Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

THE Science Thread


  • Please log in to reply
151 replies to this topic

#1 morfin-56

morfin-56

    Mr. Miyagi

  • OG VIP
  • 1,521 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 02 July 2012 - 04:55 AM

Tonight, after a few what seemed like hours of very vivid dreaming I had to wake up to think about what I was dreaming about.

At first it was about UFO's, If they can travel through space so can we... After all we have the same laws of physics.
It's were you apply the laws that let you accomplish great things like this.

I started thinking about gyroscopic properties and the fan in my room that I can hear buzzing because it is resisting it's gyroscopic tendency to turn.
I was thinking about this video too, it is where the concept of my idea came from:

[Direct Link]



There is no way that old man would be able to lift that without the gyroscopic forces.

The main point I am trying to show here is that gyroscopes resist gravity like nothing else.
What about multiple gyroscopes put together to counteract each others force in the output axis? What way does it move then?

I'd like to see the gyroscopic forces come into play with space travel,
Made to were not only is the force of the gyroscope used to resist gravity and the turning force is also used to generate electricity.
A system where the thrust needed to achieve escape velocity is cut into a small % and electricity is generated in the process.

This was one of the best dreams I have had in a while, oh so vivid. :D
The fact that it was a dream makes it seem to me that it's not likely to be plausible but it was beautiful they way my dream space vehicle interacted.


May this thread be dedicated to any science ideas/thoughts or anything of scientific significance my be posted in this thread.
  • Hash_Man, riseabovethought and Il19z8rn4li1 like this

#2 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 02 July 2012 - 11:15 AM

I invite any scientists out there to explain to me, centripetal force. I refer to the force that pulls all forms of solid mater into a vortex in a fluid. What I refer to here can be demonstrated in a round container of water. Stir it into a vortex and put in some sand and some pepper or seeds. One solid is heavier than the water, and one is lighter than the water. Both are pulled to the center of rotation. I have yet to see a physics book that explains this when it refers to centripetal force. The books I've seen describe a weight slung about at the end of a string, saying the pull of the swinging weight is centrifugal force (mm-kay), and the string is centripetal force (not mm-kay). I am not talking about a string.

======================

Gyroscopes, vortices, electricity, gravity, and the ethers:

In electromagnetics, many forms of generation are reciprocal relationships, i.e.:

Dynamo force: move a conductor through a magnetic field, generate current -- move a current through a conductor, generate a magnetic field.

Piezoelectric: distort a crystal, create voltage -- apply voltage, distort the crystal.

Thermoelectric: apply heat to a bi-metal junction, create a voltage -- apply voltage to the bi-metal junction, create heat.

Chemical electrical: charge and discharge = reversals of chemical reactions.

And so on...

When gravity is applied to a fluid such as water, it does not fall in a straight line toward the center of the earth. It spirals. Even a raindrop spins all the way to the ground. A tank of water spirals to an open drain, and if it is allowed to freely fall from the drain, will continue to spiral on down for as long as it falls. The stream will spin and narrow as gravity accelerates it, until electrified surface tension breakes it into spinning droplets. These will, if allowed to fall far enough, turn to spray and mists that will rise and create strong updrafts (moto-electro-gravitation).

I submit that by directing a fluid through a vorticular motion, one will create a gravitational force (here we will again find a reciprocal relationship). When moving ether flows (or gravity if you will) interact with matter, they induce motion. When motion is induced into matter, motion is reciprocally induced into the ethers. (On an interesting side note: jets of water also create electrical charges, once more suggesting a reciprocal relationship between gravity and static electricy.)

Our spinning disk in the experiment above, I submit, is inducing motions in the ethers. The ethers are the domain of energy, or Fire, as seen in the old alchemical traditions, in their "elements" of earth, water, air, and fire. In my view, matter is not necessary for motion to exist. Motion is prior to matter. When we witness motion, we are seeing its effect in matter, not its origins.

I'll leave this with this: Mass in not the source of gravity. Motion is the source of gravity. Newton did not know how gravity worked, and even suggested its source lay in the ethers. Newton's mistake was to link it to mass, and in accepting this assumption, science made a wrong turn which still has it mystified as to the nature of the universe and its forces. This assumption has all the math completely out of whack.

Forgive me for getting up on my hobby horse once again. I hope this isn't a ticket to the Twilight Zone, but instead, the beginning of some serious questioning about misunderstood and unexplained forces.

Edited by Alder Logs, 02 July 2012 - 11:49 AM.


#3 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 02 July 2012 - 11:33 AM

I was just remembering one of my favorite experiments.

