Let's Cut the Crap Episode #2: Mass Reduction v. Gravity Waves, What Truly IS Acceleration? & More
44:43 Share

All right, good morning, good afternoon or good evening, everyone. Welcome to episode two of cut the crap. Now I know some of you have thought that maybe this would be episode three because perhaps you thought that the first two episodes um the last two episodes prior to the recent release were probably episode one and two non necessarily um just that very uh interesting one that I recorded was cut the crap episode one with regards to the technological uh aspect of these um uh a of the devices in this field.

And so uh what I want to do today is I want to focus on um what we could call anti gravity. However, IT is significantly, in my opinion, a misera, but we're gona get right down to IT. I'm not going to give any type of example that implies something and then make a connection somewhere that is you folks still have to figure out um in this case, we're going to get right down to IT from the a materialistic a technological standpoint uh, with regards to bringing some, I guess you could say receipts, metaphorical or public papers that have been out there for quite a while and then will be elaborating on some of that with regards to uh, my interpretation of what were analyzing and looking at.

Um so let's begin without further to do so let me share my screen here and we're going to begin with looking at something called, uh, an article actually called inside einstein's mind. Gravity is acceleration. Now what's interesting about this is that this is from P B S.

Learning media dot org. And I honestly wouldn't have thought that I would ever be citing P P. S. In any facet or any capacity with regards to, uh, anything, let alone this field here, however, uh let's begin.

So IT starts with a video um but we see that uh the thought experiment uh was that Albert einstein used to conclude that gravity with that gravity and acceleration are the same phenomenon. And we see and I quote uh to work out a complex idea that would later feature his theory of general relativity, einstein Carry out Carried out an experiment in his mind. He visioned a man in a box.

Einstein realized that there was no way this man could tell whether he was sitting in a gravitational field or being accelerated because of this. These two situations were equal. By extension, einstein concluded that gravity and acceleration are the same thing. Now let me just start by saying for those interested more in the U, A P U, F, O aspect of things, there have been cases, particularly papers, that they were published in the one thousand seventies, although they've gone largely a notice dealing with the fact that there have been craft that have been a claim to have been witnessed by individuals in a forest, for example, upon that when people were hiking.

And the craft would, as the people would approach them and immediately zoom away as people know, uh, they'll see you all the craft look like IT did something that we couldn't even believe, because IT just looks so impossible relative to what we perceived and interpreted from that event. However, and i've discuss this with the members as well um on our patron, however, the plants in which the craft were close to assuming in this case that the craft was close to the ground, the plans, when examined scientifically, were found to have aged or d aged um in a in a form of what we would call syncs a significant amount of months or years within a very short period of time. So in other words, what we're implying here is that when a craft is close to say the ground in a forest and there are plans on that ground and the craft is their hovering um I won't mention the fact that many people have claimed to seek craft that have been slowly rotating when when craft they're usually a hovering or something of this nature um although that is a part of IT.

The main focus is that people scientists have witnessed and experimentally validated um through scientific method and scientific rigor, the aging of plant so a plant if it's a where to be two years old and a craft would come near IT and then a craft would zoom off to say the sky or something of that nature the plants in which were near the craft would have been found to have aged months, if not years, compared to what the plant's a state of being was just minutes before the craft had gotten close to those plants. So what we're seeing here is the notion of what's been called senescence, the idea that, for example, there's this rapid aging, or in some cases, d aging, reverse aging of the state of the plants in which the craft was close to and solve this makes us wonder, is there some type of framework in which the acceleration or deceleration, or both of, for example, electrons, play a significant role in the manipulation of gravitational fields? Now what's interesting about this, in particular, is that people will say, well, if you look at the fact that news says force equals mass times acceleration, is newton wrong per? This is worth interesting, because I will say that, in my opinion, newton was wrong about a handful of things, but he was actually banging on about other things.

And one of those things was, in fact, forced equals mass times acceleration. The idea that if you apply a force to an object in which the objects mass is proportional to the force being applied, you will begin to move that object. Now if we take that one step deeper, and we think about resonance, and we think about for a second, maybe mass itself because again, things like mass and weight are considered givers and science.

