I’m grafting across some of the stuff from another post. But its rewritten to emphasize a different point then the one I was emphasizing in the earlier post. So I’m lazy and repetitive? So be it. A good sermon on the mount can do with a retelling (Wareham). Readers may have noticed that I’m very supportive of the Christian religion. I consider right-of-centre Christians to be my natural allies. Yes they were a bit painful at undergraduate level. But we all have to grow up and figure out who our friends are. My support of Christianity is not just because of the recent incitement of the followers of the prophet. But also because of this quite unexpected advent of us being awash in stupid atheists at the moment. I’m an atheist myself and this cultural development I find quite shocking. So my fellow atheists will just have to put up with some Christian imagery I have embedded in this explanation. Christians are often good people. Christians over 40, seem to have on average, more commonsense and a superior habit of reason, then atheists over 40, in 2010, as a general rule. Don’t ask me why this seems to be the case. I’m just as dumbfounded by recent cultural developments as anyone.
I was trying to make the case that where energy is not gravitational potential
energy, then its probably a form of compression. Later I may try to make the
case that even gravitational potential energy is also compression of a sort.
But the main point I will be trying to make here is that one methodology of
investigation ought be for us to try and eliminate action at a distance. Where
action at a distance appears to be happening, we must assume that we are not at
any sort of ultimate level of smallness. If conceptually we find that
eliminating action at a distance requires us to go to ever smaller levels of
micronisation IN THEORY we may have to suck it up. Where I’ve cut out words from
the original I’ll just leave a few dots:
Supposing there are two teak wood planks in space forming a cross. Where they
are held together, it is with strong glue. Much of the basic building blocks of
reality entire in this visage alone. We ought to be able to construct a model of
the universe, without action at a distance, where static forces WITHOUT REACH,
are the building blocks of it.
Taking the lead from the majestic and leggy Philomena I have decided to try and show
how most of reality can be conceputalised from as little as two opposing forces.
In her words love and strife (Philomena being extremely feminine).
Perhaps she was smuggling through the Chinese concepts yin and yang via a Greek Trojan Horse.
We will see how we go with push and pull. (hat tip to Bill Gaede).
But first we must look at latent versions of these two.
……Suppose we show up in space and several of us aided in our movements by
all sorts of micro-rocketry. We attempt to pry the two planks of teak apart, and
sometimes to push them together, in the hope that they may snap. But always
without adding any movement to the situation. We are unsuccessful in our
FORCES WITH NO “REACH” AND MUCH OF THEM LATENT.
But there is a difference here between latent push and pull, where on the one
hand we have this adhesion that isn’t being put to the test. And on the other
hand the wood exhibits a force at its surface, as if it wants to maintain its
form. But neither the push force nor the pull force, once brought into action
TRAVEL. The push and pull forces have no reach. I would say that this is the
case with virtually all forces in the universe in the first instance. That all
or virtually all forces are merely static forces without reach. And that where
we see otherwise it is because we haven’t reached any ultimate level of small.
Where pull is concerned I follow Gaeda and his orthogonal ropes. Ropes of ying
and yang wrapping around eachother like on a clothes line. Largely if not wholly
porous to anything passing through them laterally. They may be akin to Birkeland
currents traveling through space in their characterisitc wrap-around way. Yet we
would likely pass through these currents seamlessly if we were travelling in a
lateral direction to them in our spaceship.
Students of basic mechanics may tell us that all pull is really push in
disguise. And that whenever we lassoo someone and pull her towards us the rope
is really pushing her from behind. We may break this down another way on another
day. Into push-adhesion and compression. But for now push and pull will do. And
I’m saying that when there is the force of pull at a distance this implies
orthogonal ropes. For the most part forces don’t “travel”. They don’t work at a
distance. For them to work at anything much of a distance would imply occult
Now just to lay a bit of shorthand on this. Here are a few items I want you to
Under my system (Gaeda and or Adams are not to be held responsible.)
1. Acceleration due to PUSH is proof of prior compression.
2. Energy and matter are not normally convertible one to the other. In fact there is no
such separate entity as energy. There may be some partial conversion in special cases.
And this is because both energy and matter have this element of compression to them.
3. The creation of new matter over time is obviously less miraculous and easier
to justify then the creation of all matter instantaneously. Only an idiot would
4. The creation of matter over time ought not, even at this humble stage, be
thought to be more than 1% miraculous. Since 99% of what is going on is the
setting up of countervailing push and pull arrangements, many of them latent,
and many of them involving static-compression.