I took a small round saucepan and stirred it into a strong vortex after adding in a small amount of loose gritty clay. I left the muddy water spinning and went about my day. When I later observed the pan, the currents had sorted the particles and laid them out on the floor of the pan in a perfect representation of a spiral galaxy.

That experience seemed an important message to me.
  • Hash_Man likes this

#4 Shamsu

Shamsu

    Forever Searching

  • Expired Member
  • 439 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 12:13 PM

When gravity is applied to a fluid such as water, it does not fall in a straight line toward the center of the earth. It spirals. Even a raindrop spins all the way to the ground. A tank of water spirals to an open drain, and if it is allowed to freely fall from the drain, will continue to spiral on down for as long as it falls. The stream will spin and narrow as gravity accelerates it, until electrified surface tension breakes it into spinning droplets. These will, if allowed to fall far enough, turn to spray and mists that will rise and create strong updrafts (moto-electro-gravitation).


I dont have time to address all the points of your post but one thing that jumped out at me was the above statement.

You have to remember that what you speak of is not taking place in an area void of influence. the water spins not due to gravity. it rotates due to the spin of the earth within the gravity field. any falling object on the surface of the earth is not just moving in a straight line towards the center of the earth but it is also moving around the center of the erath as it rotates. or it maybe easier to think about the earth moving underneath the object as it "falls". this set of forces can be seen in the air currents around us as well as the oceans themselves. the cyclonic and anticyclonic movements of fluids(air as well as water) are brought about by the combo of gravity and the rotation of the earth.

One other thing you mentioned that jars of water have electrical field....are you speaking of pure H2O? cus Pure H2O has no charge and the conductivity of water arises from its disolved impurities. Take a battery for instance if you make a battery of Lead, Leadoxide and pure H2O, you will just have a buch of wet lead....but add some sulfuric acid to the water and you now have a system that emits electrons when the lead reacts with the surfuric acis and converts to lead oxide. and the response of the system when electrons are introduced to it are to reverse this reaction causing the leadoxide to form elimental lead once more(thats how we charge batteries)

You sound like you have an educated background and i would love to discuss things further when i have more time. I studied Physics and Chem after High school(you might not be able to tell im educated since my spelling is so horrable)

feel free to shoot me some messages on these subjects. otherwise i will post here when i have time

By the way this is an awesome thread....I love science!
  • wildedibles likes this

#5 Shamsu

Shamsu

    Forever Searching

  • Expired Member
  • 439 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 12:25 PM

One more thing before i go....what are you refering to when you say "the ethers" Are you speaking of the dimensions beyond the 4 dimensions or our observable reality? or are you speaking of actual forces?

#6 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 02 July 2012 - 12:46 PM

I said nothing about "jars of water." I was speaking of fluids in motion, and using water as an example. Water is usually pretty handy. But to me, ethers are a fluid as well.

I understand about the earth's rotation, but I do not separate it from some mass based gravity. I see the rotation as a causal part of gravity, and the earth the center of a planetary vortex of ethers, i.e., gravity.

See, the problem I always have is this: F = G times m1 m2 / r squared. Or, the assumptions inherent in this so-called "law," and what these assumptions have done, being at the base of so much of our physics theory, to skew everything that comes after them.

All they tell us is what Newton observed about cannonball trajectories. An assumption that a cannonball has the dynamic of gravitational force, relative to its mass, such mass as projected for the earth, based on the mass of the cannonball, is a huge unsubstantiated assumption. This assumption I believe is why we will always be able to put cannonball-like objects into orbit, but will never grasp the dynamics of gravity.

I do no less than ask science to go all the way back to Newton and start over. Once someone has decided to think within these assuptions inherent in that law, we can no longer converse. I become a wacko crackpot, unworthy of any proper scientist's time. Why, I don't even know the most basic science.

I am a high school dropout with learning disorders. That is the only reason I can question such monuments of thought. Ya see, I don't know no better, having not been learned it right and proper.

I submit that some beings in this old universe do understand the dynamics of gravity. When we see evidence of this, we file it in the Twilight Zone. It's no less than upsetting the whole damned temple, what I suggest, if we are to figure out gravity. But, once we do this, I believe the math part of it will go a whole lot more smoothly. Right now it has more patches than a Microsoft operating system.

Edited by Alder Logs, 02 July 2012 - 01:09 PM.


#7 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 02 July 2012 - 12:51 PM

One more thing before i go....what are you refering to when you say "the ethers" Are you speaking of the dimensions beyond the 4 dimensions or our observable reality? or are you speaking of actual forces?


See, there we go with the patches. (How many dimensions until we'll need no more patches?)

To me, time is not a dimension. Not, at least, in any reference to depth, height, and width. I see three dimensions of space. Ether is not a dimension, but a non-material, yet substaitial, fluid which occupies the very same three dimensions. What it is is another order of density, occupying the same three dimensional space, from which it energetically interacts with material and vacuum space alike.

