The Quonset Hut

As Hut Master pointed out, we need to understand these things in order to decifer (sp) TTB work...start at the beginning of his ideals of it...As with Gravity, it won't be easy as it appears at 1st. I believe anyone could come up with a definition of energy. But, not so quick.... I don't want this thread to interphere with what we are already talking about but want to put this up also...we are already discusing Gravity....So..

ENERGY

from winipedia....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

Any form of energy can be transformed into another form, but the total energy always remains the same. This principle, the conservation of energy, was first postulated in the early 19th century, and applies to any isolated system. According to Noether's theorem, the conservation of energy is a consequence of the fact that the laws of physics do not change over time.[2]

Okay where do we want to start, as you all know more about TTB than I ..will someone give me a starting point..after reading just that whole article about energy ...we can go just about anywhere..

Suggestions or coments yet..

I thought what the Hut Master had in mind was starting with Dr. Brown's basis of E-M-G instead of a classical science class. But that is as far as my interpretation of the Big Blue Guy's thinking goes. Although it is an excellent idea not to bring in anything from science unless we can incorporate it into something more aligned with the context that gravity is on a triangle with electricity and magnetism therefore we need to begin with the premise that somehow they are all related.

Now classic science describes effects that it attributes to gravity, and we all had an electrical shock from the static charges that build up walking across a carpeted floor and grasping the brass doorknob!

So I feel that a starting point for all of us is EMG and pick on or another to begin exploring them and observing if and how they may effect the other pair

FM,

are you saying leave energy alone for a bit and concentrate on gravity below?? I don't have a problem with either (not aether) hehehe.

Just a Q.

Karen

Let me clarifie..are you saying just start with one or are you saying, someone should take the tourch and run here also?

Karen,
All I am saying is that we have an opportunity to incorporate what Dr. Brown offers into this science class and see if we can succeed in producing a paradigm changing model that unifies gravity with electricity and magnetism. That is something that classical science has not done, but instead of starting with the complexities, start with the basics, of those three forces/energies.

I noticed over on THC they are saying "gravity is NOT energy" yet nobody has offered up what gravity is. They all refer to papers that others have written, but the premise of each is circular logic, that is they reinforce each other but do not stand on their own merits. I feel we can accomplish that goal!

FM,

I'm up for it, do tell me more that Big Blue Genie doesn't say much and he won't put up spell check ugggg..LOL

Karen

FM: What kind of definition would you accept for 'what gravity is' that is not the same as 'what gravity does'? What does 'is' mean to you? Something different from 'implies a measurement of X'?

We already have two (supposedly) very accurate mathematical descriptions of what gravity *does*. Newton in the low-gravity limit and General Relativity in the high. Do you disagree with the predictions of either of these theories, with their underlying philosophical world-models, or something else?

We also have 50 years worth of serious, intelligent attempts at unifying gravity with the bizarro quantum world, all of which so far have failed. Which should tell us that it either is a very hard problem, or we have something very wrong in our data.

How would you like to start? a) falsify either Newton or General Relativity, b) falsify some part of Quantum Mechanics, or c) assume both are correct as far as they have been measured and attempt to generate a new theory which includes all of the predictions of Newton, GR and QM, plus some new results elsewhere?

(c) is the approach taken by String Theory and other modern highly complex unification attempts. They're complex because they have to be, because GR and QM don't share a lot of maths, so you have to shoehorn all of QM and all and GR in and then go from there. It's hard to debate these theories without having the math because they *are* the math.

(a) is what Townsend Brown suggests to me... that GR (and maybe even Newton) breaks down at room temperature and Earth gravity energies, which is unheard of in science. I don't know where to go from there however. I don't know where the math might be wrong, or where the data might be hiding anomalies. Though I suggest taking a look at the http://gravityresearchfoundation.org/ files for some anomalies.

But whatever route we take, we have to account for the existing data and math somehow, or we're not describing reality. Which might be a fun philosophical exercise, but not necessarily science.

natecull wrote:We already have two (supposedly) very accurate mathematical descriptions of what gravity *does*. Newton in the low-gravity limit and General Relativity in the high. Do you disagree with the predictions of either of these theories, with their underlying philosophical world-models, or something else?

First, I do disagree that gravity is an effect of the curvature of spacetime. That does nothing to determine the E-M-G triad that Dr. Brown described and that we have been looking at for years and "trying" to fit within the classical sciences.

Second, I have read some of Einstein's Unified Field Theory of Electromagnetism and Gravity, and it seems valid, however it also seems that it was retracted due to the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments that failed to provide evidence of ether (aether) drift.

Third, and for me the most important point is that gravity as a constant of G is measurable as a variable depending on when and where the measurements are taken. Wasn't that a lifelong data collection process of TTB? And "the set" as a "gravitic communications device" must then operate on principles that uses gravity as an energetic medium through which information can travel.