Almost all of the behaviours we have for seemingly solid material or liquid or
gaseous material for that matter, can be explained by myriad arrangements of
interlocking push and pull setups. Adhesion, repulsion (of a sort that does not
“reach) either totally latent, or involving compression …. well this is
basically all thats needed to manifest everything that we see and know of.
5. We can imagine that in the middle of moons, planets and stars we have the
following characterisitcs. High pressure. Extreme heat. Powerful electrical
currents. Which also implies monstrous forces of magnetism. I ask you? What else
is needed than the above to set up the myriad countervailing, interlocked,
overlayed forces of push and pull that we take to be matter?
6. Note that looking at the mainstream paradigm, the most efficient energy
conversion that we know of, or at least that I know of, comes from the air
compressor, wherein you haven’t had enough time to lose the thermal energy in
the compressed air, and then you convert it back to work. You can get
efficiencies of above 90% using this system.
7. I would say that ALL instances of what the mainstream consider to be
POTENTIAL ENERGY involve countervailing forces. And the only serious useful
energy storage implies compression of one sort or another.
8. Just think for a minute about the foolishness or at least strangeness of the
photonic view of light. Somehow we let loose a photon. And what does this photon
do? It starts acting like young Forrest Gump. Running flat out in a straight
line at high speed. Or perhaps in waves. They cannot make up their mind. “Where
are you going Forrest?” Where are you going little photon? Are you angry? Are
Its really all very silly when you think about it.
Consider the proposition that things tend to maximum disorder. Entropy. Tepid
soup. This CANNOT be the whole story.
In fact this proposition must be dismissed. Perhaps it is the case for normal
matter. Who knows. But even if so the universe is made mostly out of plasma’s.
It is manifest that things do not tend towards maximum disorder. The proposition
has to be limited in some way or dumped. Its doesn’t pass the empirical test.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics DO NOT HOLD in all cases.
This is an empirical fact.
Consider the idea that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Again. Empirical
evidence refutes this. The matter is here. End of story.
Consider the proposition that energy can neither be created or destroyed except
by way of transmutation between energy and matter. You’d be surprised how little
evidence there is for any of this. There is no need to set the proof bar so low
on account of the cult of personality. This proposition deserves the folded arms
Most of this jive has to go.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> End of blog graft and rewrite…
Hypotheses don’t prove themselves. But if there is no action at a distance then
the main thrust of Bills explanation of light and gravity is pretty much proven
already. This doesn’t mean we don’t get to squabble over the details. I simply
cannot suss it out that the ropes are the most basic of building blocks, or that
they lack some level of proton-to-proton stretch-capacity. How could that work?
I’m calling these assumptions out as impossible.
Do we really need to find ultimate answers? Do we need to go to the very
lowest level of smalls? I think Bills system can lead to immense practical and
technical advantages. Gravity-mitigation being but one small application. I
think this is important. Because I take the view, that while we are probably
headed for a collapse, and for a horrible downsizing of our global population,
if we can bring human reason back into physics, that will at least be helpful in
Gravity-Mitigation Ought To Be Technically Easy, And Is Probably Happening.
Gravity, in my view is caused by Gaede-Ropes. My version of this setup is that these ropes have some proton-to-proton strech capacity to them. They also must always be snapping and reforming. It may be that when they snap, the material goes into a new proton or electron or something. It may be when they reform they unravel one or other of these. I’m only mentioning this speculation to avoid people worrying excessively about this part of the story involving new matter creation.
Now that we know this. Or assume this with some confidence, the prospect of gravity mitigation becomes obvious. All you would need is to be able to create a situation where some special, near frictionless liquid, was moving at an incredibly fast speed in a circular motion. This would cut you off from the force of gravity by breaking the Gaede-Ropes faster then they could reform. There are probably other ways to mitigate gravity. But this is the most obvious one following directly from my version of Bill Gaede’s explanation of light and gravity.
Now here is a fellow explaining his anti-gravity system on youtube. I think he is onto something. But he explanation is way convoluted because of his acceptance of modern physics. Which is really just a silly, anti-empirical religion. Sociologically and historically derived and not derived via reason.
But despite this fellow’s over-complicated reasoning, I’d have to say his craft would almost definitely work. For this reason, and for the fact that this setup would be pretty easy to make, I’m going to have assume that someone has already made this sort of thing, and that the project has been taken black. I’m not just making this up apriori. There are many rumours and some pretty good evidence for the conclusion that this is a black project. However I want to point out that these rumours ought to be considered pretty credible. In my view this most simple of gravity-mitigation devices (and there are probably many other kinds) ….. ought to work based on first principles, if your first principles come from Bill Gaede.