It's hard to speak with real scientists. I'm not like them (insert smiley face here).

Edited by Alder Logs, 02 July 2012 - 01:02 PM.


#8 riseabovethought

riseabovethought

    innerspace explorer

  • App Administrator
  • 3,858 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:43 PM

See, there we go with the patches. (How many dimensions until we'll need no more patches?)

To me, time is not a dimension. Not, at least, in any reference to depth, height, and width. I see three dimensions of space. Ether is not a dimension, but a non-material, yet substaitial, fluid which occupies the very same three dimensions. What it is is another order of density, occupying the same three dimensional space, from which it energetically interacts with material and vacuum space alike.

It's hard to speak with real scientists. I'm not like them (insert smiley face here).


Real scientists have had their eyes glued shut (usually with corporate agenda- driven alterior motives - fucking sell outs). Thats what makes them real scientists these days. Just ask anyone in the nutrition science world associated with any of the most respected universities. What they never counted on was that this means a lower threshold of understanding. Someone without blindfolds can actually understand a greater field of meaning than these ivy league scientists who scored high on their IQ and placement testing, but quickly cower to power. Pussies.

Funny, but their own plan is eventually killed by their own plan...flawed from the beginning. Just like Newton's.

You're not the first one to make this angle public, Alder. Its just that out of fear, most people cant back up their argument and easily and quickly get bitch slapped by the status quo. We all learned the same manipulated sciences.

'You free thinkers are causing all the trouble!!'

But I for one, welcome your ingenuity brother. Topia too, welcomes all free thinkers and is a safe haven for intellectual freedom. Lets hash out all this stuff brother. Hell, its all the ranting craziness of weirdo mushroom heads anyway, right?

And then they'll find out that our thinking supercedes their lack of thinking. Ha. When they were doing what they were told, listening to orders, and trying to come up with a way to rationalize their behavior, we were still thinking!! Ha! Fucking joke of the century!! lol

Its really nice to have you here Alder. Thanks for sharing some wisdom with us brother. And dont think we dont appreciate it! We do.

Edited by riseabovethought, 02 July 2012 - 01:53 PM.


#9 morfin-56

morfin-56

    Mr. Miyagi

  • OG VIP
  • 1,521 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 02 July 2012 - 01:57 PM

I'll leave this with this: Mass in not the source of gravity. Motion is the source of gravity. Newton did not know how gravity worked, and even suggested its source lay in the ethers. Newton's mistake was to link it to mass, and in accepting this assumption, science made a wrong turn which still has it mystified as to the nature of the universe and its forces. This assumption has all the math completely out of whack.


That seems entirely likely.
I don't know if that is what you have been trying to explain all along but it makes so much sense.

So let me get this straight, moving matter causes the ether to move and likewise the moving ether causes matter to move.
(Just like liquid swirling in a cup with solids/ the liquid is the ether and the solid is matter?)
And both the moving ether and moving matter cause a form of gravity?

Would that mean the center of motion is where the gravity is generated?
Since that is where the solid particles that are even less dense than water would coagulate, it would make sense for them to swirl out in the liquid but they don't.

You gotta right "the book of alder's laws" or something, I would definitely read that.

Once the math is fucked up in one place, all the math that follows is likely fucked up too.
We need to go back to step one to see if/where we fucked up.

#10 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 02 July 2012 - 07:19 PM

That seems entirely likely.
I don't know if that is what you have been trying to explain all along but it makes so much sense.

So let me get this straight, moving matter causes the ether to move and likewise the moving ether causes matter to move.

(Just like liquid swirling in a cup with solids/ the liquid is the ether and the solid is matter?)
And both the moving ether and moving matter cause a form of gravity?

Would that mean the center of motion is where the gravity is generated?

Since that is where the solid particles that are even less dense than water would coagulate, it would make sense for them to swirl out in the liquid but they don't.

You gotta right "the book of alder's laws" or something, I would definitely read that.

Once the math is fucked up in one place, all the math that follows is likely fucked up too.
We need to go back to step one to see if/where we fucked up.



Wow. I'm pretty used to not getting anywhere with this stuff. But since I'm getting old, I have decided to no longer hide any of it under a bushel. These open Topioid minds are a great help as well.

Solids are pulled into a vortex, within the in-turning fluids of the vortex. One could certainly expect lighter than the fluid objects to follow along, but the force of motions is sufficient to bring in heavier solids as well, in opposition to, and overriding, any centrifugal force. Simultaneously, fluid vortices exhibit static electrical characteristics, in that the faster whorls are negatively charged, as compared with the axial center of rotation, which is where a low pressure core exists. These whorls are also negative relative to areas outside the whorls.