So I do not agree with the classical model of gravity at all, and will continue to look at gravity as energy and intimately related to E and M.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

As I have said many times on these forums, I am not looking to poke Einstein or Newton in the eye about gravity or the mathematical models that have allowed engineering of devices based on them. No, what I saying is that while all of the calculations can provide practical utility value, it still lacks an explanation of anomalous or phenomenal results in experimentation and those "hiccups" as Mr. Peetee calls them. What I am saying is that as good as the math and science is, it falls short of the goal of unification of forces. And since those over at the History Channel are saying that garvity is not energy, it would appear that even Einstein must yield to the "facts" presented thus far by those distinguished skeptics at THC.

On the other hand, I feel that Einstein did not retract his UFT because it was wrong, but because he felt that humanity was unable to have such incredible power and act responsibly with it. And so we return to where we once began on another forum thread called "Hidden, But Why?" and the answer seems consistent with those posted previously. Kind of like that line used by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men" when asked to tell the truth...

Because "You can't handle the truth!"

And that is where we are now. Can we now handle the "truth" or must we still exercise patience and restraint, and hope the rest of humanity catches up in time?

I was under the impression that at some point Einstein, stopped certain projects and ideal because of well some of the reasons stated above and also some more complicated than I care to type..exspecially since I could be entirerly wrong.

Karen

Not siding with anyone just putting up what I thought.

Karen,
Most will say that Einstein changed his mind due to the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment's results. But if that were the case, then when Dayton Miller performed the very same interferometer experiments using a arger instrument and perched on Mt. Wilson in a controlled environment, I would have thought Einstein would have danced his EMG Unified Field Theory right back out into the collective physics theories kitty.

What I propose is that unlike all the giants that came before, we start with just one giant that is the reason for this forum and Linda's book. It is about a science which has long been suppressed, but which may be needed now to save us and the other species of the planet.

Nate,
Let's start with, "Gravity is the force that..." and go from there. Let's begin with Dr. Brown's triangle with E-M-G as each side. How can we prove a relationship among them? We do have at our disposal many examples of EM being used but where can we find EG or MG? I know there are papers written and experiments being done to show relationships, but I do not know of any that is shaking physics off its foundations in QM, GR or SR. So for now at least there remains no serious challenge to the science that works to explain well that which can be engineered.

We read about a radio that Dr. Brown carried called The Set. It is rumored that it was an electrogravitic radio, and I am taking a leap and thinking that it was a receiver only. I am open to the possibility that it could have been more, but I think that it would have added considerable weight to the unit and considering the engineering at the time, it would have been a boom box in size to have any appreciable transmission power. But then maybe EG communications does not require kilo Watts of RF power to communicate over distances. Perhaps the very nature of gravity itself makes it instantaneous over any distance! And perhaps that is why our searching for signals using RF or EM is not producing results?

Now how do we build an experiment that can demonstrate a relationship among electricity, gravity and magnetism? Keep in mind that we are not going to rely on any previous "laws" of physics to evaluate our results. Besides, I don't know of any that will put gravity on the same field (pun intended) with electricity and magnetism. Relativity deals with gravity as being the result of mass's effect on something called "spacetime" which was Einsteinian for not being capable of separating the two to have gravity function properly in special relativity. Newton on the other hand treats gravity as an attractive force between two bodies of mass with the larger mass exhibiting the stronger attraction and hence the smaller being pulled toward the larger. And this is proved by observation from a particular frame of reference. But what if our frame of reference was the 2nd moon of Jupiter? Would what we observe of gravity be the same in that frame of reference? How about on our own moon?

Something that has bothered me since I first learned of the strong and weak forces and the forces of E/M, was why gravity was not included among them. As I learned more about the aether as a physical manifestation of the structure of the "fine media" or of space itself, I began to see an entirely different picture of the construction of the Universe. I am more inclined to see what Mr K The Hobbit sees, but I have to close my eyes to visualize what he sees through eyes wide open.

If Linda has no objections, I would like to see what we discuss to be about her father's physics, which I do find to be aligned with Tesla and the Dr. Aspden that I reference so often. It would be great if Dr. Aspden would get a nod while he still breathes the air on this plane. But I am not "working" on his campaign, my energy is focused here.

Okay,

Here's is what I think, I don't know enough about all above theory's to say what is right or wrong (can anyone).. I feel the need to know certain things about conventional science ... but mostly I want the discussion to head toward what T.T.B. thought..

For that's what this bazzar science class is about, to explain to a lay person and expore reason for why..

Not to say that I don't enjoy Pee Tee's instructions, downstairs I do.. I would like to know more about each..

Karen

BTW---not ready for all the theory's we will have to go slow here...

And to answer the q. where to start.. Pick the easy one (if there is such a thing ) and lets compare what TTB thought as to these theories, but since I'm still learning all this this is the best answer I can come up with at this time, but I will give it a lot of thought.