We don't truly know what mass is although maybe this may provide some somewhat of an insight um and you might be saying, dave, you're telling me that you're going to provide an insight to what masses even though you know publicly academia has yet to figure out what IT truly is and that's when I say this is truly up to yourselves to decide if you think i'm telling the truth or not. Ultimately, however, when we think of four seekers, mass times acceleration, let us think for a moment about a glass, right, a glass that you drink your water out of and imagine, uh, applying a an acoustic frequency or radio frequency, either or to the glass in which the frequency hitting the glass matches the mass and resonant state of the composition of the glass itself. What happens? The glass begins to shatter.

Now this is a very simple experiment, a very simple thing to comprehend, right? The shattering of the glass using sound when the frequency matches the frequency, that the glass is arguably, uh, resonating APP in its quantum state. Um however, IT IT dance on very few people to take that to the next level.

Now what do we mean by that? Well, we then have to wonder, do mass and inertia have any similarities? And we see here from a basic google search um according to A K lectures 点 com mass is the quantity or measure of a nursia in an object。 The more mass found in an object, the more inertia IT contains and therefore the greater its tendency to resist change.

Now what's interesting about all of this is that, and again, i'm going to what am about to say here is has a speculative based on the papers that you would read and what have you, which is that there has been speculation and uh, feriz ing that graviton themselves may in fact, or gravitation waves may in fact because in some cases by the a significant amount of rotation of a planet on an astros physical scale. Now the question becomes can emerge that with something that is more compactified and more not even quantum, but more uh microscopic relative to a experimental uh, observation in the laboratory. And so the question becomes, what does that say about a rotating mass? Now IT has been found by the rush by the soviet.

It's uh shortly prior to the fall of the soviet union um in their program that was called uh rino R I N O um that rotating masses acted as embers and receivers of gravitation radiation. Now just because of an object is being rotated, so to speak, doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to emit gravitations or gravitation waves. However, there may be a gravitation interaction that arises top logically from a certain set of conditions that are initially induced electromagnetics and acoustic.

And so you may say, dave, what are some examples of this? Well, let's take a look what i'm now going to do and share my screen to examine a paper um that was published in december uh, of one thousand nine hundred eighty nine in the physical review letter, which is titled a Normalize weight reduction on a gia scopes right rotations around the vertical access of the earth by hideo hia. Saka and sara taka U. G. I hopefully butcher that the way change of each of three spinning mechanical givers, scopes whose voters masses are one hundred and forty, one hundred and seventy five and one hundred and seventy six million grams, respectively, has been measured during a nerval rotations without systematic errors.

And I want to say before I go on for those interested in this paper, I be happy to uh provide a to you um because IT is a very interesting paper in the sense that they have the experimental this year truly ruled out all potential artifacts in which there still remained one anomaly, which was the wait reduction of this rotating a device or this rotating driver scope when spend um to the right, not to the left. And so this is work as interesting because you might say, well, that might be some type of magnetic uh interaction or or situation and there I say IT actually has to do with where you are on the planet with regards to the polls of the planet. Now without getting too far into that, will come back to that shortly.

We see here and I the right rotations, spin vector pointing downward, caused weight decreases of the order of milligrams proportional to the frequency of rotation at three thousand to thirteen thousand R P M rotations per minute. However, the left rotations do not cause any change in weight. That's interesting, right? And so what this paper then dives into is attempting to fact around or consider why the left rotations may not be inducing a change and weight, but the right rotations do.

And so the left rotation side is very interesting. As we see from the graph, there was not any Spike or increase in the uh, reduction of the givers scopes. Wait, however, the right rotation certainly changed things up a little bit.

Now again, you might say, does this have to do, uh, with magnetic coupling or so on and so forth? And what I will say here, we find, and I quote, however, the anonymous weight reductions for the right rotations are not due to make that a coupling. First of all, this is supported by the experiments with an upside down attitude for each drivers, scope as follows.