Thomas Townsend Brown proved that a negative static charge is repulsive to earth's gravity (and, I would submit, to any gravitating body), and a more positive static charge is attractive to same. Many people have repeated T.T. Brown's experiments in many variations, and these can be found all over YouTube.

What I postulate is that by setting up a vortical fluid domain, one might more efficiently create a gravitor, with a negative electric field being secondary. I believe a negative electrostatic field pulls the ethers into vorticular motions. What I want to do is create ether vortices by directly moving these ethers, via moving fluid matter, using the reciprocal relationship of gravity/electrostatic charge with vortical motion.

=========================

Okay, here is something to think about:

Q. What are clouds made of?

The typical answer is "water vapor." This is a wrong answer. Water vapor is transparent. Clouds are made of water droplets.

Q. Which is heavier, air, or water droplets?

Duh, right?

Q. What holds the clouds up there?

My answer is, the vortical motion created negative electrical charges of the moving water droplets. Those droplets are moving like any unit of fluid would, and thereby creating charge.

Parenthetical note: I reject the notion that static charges are the result of friction rubbing electrons from one body to another. In my view, the relative motion of certain elements and compounds given to static charges is not a transfer of electrons, but the creation of new electrons. This is just another of my wacky notions.

Lightning, in my view, does not come from electrons rubbed from one cloud to another, but from the spinning up of new particles (ether vortices) as happens within fluids in motion.

=========================

I wish I could say that the observance of turds circling down the crapper was my inspiration, but I can't. (Okay, I like things to be funny.)

My inspiration and hero was Viktor Schauberger. He was the first Green. Like me, he was a tree worshiper. He was the genius upon whose shoulders I would like to stand.

Though I was on the track of gravity from a fluid vortex when someone steered me toward Schauberger, I instantly could see that he had been miles ahead of me.

Posted Image

Attached Thumbnails

  • viktor-schauberger.jpg

Edited by Alder Logs, 02 July 2012 - 10:13 PM.


#11 EstimatedProphet

EstimatedProphet

    Bearer of Light

  • Expired Member
  • 2,440 posts

Posted 03 July 2012 - 04:24 AM

This gives me chills every time I hear it.

[Direct Link]


  • Hash_Man likes this

#12 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 03 July 2012 - 12:08 PM

You gotta right "the book of alder's laws" or something, I would definitely read that.


Mmm-kay. Maybe I will write that book. Some here, some there, some in the Twilight Zone. I'm the scattered absent minded professor: Alder Logs, Hs.D. I have all these different chalkboards going around here. What I will need is an editor with better organizational skills than I possess.

===========================

Creating a Perfect Vacuum


Is this possible? I believe it is. What is known about hard vacuums is that matter seems to spontaneously appear inside them. There are a couple problems we have when we attempt to make a hard vacuum. First, we create a very dense walled vessel as a containment. But there are particles that will still find their ways through any material barrier we create. And even then, we see that other particles seem to pop into existence within the evacuated space.

To me, such experiences point to the existence of an ether as a substantial, if not yet material, medium which easily crosses our containment barriers. As I have said before, our material particles are but vortexes composed of these etheric fluids, spun up into physical existence, as it were. Though what I am going to state are but my hypotheses, I will, for ease of explanation, speak as if it were known. Understand, I do not know, but simply expect it the likely case, from my way of seeing it. And even at that, these will be no more than descriptions, falling short of reality, as all descriptions must (even the mathematical ones).

==========================

Curses! I am called away to the mundane life of meat-space by a cessation of the late season rains. The demands of staying warm next winter take precedence. Not creating the perfect vacuum really sucks.

#13 riseabovethought

riseabovethought

    innerspace explorer

  • App Administrator
  • 3,858 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 03 July 2012 - 12:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia....tor_Schauberger

[h=1]Viktor Schauberger[/h] From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
[TABLE="class: metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content ambox-multiple_issues"]
[TR]
[TD="class: mbox-image"] Posted Image
[/TD]
[TD="class: mbox-text"]

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.



