to allow that necessary layer of corralled air over the surface of the earth that allows for life on the surface. I guess you have to be open to the anode source at the center of the earth where that double layer emits from. Which maybe means the actual earths crust is another sublayer of the double layers coming off that core anode. Which could mean the earth is hollow. And maybe those double layers slowly expand, which makes the earth expand, being fed with more material off the anode interaction with the currents from the sun. yada yada. Probably a zillion leaps in there. But if its an actual theory that Wal is a proponent of, I'm taking the liberty of extrapolating possible implications.

Like if that system works in a cycle that starts with expansion of the force and therefore the size of those double layers, its reasonable to assume that transmutation of materials on the underside of the crust inside a hollow earth can aid in filling in the cracks of an expanding earth, but when you think about it, its a system that can't really contract the same way. So what you get over the hypothetical life time of an anode system that creates a crust at one of the double layers, is an expansion of that crust, but then when the anode system is on its declining phase and shrinking, those double layers may shrink, but he crust has nowhere to go, so it just freezes as an outer shell like perhaps the moon. In which case, there may be an anode system inside the moon, but its shrunk so much so beneath its crust that the moons crust no longer has any molton layers and acts as an egg shell, with that anode and double layers shrunk down inside it, or possibly completely gone.

In other words, maybe its actually possible for us to drill down through the moons crust, completely unhampered by a layer of magma, to breach the inside of a hollow moon. It does ring like a bell, which corroborates the idea. Now that would be very cool.

[crawler]

Released Sept 3.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dIreR9h4Ts

The weak point in Wal's dipole gravity is that it relies on gravity to make the dipole which makes the gravity.
Wal's explanation that it all happens at the birth of the universe or the star or something isnt convincing.

Maybe. I can't begin to criticize his approach on that because I don't know enough. But its encouraging to see someone using the EU frame of reference to begin the process of 'spit balling' and brainstorming on the subject of gravity. At least there's a legitimate hope of progress in that direction.

Are you presuming he's saying that the nucleus position in the atom is biased towards earth because of gravity, and that's what creates that electrical dynamic?

In previous youtube footage Wal does (wrongly) lapse into invoking electric atomic dipoles rather than his subtronic subatomic dipoles for his gravity. Electric forces propagate at c (too slow for gravity), Wal's subtronic forces are nearly instantaneous (much better). Wal back then said......

Hi Gareth (is it?). It's a pity you didn't pose these questions directly to me earlier. I acknowledge that I didn't make it clear in my EU 2015 presentation how the gravitational polarisation is established initially. It only got an oblique mention at the very end when I said stars AND PLANETS are formed initially by powerful long-range electromagnetic Marklund Convection in molecular clouds. Only after that birth process does gravity assert itself between the stars and planets.
As Alfvén said, "gravitational systems are the ashes of former electromagnetic systems."

The electrogravity model has nothing to do with electrostatics. Electrostatic forces in space are shielded by plasma sheaths or double layers. Electrogravity is fundamentally an electric dipole model in neutral matter. The use of + and - symbols does not represent bulk charge separation.

All celestial bodies have the same pole facing radially outward, which means cosmologically that gravity is a repulsive force, something that Newton also considered. We are held in orbit by all the matter in the rest of the universe pushing us toward the Sun.
Repulsive gravity was a puzzle facing Halton Arp, based on his detailed observational research into quasars. It is a requirement to explain the balanced, steady state of the real non-expanding universe.

My electrogravity model applied to the solar system requires the mathematics of Weber's electrodynamics, since celestial bodies can be treated as like-charged particles of differing masses.

I plan to address this issue with an expert on the subject to see if we can explain stable many-body orbits. Regards.

[Brigit]

by crawler » Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:49 pm

Released Sept 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dIreR9h4Ts

The weak point in Wal's dipole gravity is that it relies on gravity to make the dipole which makes the gravity.
Wal's explanation that it all happens at the birth of the universe or the star or something isnt convincing.

I am glad crawler brought that up.

Electric dipole gravity is a model which views planets and comets as electrets.

Does "dipole gravity...rely on gravity to make the dipole which makes the gravity"?

In electric gravity, the orbiting particles making up an atom are very slightly offset -- visualized in diagrams as an ellipse with a focus now, instead of a circle with a center. In a very massive body like the sun, this slight offset of each positive nucleus towards the center of the star can be thought of as being maintained by gravity, true -- with the important distinction that the orientation of positive charges towards the center prevents the collapse of the sun under its own weight. Likewise, in the case of our planet, the surface tends to maintain more of a negative charge due to a continued charge separation, and an electron drift toward the surface. However, although globally there is charge and charge separation, the force of gravity itself is manifesting at the subatomic level, so it is still an attraction between neutral matter and the earth and is extremely weak. And gravity in this model is variable, under different (global) electric stresses.

"Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems"
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-conte ... lanets.jpg

But the original arrangement of the atoms in celestial bodies is imparted at their formation in an intense electric Z-pinch. Electrets used in microphones and arrays are formed when materials are heated and then rapidly cooled in an electric field. These are often spheres which maintain their charge for a long time afterward.