Now they continue on to explain that when they turn, their device subside down. And then repeat experiments, there is still no weight decrease of the givers scope during the left rotation, but there is during the right rotation still. So we can argue very strongly that by the changing of the direction of the overall set up of the device, and therefore the experiment itself, we can rule out any of those type of artifacts.

However, to be fair, the authors of this paper going to far more greater detail in which I want to cover here, simply because IT IT may seem like a short paper, so to speak but almost every other sentence you can dive into and take a raby hole down and so what we're trying to look at here is the overall concept of um anti gravity in general. Now this is work is interesting because you might say, dave, does this have anything to do with the byfield Brown effect, right? The Thomas townson Brown, uh, Thomas towson Brown, excuse me, uh, uh, effect.

Now with regards to electoral graphic dict, now at its core structure is there are inherently a connection, yes. However, with regards to the byfield Brown experiments, what we're dealing with there are pure potentials or voltage inductions in which create uh uh a physical displacement or thrust when applied to an assembly c capacity. Um we will look at a paper shortly that covers that.

However, this is slightly different. What we're looking at here is not a thrust. We are looking at the weight reduction of a spinning driver scope. And we will see here in particular that you can just spin a drive scope in specifically, there need to be a set of parameters in which occur with regards to elect roads being attached to IT um certain types of oscillations and so on and so forth. And of course, to verify this to its full of extent, you would want to have this done in a very a well done lab with other people, researchers there to peer review this and ensure that there is no artifact in which is causing the rotation, such as just a significant amount of vibration, which is which would be, you know, would cause a scale to fluctuate because of something vibrates IT IT changes IT changes the parameters of the the object in question IT IT went far past that with regards to what these experimenters were able to confirm.

Now you might say, dave, what happened to these experimenters, these researchers? what? You know why? Why didn't anything come of this? And I will admit fully that I would refer, I would differ back to the cut crap episode number one with regards to the reality of just trying to get the cell into the public amongst many other things, particularly in the one thousand nine and eighties, uh, IT would have been largely uh, going against the grain scientifically and a number of other things that I don't want to get into right now because I want to focus purely on the science um and so this is one paper in particular, right this is out of the department of radiation engineering, faculty engineering, tohoku university in sunday, japan.

Forgive me again for buttering that um what's interesting, however, is that to give you focus an idea of how this might work right under the same presumption of applying a frequency to or applying sound waves to glass and shaping the glass, we then must ask ourselves, i'm going to share my screen here again. I'm going to head over to the, uh, here we go. We then must ask ourselves if we consider this notion of what we've talked about on the show many times before, both privately for the members and publicly as well, this notion of long ju, no waves, right? Long ger, two, no scale waves.

Long ju, no way, all these different possibilities that allegedly were mislaid or not seen with regards to maxwell s. Original equations in which the quaternions were later chopped up, from what have you we envision for a moment that we have these longer to no slinky all around us as we speak. We can see them, but they're there.

They're in their virtual state or as I call there, in their waiting room, so to speak. It's like saying, for example, when people say to me, well, if the waves are not there, how can we know if they're really there? Well, it's the example would give us like a doctor seeing their patients in their office.

Just because you only see the patients in front of you doesn't mean that there aren't patients in the waiting room waiting to to come see you. It's the same idea with these larger to no h slinky, if you will, are these larger to no waves? Now what's interesting is that, again, the notion one of the reasons one could argue them for, uh argue for them being, uh, scale or nature, is because again, the scale has takes on certain meanings and physics and what not.

But I would like, I generally like to think of IT as meaning everywhere, always in magnitude, and other words, always present. And so if we have, i'm just going to change the color of my a of my uh little uh digital pen here or pencil. If we have an object, right, regardless of its shape, that is under the right conditions, spinning, let's say, the circular object for the sake of simplicity of this this example, let's say it's spinning.