[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Viktor Schauberger (30 June 1885 – 25 September 1958) was an Austrian forester/forest warden, naturalist, philosopher, inventor and Biomimicry experimenter.
The inventor of what he called "implosion technology", Schauberger developed his own theories based on fluidic vortices and movement in nature. He built actuators for airplanes, ships, silent turbines,[1] self-cleaning pipes and equipment for cleaning and so-called "refinement" of water to create spring water,[2] which he used as a remedy.
Schauberger's theories aren't accepted in the scientific community. However, Schauberger's work remains an inspiration to many people in the Green movement for his own observations of nature.
[TABLE="class: toc"]
[TR]
[TD] [h=2]Contents[/h]

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[h=2]Biography[/h] [h=3]Early years[/h] Viktor Schauberger was born in Holzschlag, Austria, to a long line of Austrian foresters that could be traced back to early Germanic tribes, with views on and concepts of nature entirely different than the ones known to us currently. Creek and river flow fascinated him during his youth. He went on to develop a basic theory that contains a twofold movement principle for such phenomena.
His first concepts were brought on by studying trout in its natural environment. He was quoted as saying:

How was it possible for this fish to stand so motionlessly, only steering itself with slight movements of its tail-fins, in this wildly torrential flow, which made my staff shake so much that I could hardly hang onto it? What forces enabled the trout to overcome its own body-weight so effortlessly and quickly, and, at the same time, overcome the specific weight of the heavy water flowing against it?

These questions inspired further investigation to study the force that allowed such effortless natural motion. Schaubergers conclusion led to his theory of natural vortices.
Schauberger's second major theory was in the structure of water. He believed that water is at its densest when cold (at +4C water anomaly point) (and at the time of a full moon), and that there are many layers in the structure of flowing water. He claimed that nature creates vortices to create equilibria. He further claimed that our current form of energy production/consumption scatters matter into disequilibrium. His studies were not approved by science at the time, even when his ideas were put into practice.[citation needed]
In 1922 for Adolf I, Prince of Schaumburg-Lippe, Schauberger designed and had built several log flumes which reduced the timber transport costs to one tenth the previous cost and allowed transport of denser than water woods such as beech and fir.[3] In 1924, Viktor Schauberger became a Public Council consultant for the log flumes for the Austrian state. He started construction of three large plants in Austria. In 1926, he undertook research at a timber flotation installation in Neuberg an der Mürz in Styria. In 1929 Schauberger submitted his first applications for patents in the fields of water engineering and turbine construction. He conducted research on how to artificially generate centripetal movement in various types of machines. He proposed a means of utilising hydroelectric power by a jet turbine. The log flumes used for timber flotation allegedly disregarded the Archimedes' principle, i.e., Schauberger was allegedly able to transport heavier-than-water objects by creating a centripetal movement (making the timber spin around its own axis, by special guiding-vanes which caused the water to spiral). Professor Philipp Forchheimer was sent to study the log flumes. Professor Forchheimer in 1930-1931 later published with Schauberger a series of articles in "Die Wasserwirtschaft", the Austrian Journal of Hydrology.[citation needed]
[h=3]World War II[/h] In 1934 Viktor met with Hitler[citation needed], and had discussions about fundamental principles of agriculture, forestry and water engineering.[citation needed] Schauberger is believed to have lent his ideas in order to aid the German Reich. Although whether this was under duress or willingly is still a matter of debate;[citation needed] it appears that his aim was to see his theories put to the test (he had offered his log flume designs to several countries). There is no indication that he supported Nazism, and his private feelings about the Nazis seem to have been disdainful. At any rate, his later (post-1941) work for the regime was enforced by the threat of execution, Schauberger being a KZ concentration camp prisoner at that time.
In 1941, an intrigue caused by the Viennese Association of Engineers[citation needed] resulted in Schauberger's enforced confinement in a mental hospital in Mauer-Öhling, under continuous observation by the SS.[citation needed] In Augsburg, Schauberger worked with Messerschmitt on engine cooling systems and was in correspondence with designer Heinkel about aircraft engines.[citation needed]
In 1944, Schauberger continued to develop his Repulsine machine at the Technical College of Engineering at Rosenhügel in Vienna. By May 1945 a prototype had been constructed.
In 1945 Schauberger started to work on his "Klimator". The function of the Klimator is to cool and warm the air in living spaces.[4]
At the end of the war Schauberger was apprehended by US intelligence agents, and kept in custody for 9 months. They confiscated all his documents and prototypes, and interrogated him to determine his activities during the war.[5]
After the war Schauberger continued his work, leading to water-based power generation through vortex action in a closed cycle, the "Spiral Plough", an "Apparatus for soil cultivation made of copper" and tests with "spiral pipes".
[h=3]Later years[/h] Posted Image Posted Image
Turbine Schauberger