The electrical formation of stars, planets, and moons shares similar conditions with the industrial process. As electric charge flows through a Birkeland current in space, it scavenges matter along the current axis. As the current intensifies, the surrounding em field constricts into a high temperature z-pinch -- and a star or brown dwarf is born from the compressed dust and gases. The material is struck in intense heat and electric fields. Essential confirmation of this has been found in space where star formation is occurring along dusty filaments.

more on electrets
https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... ?f=4&t=156

[Brigit]

I like this video with Ray Gallucci --

Ray Gallucci: Electric Gravity – A Mathematical Analysis | Space News
dur 16:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCxw3PEes4M

I like it a lot. It gives an idea of just how small of an offset in the electron orbit (1%) he could use to calculate the dipole gravitational field.


Part of me is amused by the elliptical offset of an atom being responsible for gravity. It brings back shades of Kepler figuring out that the planetary orbits worked out if they are ellipses, with the sun at one focus. No one else could overcome their training in Aristotle's perfect circles and spheres in the heavens.

Kepler's Laws
"Kepler based his laws on planetary data collected by the Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe, to whom he was an assistant. The proposals broke with a centuries-old belief based on the Ptolemaic system advanced by the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy, in the 2d century AD, and the Copernican system, put forward by the Polish astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus, in the 16th century, that the planets moved in circular orbits. According to Kepler's first law, the planets orbit the sun in elliptical paths, with the sun in one focus of the ellipse. The second law states that the areas described in a planetary orbit by the straight line joining the center of the planet and the center of the sun are equal for equal time intervals; that is, the closer a planet comes to the sun, the more rapidly it moves." F&W 1996

So I guess the electron's path is longer on one side of its orbit. And that is a dipole; but the proton is only off by a ~10,000th (for the sake of argument). So this is a very very tiny subatomic offset.

[moses]

"Ray Gallucci: Electric Gravity – A Mathematical Analysis | Space News
dur 16:53
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCxw3PEes4M

I like it a lot...." Brigit

Wow, just push the maths to calculate the actual force caused by the dipole. Very do-able.
Cheers,
Mo

[JP Michael]

I'm warming to Ivanov's explanation (which is similar to Ken Wheeler's) - an Aether pressure differential which results in gradual standing wave motion in the direction of the lower pressure gradient. It is a kind of waveform interference.

Ivanov's Gravitation
Ivanov's Gravitational 'Spider'
Ivanov's Antigravity
Additional Comments on Antigravity

Fuller description with equations in Ivanov's Rhythmodynamics, pp. 108-114.

One will immediately recognise that Earth's gravity 'spider' (the bow shock front + magnetosphere + magnetotail), points 'head down' towards the sun, exactly as expected (and confirmed by every other orbiting body ever). [Img]

The planet orbits at this specific range seemingly because it has found an optimal null zone whereby the gravitic pressure towards the sun is equal to the pressure emanating from the sun, forming an equilibrium and regular orbital distance.

[Brigit]

by moses » Fri Sep 11, 2020 7:57 pm
Wow, just push the maths to calculate the actual force caused by the dipole. Very do-able.
Cheers,
Mo

Cheers Mo, very do-able -- for the analyst in nuclear engineering and probabilistic safety assessment! (:

It was do-able with some severe simplifications using an average, with a Hydrogen atom. But H doesn't care much about earth's gravity at all. --Although, there is "hot hydrogen" found way out in the upper atmosphere. But that is not gravity at work in my view; that is evidence of elemental sorting in plasma, similar to the way that the plasma in SAFIRE organized itself into concentric shells.

Electric gravity is the ease with which the nucleus of an atom can be offset, and H doesn't do much of that. But if you find a nice ore of Uranium or Gold, these larger bunches of protons (U238 and Au 79) do "deform" in the earth's em/gravitational field, toward the center of the earth. They radially align with the other matter, with the positive slightly toward earth and the electron orbit slightly changed to an ellipse. So they feel heavier in your hand than other rocks. All of this despite the fact that the H, U or Au atoms themselves are almost entirely made of space.

[jacmac]

JP Michael:

The planet orbits at this specific range seemingly because it has found an optimal null zone whereby the gravitic pressure towards the sun is equal to the pressure emanating from the sun, forming an equilibrium and regular orbital distance.

With an orbit eccentricity of .0167 the earth orbit is almost a circle.
How might this hypothesis work for bodies with elliptical orbits ?

[JP Michael]

How might this hypothesis work for bodies with elliptical orbits ?

The elliptical body does not have equilibrium in its gravitational/aetheric pressure gradient. As it passes its ideal null zone at perihelion, the gravitational pressure gradient from the sun becomes repulsive, pushing the body away towards the null point. At aphelion, the body's aetheric pressure exceeds that of the sun (gravitational wavelengths are longer closer to the sun), so it will make its return journey towards the null point. This explains acceleration at perihelion and deceleration at aphelion as well.

If the elliptical body found its orbital resonance equilibrium, it becomes an asteroid (small body stable orbit) or planet (larger body) or moon (resonance equilibrium in relation to a planet).

LaFreniere deals with this pretty well:
Wave Dynamics
Gravity

[Mjolnir]

Most of the news regarding SAFIRE/Aureon seems to appear on the LENR forum pages.
There has been a few posts the last few months:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/search-resul ... ght=safire

A recently released interview with Monty is here:

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

Regards,

Mjolnir

[GaryN]

A recently released interview with Monty

Exciting stuff, makes me think that others, the Russians in particular, must be working on similar experiments now.