What happens is the longer tunal waves, after a certain threshold, we'll begin. Allow me to just increase the thickness of my pencil here. Now, the one to two, the waves begin to hug and wrap around the object in which is spinning. Now you might say we've wears this coming from this is coming from the dialectic c either or the electric vacuum in and of itself.

Um now what's interesting about this is that these waves, even the ones next to the main one that were focusing on these other waves, in some cases, if the spin expands largely significantly enough so that such that its parameters and its boundary conditions, it's you know the the the energetic rules that are governing the external parameter of the of the experiment in question, if IT expands largely enough with regard and usually this would be done by insanely high rotation, um these other waves will then begin to log g on to this wave here, which then wrap around this particular object. And so we then must ask ourselves, is IT possible that mass, the massive an object, can be removed by by a scene, the potentials of that particular object and by biasing the potentials of the object, which means inducing a form of, uh, of high voltage of, among the other things, the mass will actually begin to exchange between the either and the object itself. IT sounds crazy to a lot of mainstream scientists and physicists, and what have you and you know, a lot of people say, well, I would like a significant amount of theory to back this up before I can, before I can even, you know uh even vegan, stand behind of a potential um uh a potential backing of IT.

However, this is what I tend to disagree with many theorists in the sense that because, again, this is a cut to b episode, I think we need purists, their fantastic. However, I will say that quite often, particularly within the private military contracting world, the reason there are so many engineers within the west that are employed by these contractors rather than physicists, now there are physicists, don't get me wrong, but there are certain phenomenon, particularly in the quantum regime, in the nonlinear regime, that can only be witnessed during experimental um uh uh during experimental uh through experimental r repetition in which theory cannot show or predict. Now in some cases can theory predict sure I can but one needs to have the mind to be able to see how such a theory is showing you what you would then see an experiment and not just show you some type of, uh, what some theorists would just simply surmise as, uh, an artifact of the calculations.

An example would be, uh, for example, when five minute wheeler calculated that a john wheeler, a john archibald wheeler and Richard finally calculated that there's enough energy in the size of a coy cup to evaporate the world's oceans, if you could practically engineer such a such a, uh, uh, such a device or and experiment to prove such. At first, the calculations that implied this were dismissed because they were thought to be an artifact of the mathematics at first. And so this is what gets .

interesting .

because when you then begin to experiment and experiment properly, i'm not saying you just spin something in vibrated and put IT on a scale of some, you see weight fluctuations. No, that's do the vibration. I'm not going to sit here and say, you know, everything around us, you can always see those function. No, it's difficult to get weight reduction or mass reduction in in a particular object.

However, in the alternative coron about fringe community of alternate science, you nica tela technology crossing over into the, you know, U F O U A P type field, there have been, for the longest time, discussions of the connection between mass and inertia, right? You know, many inertial lists have been talking about certain drives, or that thrusters that would work and what have you? And so we then have to ask ourselves, is IT possible that inertia, or excuse me, is that inertia exists, is always existing all around us the same way that the planet is always rotating, right? And what I mean by that is, could IT be possible that a mass within every in any object is a ntia in its rest state, in its resting state rather? And what you're doing by spinning, in this case, this object, is you're unraveling the mass that was complacent fied within IT.

And you're you're reversing that process by removing the mass from IT and allowing these launcher two no scale waves to take advantage of that. It's an interesting proposal. It's an it's an interesting thought, particularly because there were no publications by those two offers that we are just looked at out of japan after they published that exact um uh that exact experimental results.

Now I can tell you that again, you're going to have to take my word for this one. I have spoken to many individuals, the scenes somewhere known, some not all of whom are uh uh well respected senior individuals with regards to their field, um what theyve done in their career and what have you and um IT let me just put IT to you this way. There is acceptance of this phenomenon behind the scenes.

There are individuals that have said to me, for example, ones that don't want across any lines, understandably so because of N D S or contracts they have where they have said to me, well, dave, you know, uh, we examine this for many years in our own private labs back in the day, and we can certainly tell you that there is no, uh, we can rule that out. It's an anomaly that cannot be ruled out. They would say that to me with, you know, a bit of a wink and a nudge, right? And so you combine that with the russian findings of the the soviet findings of the rino program where they had they had hypothesized and later, uh, i'd believe, confirm that rotating masses were transmitters and receivers of gravitation, radiation and so on.