In 1952, at Stuttgart Technical University, Schauberger claimed that tests were carried out by Prof. Franz Popel, on behalf of the West German government, to determine the validity of his ideas on water movement. Tests were performed on Schauberger's specially designed copper pipes, which had a conical, spiral, rifled shape, with apparent success confirming Schauberger's idea.
In 1958 Schauberger was approached by Karl Gerchsheimer and Robert Donner, with an invitation to come to the US to further develop his inventions.
Schauberger spent several months in the US writing articles and drawing sketches. After the project failed by problems with his US-partners he had to sell all his work and patents to buy a flight ticket back home. He returned to Austria and died in Linz, Austria, on September 25, 1958, 5 days after having returned to Linz.
[h=2]Controversy[/h] [TABLE="class: metadata plainlinks ambox ambox-content"]
[TR]
[TD="class: mbox-image"] Posted Image
[/TD]
[TD="class: mbox-text"]This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material. (July 2010) [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Schauberger and his works have become part of an internet-based conspiracy theory claiming that Schauberger invented free energy/perpetual motion devices and that this was "covered up" by the US government. Schauberger never claimed to have invented perpetual motion machines, but instead stated that he used the Earth's natural power.
Due to issues with translation from German to English, a number of papers and publications are in broken English. In Implosion magazine, a magazine released by Schauberger's family, he said that aeronautical and marine engineers had incorrectly designed the propeller. He stated:

“As best demonstrated by Nature in the case of the aerofoil maple-seed, today’s propeller is a pressure-screw and therefore a braking screw, whose purpose is to allow the heavy maple-seed to fall parachute-like slowly towards the ground and to be carried away sideways by the wind in the process. No bird has such a whirling thing on its head, nor a fish on its tail. Only man made use of this natural brake-screw for forward propulsion. As the propeller rotates, so does the resistance rise by the square of the rotational velocity. This is also a sign that this supposed propulsive device is unnaturally constructed and therefore out of place.”[6]

Whilst the notion of a propeller being natural or unnatural is subjective, the maximum efficiency of the propeller can be considered. As a comparison, the fastest propeller-driven aircraft ever to fly, the Tupolev Tu-114 had a top-speed of 541 miles per hour, but a jet engine using suction and internal compressive forces can break the sound barrier (in main because a jet engine is a reaction engine, relying on Newton's third law, not on pressure differences).
Not everything that undergoes air or water resistance experiences an increase in drag with the square of velocity. Some insect wings rely on turbulence created by a previous wing beat to increase the efficiency of the stroke, and hence decrease the acting drag which uses less energy.
He has also been quoted as making the claim:

"Water is a living substance!"

and some of his language using scientific terms has been translated in incorrect ways. In another edition of Implosion Magazine, he says:

"In contrast, all 'technical' machines, i.e. all dynamos, turbines, pressure pumps, propellers, explosion and steam driven engines, all furnaces, gas and electric heating appliances, all soil-tilling and harvesting machinery, etc. provide a developmentally harmful ex-pulse to initiate motion. Because of this and without exception, the atom lattice thus moved ruptures, resulting in the disintegration of the molecular (bacteriophagous) formations in suspension. In unnaturally moved air or water decadent stresses appear, causing the decay of the decisive energy-concentrates. This leads to the build-up of decadent potential and the decomposition of the blood of the Earth, and thus to a total economic collapse along the whole course of development."[7]

The claim that a bacteriophage can exist in an atomic lattice is inaccurate, notably because a bacteriophage is approximately 1 thousand times larger than the gaps in a crystal structure. However it is evident that he had used the term atom generically to refer to particles, commonplace for his era, which contextually for his comment about bacteriophage in soil holds to be true as soil particles indeed host between them bacteria the disturbance of which breaks their bonds to surrounding material and organisms, thereby depleting soil's vitality.
[h=2]Implosion[/h] Implosion is a quarterly magazine founded in 1958 by Aloys Kokaly at the bequest of Viktor and Walter Schauberger. It is still published quarterly or semi-annually by Klaus Rauber. It is the only known repository of Viktor Schauberger's writing (in German), and has been the source of substantial portions of the Eco-Technology series.
[h=2]Films[/h] Three documentaries in English dealing with the life and works of Viktor Schauberger are in existence:

  • "Nature Was My Teacher" - Borderland Science Research Foundation - narrated by Tom Brown (1993)
  • "Sacred Living Geometries" - narrated by Callum Coats (1995)
  • "Extraordinary Nature of Water" - narrated by Callum Coats (2000)
[h=2]See also[/h]
[h=2]Notes[/h]
  • ^ Siegbert Lattacher, Ennsthaler: In the footsteps of the legendary natural scientist, page 116: air turbine, ISBN 3-85068-544-6
  • ^ Olof Alexandersson, Living Water, page 82-87 and 156, "Repulsator" (water system)
  • ^ Siegbert Lattacher, Following in the footsteps of the legendary natural scientist, Ennsthaler, Page 22, ISBN 3-85068-544-6
  • ^ Callum Coats, Living Energies (2002) ISBN 0-7171-3307-9
  • ^ Nick Cook, The Hunt for Zero Point - Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology (2001) ISBN 0-7679-0628-4 / ISBN 0-7679-0627-6
  • ^ Viktor Schauberger, Implosion Magazine, No. 112, p. 52
  • ^ Viktor Schauberger, Implosion Magazine, No. 116, p. 37-45

[h=2]Further reading[/h]


#14 morfin-56

morfin-56

    Mr. Miyagi

  • OG VIP
  • 1,521 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 03 July 2012 - 01:21 PM

This gives me chills every time I hear it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0azoN7t3UhM

As Carl sagan says, we are all star dust.

