Re: Capacitor Array Gravity Warp Drive – Tested & Verified?

Stephen Brummitt ( [email protected] )
Thu, 13 Apr 2000 12:53:11 -0400 Some good points Ken,

But, I do have a quite different opinion about the nature of time. I
wouldn’t exactly call it a “function”. Time is a ‘consequence’ of the
very existence of matter. If there were no matter, time would cease to
‘BE’.

‘IF’, matter is in a state of motion (and, dependent upon the the nature
of that motion); then time is merely an ‘observable byproduct’, of that
matter (in that ‘particular state’). Time is a VERY flexible ‘byproduct’
of this particular set of circumstances, to boot. But, relatively
speaking; ‘ALL MATTER’ is moving in a multitude of directions
simultaneously; so, it is currently impossible to observe ANYTHING,
which is ‘perfectly stationary’. So, any sort of theory, which seeks to
explain the nature of matter, time, or any other ‘laws of the universe’
is immediately suspect, if it ‘REQUIRES’ the existence of ‘TRULY STATIC’
objects.

While I cannot prove it, I would surmise, that ‘OBSERVABLE TIME’ would
still exist, for ‘perfectly stationary’ matter. However, I am JUST
referencing here, the ‘physical movement’, of anything larger than an
atom; and NOT just the very ‘vibration’ of that matter, which is needed
to keep it in a ‘solid state’ – As opposed to, falling into a heap of
Einestin/Bose condensate.

The ‘observable universe’ is EXACTLY the way it appears, ‘BECAUSE of’
ALL that is ‘observable’ about it (whether we have observed it, or not);
AND, to take even one seemingly small ‘true factor’ of its make up, out
of the discussion, for ANY reason, has ‘sullied the mix’. Thus rendering
any conclusions NULL and VOID, which were drawn from the extrapolation,
of the foundational ‘precepts’ of that ‘theory’.

As ‘we observe it’, a static ‘ANYTHING’, which has it’s ‘roots’ in the
nature of matter, is still subject to being observed ‘over time’. It is
not ‘obeying’ any OTHER law of the universe, by just setting around;
especially, by any conclusions we might be tempted to draw, from just
‘watching it, ‘over time’. So! Yes static fields, are observable ‘over
time’, (TO US) as being ‘static’; that is the very reason why, we are
even aware, that they ARE ‘static’, from our ‘frame of reference’.

(AND, YES! There is a point to every word I have written here. I haven’t
just been typing to see my own words, om the screen.)
________

Now, on to some very interesting questions, about the ‘nature of time’,
as it is being observed in the Bedini motor – POSSIBLY!

‘IF’, there truly is some sort of ‘time displacement’, which is
‘possibly’ the agent ‘responsible’, for the ‘overunity’. Let’s explore
exactly ‘what’ could be taking place there. ‘IF’, the harmonics involved
are ‘somehow’ altering time; is the motor ACTUALLY reusing the same
exact energy more than once?

I would say, that ‘that’ is NOT possible! I do think it is possible,
that individual electrons could be giving up their energy to the
‘system’, just before they are thrust back in time, (for a nanosecond,
or two) – where, (as a ‘cold electron’), it then becomes ‘re-energized’,
by virtue of it’s ‘physical position’ in the system (taking that energy
from it’s surroundings), and then gives up that ‘newly acquired’ energy,
to the system, before AGAIN being thrust back in time. This would indeed
account for ANY cooling of coils, which have been reported in some motor
configurations !!!

That scenario is a lot more reasonable, than thinking that the whole
‘system’ RE-LIVES some sort, of an ‘all encompassing’ temporal causality
loop, over and over; yet still manages to give our observable timeline a
‘constant source’ of ‘new energy’. If a time loop extended ‘outward’ any
farther, than the individual electrons, then the stage would be set, for
a whole host of other physical anomalies, which ARE NOT being observed.

AND, ‘IF’ this particular scenario IS the ‘real explanation’ for the
‘observed phenomenon’, then (at least in this case), there is NO need
for any ‘other’ delivery system for the observed ‘overunity’ !!! Just
think about it. There has been absolutely NO interaction of our
observable universe, with any sort of Primal Energy Field/Aetheric
Energy/Orgone Energy/Gravity Wave, or any other ‘pet theory’, that
anyone might be tempted to apply to this situation. It is merely, a
‘naturally occuring’, (though, artificially induced), harmonic
‘REACTION’, to a purely ‘physical stimulus’. The Aether has not been
manipulated. The only thing that has been altered, has been the
‘physical position’, of an electron, in a given timeline. NOTHING MORE !

Stephen Brummitt
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

“Carrigan, Ken” wrote:
>
> Read some of this and have read and seen Jean’s Website with
> his HV charged ‘capacitor’ flight vehicles. Way way back
> there was proposed an ion space drive, where nuclear fuel
> (radioactive) was used in focusing charges towards one direction
> with a nozzle. In space where there is no gravity, the ions
> have a mass and velocity, where when ejected, propel a ‘probe’
> or object. Over time the velocity will build and build and
> build, achieving remarkable speeds, since no gravity and space
> vacuum. Ion drive! Now, this high voltage scenario brings to
> mind the charging of air molecules – ions. This infers, however,
> a loss of electrons in a certain direction from the HV. Jean,
> I think, showed this ‘ion’ current. Ions are formed with voltages
> around 5kV or above, which also is used for room ionizers inside
> room air cleaners. At higher voltages >7kV all that is needed
> is needle points to release electrons into the air.. ionizing
> particles in the air, which then get attracted to ground or
> walls, ceilings, etc. Ever look inside a TV at the picture tube?
> Especially the older sets, there is SUPER DUST around the HV
> circuits, cause ‘loose’ electrons ionized the local air and
> attracted these particles and deposited on local ground points
> inside the TV.
>
> On Bills website, however, what I read was this… ‘electronics
> places on top of a Vandegraph powered capacitor read weight
> erratically’. Come on! Not a UFO field or something.. how
> about EMI??? Electronics are SUPER susceptible in electric
> fields such as >50,000 volts? Come on!
>
> Static electric fields, pure static, can not make anything move
> just as static magnetic fields do not make things move. It is
> the ‘dynamic’ or rotating/alternating/differentiated electric
> or magnetic fields which give work. ‘TIME’ is the function
> needed to produce work. Static fields seem NOT to have this
> TIME function. This is the key… UFT someday will allow us
> to build or derive time, to where we can manipulate time or
> gravity for that matter.
>
> Until then… particle physics? I like Beardens emails as there
> is something missing from classical electrodynamics physics.
>
> v/r Ken Carrigan
>
> PS.. ion drives in our atmosphere are really not sufficient to
> to do work on substantial masses. Tesla would have known this
> as he worked with Mega Volts which at that level created lightening!
>
> —–Original Message—–
> From: Hallse [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 1:03 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Capacitor Array Gravity Warp Drive – Tested & Verified?
>
> The Capacitor Array Gravity Warp Drive document has been around for a long
> time. It involved building a multilayer capacitor with wax paper and tin.
> Although most thought it a hoax, Bill Beaty’s website now has reports of
> successful duplication.
>
> More details at: http://www.amasci.com/caps/capwarp.html
>
> Regards,
> Hallse