IT begins to make us wonder, is IT possible that gravity itself is a not a fundamental force, but IT is an emerging force through the curving of space time is IT possible perhaps that one of the reasons why engineers are much more prominently known within the contracting field than theoretical physicists, although, again, I don't mean to take a job at any theoretical physics, they absolutely needed, but is impossible, that these engineers interpret basic electoral dynamic and quantum electro dynamic equations as good as. Equations and variables that can be practically implemented in a lab instead of wanting to, and this is not a job of physical or furious, but instead of wanting to, for example, take those equations to their full test conclusion and then none know what to do after that because you have not conducted an experiment that would show that you know perhaps some mathematical uh derivation or artifact within your equation is not an artifact, but in fact mathematically represents the experimental outcome of would occur if you attempted to electromagnet curve space time now how would you electronic ticket curve space time spin is one of those one of those ways now of course it's not just electro mechanical spin. There are other means such as getting uh electrons in particular to move in a circle.

And so we've seen that, for example, like tesla, for example, from tesla by filer coils, um you're not moving the coils themselves. The geometrically set up in such a way that the electrons begin to move in a in a rotate in a circular sense is IT possible that you know the notion of parametric resonance under certain older experiments going back to the early nineteen hundreds, even before then, we're using this notion of these launch to no lock in uh h waves, so to speak. And so we have to ask ourself all these questions, because one of the things that I find so prudent with regards to what i've experienced .

is that um this is part .

of the cut the crap aspect, which is the theorists and the theories in general with regards to having a unified field theory. I know that compared to the world and nobody saying this, but they've already been well understood for a very long time, many, many decades, if at least forty to fifty years, to my knowledge, from what I, what I know and what i've seen, you then have to have engineers that conduct the appropriate experiments that can either enable new phenomenon to be witnessing the lab, which then requires the theorists to change and fit their model to the new observer experiment, or the new phenomenon in that experiment.

And again, under scientific method, if the experiment is is done meticulous ly rigorously, artifacts are ruled out to the best of any peer review researcher experimentalise um uh extent the scientific method requires that you change the theoretical model to fit what you're observing experimentally. The big issue that we've seen publicly is that there's been too much of a focus on theoretical research, in my opinion, and not practical experimental outside of the box thinking research. That's just my opinion.

You I am not saying that we, we, we as humans have a theory of everything that is an end all be all like let's call IT a day. We know everything about everything, no. But with regards to things like inertial mass reduction, with regards to things like gravitation wave emission, I would there to vulture that there is a very well known set of theory or theories that have explained this.

And so at this point, from the standpoint of a military contractor, is all about getting the job done, which is making something work practically. And so IT makes one wonder if perhaps the scientific method privately is being applied a little bit different than what we're being taught as to how IT should be conducted publicly, which is that if you have already a general understanding of a theory of everything to the degree which we are looking for. Uh because ultimately I agree with people, I donal half man, who say that you can have a theory of everything always because by discovering a new thing in your theory that is unexplained, you then dive into a new aspect of the theory which is still unexplained.

You never, you never stop learning which philosophically to music. Very exciting, because that's the point of the joy being in the journey. However, in the case of, if one understands that you can reduce the object, uh uh, masses object, by spinning IT under certain conditions, like at the, like, the paper we just looked at, the next step is to experimentally induce this and then scale IT up.

Simple is that with regards to the process of how that works, IT has nothing to do with, well, I need my theory to confirm this because if not, then I questioned the calculation from that and I need my symmetry groups in my all three symmetry in my league groups to um to help explain that these are geometric structures that comprise the understanding we could say of space time itself. But when you begin to manipulate space time itself, you get a whole new set of phenomena that you, that other, that the theory itself could not explain. And that's fine.