Alder Logs, Hs.D.

Haha!
Only has a Hs.D. But is just as experienced as someone with a PhD.
Do you make a living off of your knowledge at least?

Edited by morfin-56, 03 July 2012 - 01:30 PM.


#15 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 03 July 2012 - 01:54 PM

I no sooner got outfitted for making firewood and the skies opened to a deluge.

==========================

I hope no one minds that I just bumped three relevant threads in the Twilight Zone.

==========================

So, what would make the vessel to contain a vacuum that would be free of particles passing through or spontaneously erupting?

There is this structural aspect of fluid motion called, "laminar flow." When a fluid in motion interfaces with other motions in the fluid, it layers up as the differently moving bodies of fluid interface. This is the laminar flow, and it has boundary layers where it could be said to laminate varied flows. The flows around a vortex follow patterns very similar to what we see in the orbital mechanics of our solar system. The shorter the radius of a flow layer, the higher both the axial and relative velocities in that flow layer, just as not only the year of Mercury is shorter than that of Venus, but also its speed of travel along its orbit is faster than any planet outside its orbit, and so on to the outer planets.

The wall of a vortex is made up of ever faster and tighter flows, passing each other and in doing so, creating a motional structure of some rigidity of form. In this we can see how, in physical terms, something is made of nothing, and at base, all is energy, motive force. Motive force, coming from where and what?

==========================

This is why I have written: In the beginning was the Motion, and the Motion was with God, and the Motion was God.

Motion, even if not of a physical substance, is prior to matter and time. If the substance occupying space was without motion, then what would time be? What, of any material nature could exist? This is beyond any chicken or egg question. The Big Bang has been brought to us through mathematical calculation conducted on bases of assumption. What kind of motion we're talking about, what its origin might be, will remain up for our guessing. If it all came from a vast vacuum at rest, somehow moved, I cannot say.

==========================

My vacuum vessel is spun from the ethers of space via an array of vortices that draw all matter, down to the smallest sub-atomic particle, away from a center of vacuum. New particles (ether vortices) erupting within the center of vacuum will be drawn out into the vortical walls by the flows of ether motion. Particles flying in from outer spaces must cross the laminations to enter the center of vacuum, and being of the same substantial stuff as the flow layers, will be caught in the traction of the flow and turned away.

As said before, the whorls of a vortex are more negative in regards to their electrical charge. Outer spaces, away from the whorls, will be less negative. But, at the center of the hard vacuum, exists the true positive pole of electricity. Electricity is the stress across space as motion in the ethers achieve the necessary velocity to form the stable vortices of ether we think of as particles. I call these a, "resonant vortex," as fluids of any given density have their resonances. These vortexes, at some of their earliest points of relative stability, are quarks and electrons, these made up of the flows being thought of as strings, all of which are simple ethers in spin.

I assign no forces other than electrical in the maintenance of the universe's structure, stating here that gravity is that same electrical force, all being born from motions in the ethers. This is why the miss-identification of gravity with mass blinds us and confuses us from such a basic level. We live in a static field which, and being within it, cannot possibly measure it at present.

==========================

Hmmm, the sun is out. Dare I try again?

Edited by Alder Logs, 03 July 2012 - 02:27 PM.


#16 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 03 July 2012 - 02:14 PM

Do you make a living off of your knowledge at least?


I maintain a free disc golf course and live on a small pension. I tell people about gravity around a campfire. The ideas I embrace don't seem to get much traction out in the world. I seek no gain, assuming my guesses could actually be knowledge. In my opinion, the main thing that has kept us tethered to this planet, and dependent on for-profit, finite, and non-renewable energy sources, is this: Free Energy Must Be Free!

We will never have free energy and be allowed free mobility until we can share what we have been given already. We won't do that until we serve other than ego, our false identities.

When the guy in his garage figures out the thing that could help everyone, including himself (as part of everyone), and says, "I'm going to be rich," he condemns his creation to the service of the forces of enslavement. Like our ego selves, money is not real.

I've never had such motivations, as these ideas are concerned. When I read what Edgar Cayce said, when asked in trance how to do it, I knew the truth of it.

