Insect anti-gravity and Cavity Structural Effect

[A.G.Frog]

Check out this link
Victor S. Grebennikov: Insect Chitin Anti-Gravity & Cavity Structural Effect (CSE)

Viktor S. Grebennikov discovered CSE (cavity structural effect) and also claimed to have discovered an
insect with natural anti-gravity abilities. The story states that he even made a FLYING PLATFORM with the chitin shells from an unmentioned insect.
I think there is a link between this insect and the scarab beetle of ancient Egypt. ;)

This is Jerry Deker from Keelynet.com explaining the platform
[video]o2Xil-4isHg[/video]

[outlander]

Sounds plausible I just wish we could see some actual footage of all this stuff taking place..

[7redorbs]

this is a pretty cool video, and if this conspiracy is true, - it is the mother of all conspiracies proving most of the less seemingly absurd technological claims being circulated!!!

A

[Cynar]

It's curious how most of science works with papers and reports than can be analised on their content alone in a consise way, the 'fringe' groups seem to rely on talks and lectures which seem, at least to me, as much personal views and apeals to authority than useful infomation.

Cynar

[7redorbs]

Paul,
Perhaps, how most of science works with papers and reports is somewhat plainly different to the methods of the fringe groups. That is many modern scientists are taught that "if it sounds too good to be true, it is". I ask, does complete Unification theory sound really too good to be true? I would argue no, it just hasn't been done yet. Maybe these mens only crime was to dream.

I think that religion was replaced by science, but witch-hunts still occur daily. Most of these 'fringe groups' are too worried about expressing their beliefs honestly. When talking about the genius of schauberger , grebinikov, and the likes of Teslas 3 6 9. I think many of the devices still are not well understood. Scalar waves are still in debate, regardless of the numerous Ham Radio amateurs who _actually did get faster than c transmission working_. (see CONSPIRACY.CO videos)

Although it's true, there are liars, cheats and con artists, among them , I think, are a few good and genuine people who challenge today's science, and that is what makes tomorrow - imagination. That might not be scientific, but last i checked human beings still conceive the experiments, it might not be so misconceived as i might make it sound. Perhaps, if science replaced religion, there will still be heretics like Galileo, the difference of course - they challenge the appeal to authority from the authority.

And that just is unacceptable ;-) Which is why everyone at university is taught to dismiss imagination, and invention as 'bollocks'. The way I see it, if everything in the universe is real, even a book on fiction, someone has a lot of explaining to do for all this 'crap' and sometimes I am afraid it's not me ;-))

I know what you mean though, some of these guys are bullshitters. Some of them genuinely believe they can make a difference, Mark Rodin with his modified Toroid Coil is worth looking at. The way it is coiled is different, and it uses a type of non linear mathematics - hp claims he the energy consumption is less - due to the way its coiled; he conceived the idea considering sacred geometry, and tesla's old work.

I will say there is something to some of it,though, sometimes I am not sure what the bloody hell what, though ;-))

Yours truly,
A

[Cynar]

Universities do NOT teach that imagination and invention as bollocks! It's school teachers who do that. Any university lecturer worth the title is doing their best to undo it. What they DO teach is critical thinking. The simple fact is that any new Idea can not conflict with any reliable measurement. It's a standard teaching method for tutors to lay down a situation that appears plausible, but also apparently would break known laws. The students then have to find the error in the hypothesis.
The beauty of science is that it's rules are so simple, yet so powerful. The problem is, those rules are very unforgiving. The presentation style of science is the best for finding every fault, rather than hiding them. However, an 'outsider' can still be heard precisely because those rule filter the chaff. Einstein is a good example. Special Relativity was laughed at, until it predicted the orbit of mercury more accurately than Newtonian physics. Suddenly the rest of physics took notice.
Show me a robust derivation of the effect and I'll take notice. Till then science will look on them as kook's.

Cynar

P.S While science and religion both try to do the same thing (explain the world around us), they are fundamentally different in how they do it. Religion says THIS is how it is, now stop asking questions. Science works from the bottom up, willing to change it's views as evidence improves. Getting progressively closer to the truth. Hence how science built the modern world. If some people choose to worship it as a 'god' that's their issue. Science simply is.

[7redorbs]

OK Paul, agreed, perhaps neither of us can make a generalization so bold. 'All Universities' would intimate that all individual teachers have the same generic approach. But each teacher is an individual. A weak argument for me to suggest. I do not think that was fair of me.