The fun in that for the theory is to say, my god, we saw this in the lab. How can we change this theoretically to then fit what we're observing? right? And so you always want to have the experimental list n the theory, always on an even kill, you know, always communicating, working with one another. Because, yes, even in this field, you sometimes engineers will go to rests and say, hey, we discovered the phone enon. But we're not sure if maybe it's due to something that could be conventionally explained and that is needed.

But then you also need the theorists to then provide a new refined model of the phenomenon that in an engineering sense has been experimentally verified and that the theoretical model can can show IT doesn't doesn't doesn't calculate um I for example, just to give a quick example, I know that in publicly phonons um the quantization of sound, if you will, are considered to spin zero particles. I again, as i've said on ashton ford show, uh, probably about a yeah and a half of this point, I believe that phone nuns are, this is my own labelling of IT are true, are actually spin one point five particles, one and a half, not spin one particles like spin one particles are like electrons, uh, protons, you know what we can observe and what we know to be, uh uh, within the usual framework of conventional theory. Uh, scientifically, however, I believe that phone, none the sound component give rise to these spin two phenomenon.

So we have spin one, spin one point five, that's my thing that I label. Spin one point five, I want to speak, and then spin to. We've seen, for example, uh, this same type of approach apply to the notion of room temperatures superconductors ity.

You might think OK. So I yes, yes, but there are many so russians these days that have also written papers on there being a feasibility with this. Um the notion that there has been a major discount in the concept of resonance and sound in particular are from basic electron mechanical devices and other things being dismissed.

So we have a lot of things that have been right in our face, just like I gave the example with regards to the sound, the art, the frequent radio frequency breaking glass. And so if we think of for a moment in a in a gravitational sense, or a weight reduction, since the radio frequency sound being applied to the glass, we then have to wonder, well, if you apply radio frequency to a glass at a strong enough of frequency, IT breaks the glass. If you remember soup.

Yes, I said something about the physics of creation versus the physics of destruction. We then have to ask, well, what if what we witnessed with the sound breaking the glass, what if that was an an example of the physics of destruction? What if one could use things like face conjugation or other premature electronic ticket or optically or acoustic to not have the glass itself break, but have the glass lose some of its mass? So in other words, the glass will begin to fall up instead of down.

Now that is not actually in this, these examples. What what we've been discussing here does not entail, let me emphasize, IT does not entail the emission of gravitational waves or graviton ons. no. However, what IT does do is IT allows for the launch to no waves that we were just looking at to notify the gravitation field that would otherwise, uh, let me just pretend the Green is the some some very manual gravitation, uh, uh, constant gravitation set of waves that would be Normally just having in flowing all around us in a very weak sense.

But what if during the spinning of this object, the longer to no waves prevent the gravitation waves in which are very weak? Let me clarify, uh, at the moment, unless residents could scale that up, but that's a different conversation, prevent the gravitational waves from hitting this particular parcel in space and time. And so then one has to wonder, well, if that's the case, then everything within this field would be way close to zero, which would permit anyone and anything in this field to move in ways that conventionally our best rockets cannot do because of the amount of property and thrust that is required.

So this. Is an example of how all around us we can manipulate. We i'm just adding some more of those weak gravitation waves to give you an idea that is all around to success. T at this point, again, they're being notified and they're being forced to sort of turn around sort of the same way when you're swimming, you hit one end of the pool, and then you use your feet to bounce off the wall and then turn back. Imagine the gravity, the very weak gravitation waves doing that.

And the reason the gravity waves respond in this regard to this experiment overall is because one could argue that, again, gravity, gravity itself is a, is not a fundamental force, but IT is an emerging force from the curving of space time. Nobody said that the curvy of spacetime had to be gravitation at its start. IT could be electromagnet.

And so if gravity .

waves respond to electro magnetism in a certain regard. There must be a connection to some degree. Now you might say, dave, this is by no means sight. You know, using a sketch board, you're not really citing that many papers. This is not scientific method and so on.