It is a long way to these—and there must be determined for what purpose these are used before ye may be given how, in what manner. For these take hold upon Creative Forces. Show thyself approved, first!

We are through for the present.


Yes, the machine I propose will create a gravity field, and in so doing, create new particles from the vacuum.

#17 morfin-56

morfin-56

    Mr. Miyagi

  • OG VIP
  • 1,521 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 03 July 2012 - 02:32 PM

Hmmm, the sun is out. Dare I try again?

Did I miss something? Try what?

It makes sense, because if you think about it, our planets are not changing speeds like they would have to, to be in orbit in the first place.
What I mean is gravity doesn't explain why the objects are moving, it just explains that the massive objects will orbit give they are in motion.
With your theory, it opens up a whole new playing field. What I got from reading that was the planets move based on there static properties?

Without a doubt, with the current theory of gravity, planets wouldn't be moving at the speed they are today.
They would be moving the same speed they were when the planets were being created.
With your theory, the orbital velocity is defined by the before mentioned properties.

With both theories, after a certain velocity is reached and object will leave orbit, re entering into a different wider orbit/larger solar system with a greater force holding it in.

If we had a more clear grasp on "gravity" then we would have a better idea about the planets in our solar system.
It is obvious that not all of them originated in out solar system.

#18 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 03 July 2012 - 04:08 PM

Did I miss something? Try what?


Try going out and doing my firewooding. It's gone to one hard rain shower after another.

==========================

I am very limited when it comes to explaining every detail my ideas might call into question. I haven't the math or the measurement capabilities to flesh out a new theory of orbital mechanics.

Here's my position (and I'm willing to see any other sides if I can): Show me a better way of understanding gravitational dynamics than what I have been laying down.

==========================

I take T.T. Brown's work as an indicator that I am on the right track. Also, I use what pertains from sources all over that would of necessity be discounted by the academic side. Cayce's trance channeling, Schauberger's machines and what I grasp of his story, David Hamel's machines and his experiences, John R.R. Searle's discs, and on and on...


  • tizoc4u likes this

#19 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • OG VIP
  • 10,749 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 07 July 2012 - 10:35 AM

You have to remember that what you speak of is not taking place in an area void of influence. the water spins not due to gravity. it rotates due to the spin of the earth within the gravity field. any falling object on the surface of the earth is not just moving in a straight line towards the center of the earth but it is also moving around the center of the erath as it rotates. or it maybe easier to think about the earth moving underneath the object as it "falls". this set of forces can be seen in the air currents around us as well as the oceans themselves. the cyclonic and anticyclonic movements of fluids(air as well as water) are brought about by the combo of gravity and the rotation of the earth.


Coriolis forces are not relevant/negligible at the scale of our toilets or kitchen sinks. The water always spins as it drains, but it can spin in either direction at human scales whereas a hurricane in the Northern hemisphere will always spin counter-clockwise. I'm not sure where the threshold is in terms of scale and it might be interesting to conduct experiments right near the point at which Coriolis forces begin to have a measurable effect.



I'd like to know more about the mechanism by which hexagons and squares spontaneously form in the centers of hurricanes or the South pole of Saturn or buckets of water set spinning at very high velocity. It's fascinating stuff, and lest we forget, Einstein's laboratory was the inside of his head so thought experiments alone can lead to some impressive insights (to say the least, lol).

Edited by TVCasualty, 07 July 2012 - 10:40 AM.


#20 Alder Logs

Alder Logs

    ૐ शान्तिः शान्तिः शान्तिः ૐ

  • Black VIP
  • 10,320 posts

Donator


Awards Bar:

Posted 07 July 2012 - 12:19 PM

I like to do gravity thought experiments away from stars or planets. All the experimentation done down here (and pretty much what's done in orbit as well) are in a gravitationally/electrostatically biased environment.

With two lead balls, hung in close proximity from a cathedral ceiling by piano wires, a finding of an apparent indication of attraction does not prove that the masses of the balls posses individual gravitational forces. If one were to suspend two iron balls within and an extraneous magnetic field, one would explain (as per current understanding) that the iron was concentrating the so-called magnetic lines of force and the balls were being induced to be magnets themselves.

Experiments set up to ascertain the mass of the earth have used Newton's suspect equation in order to reach their conclusions. This brings to mind The Devil's Dictionary definition of gravitation:

GRAVITATION, n.

The tendency of all bodies to approach one another with a strength proportional to the quantity of matter they contain -- the quantity of matter they contain being ascertained by the strength of their tendency to approach one another. This is a lovely and edifying illustration of how science, having made A the proof of B, makes B the proof of A.






Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!