Certainly though, even in science certain cultural obligations and objectives exist - although this is in contrary with the scientific method, I have often noted that _no human being whatsoever_ is totally separated from social and cultural belief systems. The emotional human being carries out the scientific work; 'we are still who we are' ; does a scientist still feel pain? or disappointment? Or contempt for a colleague? or kook? Sure I would say. Because, being a scientist doesn't make the human being objective, it helps the human being learn to separate their emotions and belief's from their knowledge and their intuition.. but it doesn't do it for them.

My argument is that Science and Religions aren't different because they just adopt a different set of social & cultural beliefs, which are followed, at least - they are supposed to be, I think on that level they are identical. Albeit a very 1 Dimensional way to see it. You are right, of course there is a difference in the methods of attaining 'truth'. I feel that emotional 'truths' are more about the individual than the scientific ones. All I would point out is that perhaps Religion filled a few emotional truths that Science does not - and society pays for it. Who ever said fear wasn't healthy? It was one of the things that kept billions of people surviving a cold war , and what led to the birth of modern civilization.

My point about science is, it is a wonderful invention of man - total objective thinking. My point though was, unfortunately human beings aren't totally objective, anyways. We can be distracted, biased, in fact I believe mechanically we are to an extreme high enough to challenge the true objectivity of science, just from our being associated with it. (Maybe why science was conceived and created in the first place?) Until the scientific method totally disassociates the human being altogether, I remain as suspicious to science as science remains suspicious to free energy kooks. Or better still, maybe 'science' was 'already there' in the universe. Perhaps there is more to the universe than science? Heresy do i hear? ;-) Alright then, what the 'scientific community' calls science ;-)

Which is why I must find it unlikely, even in the deepest scientific community, to get "science" and "community" to be entirely complementary. Maybe I will entirely agree, when man is able to create a perfect method - I'm not sure science is it, it's one step away from fear and control of religion yes, I think we've yet to take some steps to secure the one thing that really matters, and I'm not sure if that is Science. It just takes one outsider like Einstein to 'change it all again'. It is funny how fear seems to rule all communities as much as it had gave birth to them. And how familiar the psychoanalysis of the 'laughing' scientist really is - laughter is a social reaction. It is not science.

The real question should be are they laughing
1. out of fear (because they do not understand)
2. out of hilarity (because they do not understand)

I guess my point is, every man has a good reason - but very few men prove it.

I would rather adopt the phrase, today is tomorrows barbarism. and I find it forces me to constantly redefine what objective actually means!! Not that I disagree with what you say -I think you really do the description of science some justice. Of course, such non linear philosophical thinking is heresy. But isn't that what imagination is?

Very interesting. young men will dream dreams, and old men will have visions, I guess.

yours truly,
A

[remelic]

Flying insects create charged air around themselves when they beat their wings. This charge, repels the Earth's field and causes the insect to become lighter. This is the same principle that Edward Leedskalnin used to move his stones at the coral castle. The bumblebee is a perfect example of this process. The wings create a small magnetic vortex around the body in reverse polarity to the Earth. That is the simple way to eliminate Gravity. To me gravity is a function of electromagnetism and if I had the math skills of a University professor I'd show you. Basically, the more magnetic energy inside a substance, the heavier it will be. Before I get myself into too much trouble, I'll leave it at that. Cheers.

[Rediscover]

Hey Remelic,

Loved your books and insights, nice thought creating a rotating magnetic plane vortexing not only in but also around and in plane with the flywheel. If really Ed's little magnets are existing and running north - south then magnetic and/or electric polarisation must be achievable. Being able to get to horizontal and vertical polarisation as working potential to create a vortex and keep it running by that same vortex, which will be amplified by the running stream of magnets which induced it in the first place, as a cascade, seems to me to have some....potential.

To me the universe is one big magnetic field where mass or energy is a disturbance of the still magnetic field as an electrical effect. This builds up at 90 degrees to the formation of mass and back to it's stillness only to be repeated again forever. Imbalance once initiated will cause continuous mass creation (charge building) and destruction (charge depletion by radiation). From the smallest to the biggest just one process.