What i'm trying to do with this cut the crap episode is i'm trying to convey to you things that i've personally witnessed myself um without without crossing any lines but at the same time still cutting the crap relative to what i've been trying to say. Hint up for the last two to three years, i'm being much more direct now. And so hopefully this provides a decent visual where the White lunch to the White waves are the launch to the waves.

The red circle represents the object that were experimenting on, and the Green uh. Waves represent the very miniscule but ever present gravitational field, or the, we can say that the gravitation structure, or graviton like latest that occur. Now, this is work as interesting, because when you think about an object for a moment, right, which is the red circle, here we will use the color purple for a moment.

And we could imagine that within this boundary conditions, within the boundary of the field, that the object is now being able to have its mass reduced with him or reduced, uh yeah within we could imagine. Four points, which the purpose denoted here, the purple denotes the four points in which, again, the F, R, ancestors and what not have called this. I think that was the minds. I could be wrong here. They called IT, squaring the circle and things like that.

IT makes one wonder that, again, if we were to connect, or dw, just draw a straights line between these four quarters and the object itself, we then have to wonder, okay, is IT possible that by the manipulation of electronic atis m and also throw optical means with light, we have now taken all four polar ization of the local photon in which we could derive a gravitational model from we now, again, for the four polar ization of the pat on our equivalent to against quality, two, three and four. Is IT possible that just outside of every object that we know IT doesn't have to be criminal tic is impossible that outside of every object were familiar with. There are these, i'm gonna rock you.

So I will use, uh, yellow here for some some brightness. There are these potentials that exist just outside of the object, and those potentials permit the exchange of mass between the real object and the potentials just outside of IT. Again, IT sounds very far out there to many people. However, I would dare to say that IT that isn't um it's interesting .

because .

you can save, for example. Well, how do we know that any of this is experimental possible? Well, if you look at the enough bomb effect, we see there's a face shift just outside of the magnetic solenoid in which there's no magnetic field, but there's the potential for the field to be there.

So that makes us wonder our potentials themselves, electronic etic, specifically vector scalar potentials, do they have within them a property geometrically that can manipulate part, I call them parcel of space in time IT then makes us wonder, okay, well, is this possible that everywhere in space in time could be manipulated under the right conditions? And so then we go back to, again, drawing another circle here, right? Putting the four quadrant on them, and so on.

And so fourth, and what we end up with is a tech read of the of the, sorry, we end up with A A matrix of orthogonal t rat, meaning basically we get these four quadrant, which could represent arguably a quadrapole to die poles overlapping each other, right? That exists all around us. They're just waiting to be manipulated and is impossible. That spin .

could help.

And duce that again, i'm just onna make the connections here. Also let me just clarify visually this is also the way in which ligo works um laser into fomenter gravitation observatories because lego observes the ripples of space time itself which are gravitation waves and if you recall on the patron i'd posted an image talking about how uh IT wasn't my image to be clear but I was talking about how gravity arises from the displacement of vacuum pologies again.

the vacuum.

meaning the either manipulating the either through the potentials, which is the yellow circle right and then seeing what could come from that not only that but we also know that face conjugation where you're shooting uh two pairs of uh of laser beams which are four beams in total at an object could in fact manipulate gravity or at least a massive an object and by doing such you are now knowledge ying the object itself from the gravitational field that's all around us.

So then within this particular parcel, the original one that we're looking, where my mouses here, you then start getting into things like being able to break the speed of the barrier of the speed of light, particularly if we were reference back to when einstein talked about how gravity and acceleration could not be really a differentiated from. You can really decide between the two IT then makes one wonder, could the vacuum be broken down within a particular parcel of space and time, such that you avoid IT? And so that anything within that parcel of space time is the the physics and rules are not necessarily different, but they're stemming from the zero point of that object.

And so by manipulating the object, you manipulate the local spacetime field around IT and within IT as well, while also getting the mass of that object to be removed from IT, and then have the potentials basically eat IT up, so to speak, or the either will then eat IT up, similar to a doctor put ops Cosmological feedback model. Like when you put a microphone next to a speaker and you get a nonstop school, the particles generate the fields, the fields generate the, uh, uh, generate the particles to fluctuate. And it's a nonstop code cious eban flow type manner, which is, which would be applied to exactly this right here. And so we then .

have .

to ask ourselves, okay, is impossible that know there may be some basic examples of this? Well what's interesting is here's a paper um published in a physical review applied journal magnetic levitation by rotation right by mr. Um join m hermanson and federal ick l hos forgive me if I watch that again. A gentleman. J jochen .

m .

hermanson, excuse me. Now this is what it's interesting, because what this experiment showed was that when they took the experimenters, took a magnet and put IT on A A um uh uh a dream bit and they spend the magnet, what they found was that when they took another magnet and put IT close to that drill, uh, I will go back up you very quickly to show you they found that the magnet in which they put close to the drill itself would start to spin and follow the magnet on the drill.

And what's interesting is that when any object of any material you have to be electronic etic or h any other in any other capacity, when anything would be inserted in between the space, uh between the rotating magnet and then the rotating one that's following the initial one that started rotating at first, nothing would affect the the connection, the magnetic connection between the spinning magnet and then the the one the spinning magnet that was attached to the drill bit. And so this then makes us wonder, do spinning magnets in a certain way, your certain capacity exhibit and inhibit within within themselves a form of quantum phenomenon that has been largely ignored and dismissed? IT makes us wonder. And so we see these little tidbits of rotation being discussed in what have you and we see, you know things like einstein, uh, equivalence between, you know, gravity and acceleration and so on. And so would .

this not warrant .

further investigation? I'm sure most of you listening and watching this would say, yes, absolutely. But I just again, i'm just trying to make a point for those that are maybe not as well informed. And so IT IT .

becomes very interesting .

with regards to what type of phenomenon we can observe in these um with these experiments, whether basic or scaled up, especially the scaled up once that I won't sugar code that but again, it's a very interesting um phenomenon to observe and there are certainly evidence out there that suggests that this some type of form of rotation, whether electron mechanically or getting uh in particular electrons to spin and counter spin IT could in fact enable phenomenon energetically that we would not otherwise expect theoretically so hopefully this was a more of a direct um uh presentation with regards to not being as um uh mysterious or abstract about uh or s terc about some of the phenomenon pertaining two things like anti gravity.

However, would I want to also help people keep in mind and realized with regards to more materialistic approaches that there's more than one way to skin this cat again, we did not touch on the you know the alleged T T Browns stuff because that was separate with regards to thrust with in voltage in an accident trc capacity. What we're dealing with here is a rotating drivers, sal, for example. Not just the drivers cope, but the idea that masses in general, spinning masses again somehow effect or interact with the gravitation field um or with the either or with what tesla called the rady and energy and so on and so forth.

So IT, it's it's a it's a very interesting way of looking at things and it's certainly unorthodox and very um counter intuit naturally to what people would Normally expect to be um science I guess. But with that said, folks, I like to thank all of you for a watching or listening to this. I hope this sketch board was a more detailed symbolistic uh uh visualization of how the stuff would work.

I could have easily brought, pulled up a whole bunch of equations and went into, you know, maxwells quatro ions and would have you, but the point is, is to be able to try and translate this in such a way that IT IT can be simply understood. And you may say, well, is there a connection with over unity and all of this? Of course there is, of course there is.

Is there connection with low energy nuclear reactions? Of course there are. The fields begin to over that .

after a .

certain point. And we're dealing here strictly with the quantum electro dynamic, the Q, E, D vacuum, not the quantum promo dynamic vacuum are largely because the quantum electro dynamic vacuum is much a more easier to uh attap and access compared to the chromo dynamic one. So with that said, i'd like to thank all of you folks so very much for um watching and listening and will catch all of you very soon. I am not certain if this will go public or not, but I will certainly stay for the members for a decent amount of time uh for members to be able to observe IT h and watch IT first and exclusively so thank you.