Balancing such a system requires 4 poles in a 3d space, this is where I think our elliptical orbits from the planets stem from, two focus points generated by 2 sets of opposing poles. One set being the electrical (charging) set and the other the magnetic (discharging) set. It not only causes the elliptical orbit but also determines the shape, be it the shape of our solar system or the shape of our planet. If NS (electric) and WE (magnetic) polarity would be equal the result would be a sphere, if NS is stronger or WE is stronger the shape would be somewhat oblate.

I think when the earth was a sphere (long time ago) rotation at the equator has caused our moon to be born from the earth, just as all planets are born from the sun. Earth is already decaying into the magnetic field whereas the sun is still in the stage of becoming a sphere, likely to throw off some more planets in the future and continue it's path into magnetic stillness again.

Gravity would be a complex pressure function 90 degrees shifted with an x-axis of electric potential and an y-axis of magnetic potential but having a 1:1 inverse ratio between them so electricity would be opposite to magnetism. The fact that they are vectors and therefore directional indicates that indeed reversal should be possible.

Gravitating would be from 100% magnetic to 100% electric (mass forming) and radiation would be from 100% electric to 100% magnetic (decay of atoms), all in a spiralling form because of the 90 degree shift in planes between electricity and magnetism.

The idea and difficulty of imagining discrete magnets instead of waveforms couldn't be better explained than by the fact that Ed's magnets are always in motion, this simply solves it, what we consider mass is formed by magnets, not as being built up of magnets but by it's properties/force. You seem to be completely right, magnetism -or at least variance in it- builds mass.

Ed calls them magnets in motion, we could call them scalar waves of magnetic pressure, they are exactly the same. It now occurs to me that we only have to deal with pressure in directional form, or in Ed's words direction of north and south pole magnets in motion.

If this would be true then the movement of the magnets could be compared to a vibration of an airtight membrane between two bottles, movement of the membrane always implies two opposite actions, one pressure building and and exact opposite pressure relief. A single current cannot exist. It's the magnetic wave that vibrates the membrane, the resulting pressure building/relief is our electricity. You therefore need a a membrane at an angle between two bottles to create the effect, 90 degrees would be optimum and balanced.

Our physical body is made up of mass, just as our physical earth, sun etcetera, we won't notice magnetic variance easily because we are on that same magnetic plane as our surroundings. Things at a plane at an angle such as electricity can be noticed quite easily on the other hand.

I think we need a complete makeover of our perception in order to understand reality as it is, we are riding a wave but we don't see it as a wave, we're just sitting in our little boat and are wondering why everything around us moves and revolves. We need to turn our head 90 degrees and see the roller coaster rails in front of us instead of looking sideways and trying to understand how and why the landscape changes.

No wonder why this could get by for so long without being understood, or even noticed for that matter, unbelievable, you and Adam, thanks for all insights it now becomes fully clear.

A simple comparison makes it even more obvious, do we notice that we are moving, spiralling through space at incredible speeds, no. We are the still fulcrum point and everything rotates around us, would we notice our local galaxy accelerating? We wouldn't, only the picture painted in the sky would change - our sideways look-. We would look for al different kinds of explanations but probably never find out that our local galaxy was the culprit.

The same for magnetism, that what makes us up will be overlooked because we don't notice the subtle changes, only external effects will be discovered.

Cause is all, we're just enjoying the effects. Be cause in order to rule the universe, you need to facilitate effects.

Again, many thanks to all for incredible insights.

[remelic]

To Rediscover,

Thank you for the lengthly post, you have a lot of good wisdom there. It just makes sense to me that the universe would be primarily magnetic in nature. It explains a lot of physical properties of almost all matter and how it interacts with itself and other matter. It's very important that we try to fully understand electromagnetism to its fullest and you may be on to something with all your information above. See if you can find a way to use it mechanically. Just turn the magnetic principles into a mechanical process using the magnetism and you should be able to make machines that can produce polarized electricity. According to this theory, it is possible and Ed apparently does it. I read somewhere that a strong alternating magnetic flux projected at 90 degrees to a conductor (wire, metal bar) causes charged particles of opposite polarity to move to either end of the conductor.

Thank you again for taking the time. I appreciate it. I am working on another book right now about how magnetism effects plants and their cellular activity. Again it is a really simple technique that can aid the production of cells and it is also a theory that can be directly tested by everyone to help show that there is a difference between the energy of the poles. The real discovery is when there is definitive proof that magnetic particles exist and are found to be two and not one; working with each other's attraction/repulsion.

Great Thoughts!