[Physics] Why is a new beginning in physics necessary? *

[Arend Lammertink]

Hello Maurice,

2016 at 3:51 AM, Master Inventor <mdaniel at masterinventor.com> wrote:
>
>  I am an inventor/physicist and my interest is in practical physics that can be used to build advanced machines beyond what is now possible.  There were hundreds of thousands of sightings of alien spacecraft flying in our skies during the last half century.  None of these spacecraft, from many different worlds, propel themselves by shooting reaction mass out their tails.  We need an expanded physics that can provide us with practical engineering equations that allow us to build such vehicles ourselves.

I would agree with that, although I would also add the notion that
UFO's have likely been reverse engineered within so-called "black
programs" and that mankind already secretly possesses such
technologies.  Dr. Steven Greer recently gave an very long but
interesting talk about this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INbsBm70L4U

Fortunately, physics does not depend on the question whether or not
alien UFOs are real or not. Physics should speak for itself.  IMHO,
the best information we have on the physics which could enable UFO
propulsion systems is the Biefeld-Brown effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld-Brown_effect

Note that in order to study this effect, one needs asymmetrical
capacitors, which suggests that gravity and anti-gravity are related
to gradients in the Electric field, as Stowe proposed. In my proposal,
I defined gravity as the second order derivative (Laplacian) of the
Electric field [E], which should probably be extended to the Laplacian
of ([E] + [B]) in order to come to a complete description of the
gravity field, because in the "Nazi Bell" anti-gravitational effects
are suggested to occur with two fast spinning, counter-rotating,
highly charged mercury "bubbles".

While at the moment I have no proof whatsoever my proposal for
gravity, or the extension proposed above, is correct, it does make
sense and further study and experimentation with "lifters" and
variations thereof could lead to either confirmation or rejection of
my proposal:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm

In any case, one can make the argument that because "particles" are
known to exhibit wave-particle duality, it is clear that "particles"
*must* be electromagnetic in nature and that therefore there is but
one fundamental "force of nature": the electromagnetic.

And that means that gravity *must* be a force derived from the
electromagnetic, just like to so-called weak and strong nuclear
forces. In that sense, my proposal offers a straightforward
formulation of gravity in a natural way, in such a way that
predictions can be made which can be experimentally tested.


>
> As a first step, rotations of both space and time must be recognized as dimensions and not simply as degrees of freedom.  In modern physics we solve problems dealing with rotations using linear engineering simplifications (such as Hilbert space).  The simplifications work most of the time, but they disregard other possibilities that exist in angular space.  The laws of electromagnetism and gravity are written in only 4 dimensions.  Think of the many possibilities that would emerge if these field equations were expanded to 8 dimensions!

The problem is that such an expansion leads to an untestable model,
because any measurements we van do are confined to 3 dimensional
space. As I wrote earlier, the natural and simple way to describe
these fields in 7 degrees of freedom is to apply the Helmholtz
decomposition in our differential equations.

>
> My experimentation in these areas suggest that the conservation laws do not always hold in 8-dimensional physics.  That would mean that it is possible to build machines that violate the conservation of energy and the conservation of momentum.  It is clear that alien spacecraft routinely violate the conservation of momentum.  It is also clear that they have very powerful energy sources that we don't know about, or they violate the conservation of energy using some sort of "free energy" source.

Are you sure you have included the medium in your study of the
conservation laws?

With a correctly defined aether mode upon which we define the fields
along the Helmholtz decomposition, we can decompose the velocity field
[v] into a translational component and a rotational component, for
which the superposition principle holds at the [E] and [B] field
level.

Now the question is: are these fields "static" or "dynamic"?  Tesla
already gave us the answer in 1892:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1892-02-03.htm

"Throughout space there is energy. Is this energy static or kinetic?
If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is,
for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed
in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."

More recently, Prof. Claus Turtur worked this out in great detail for
both the "static" electric and the magnetic fields:

http://www.gsjournal.net/old/physics/turtur1e.pdf

With this work, we have all the theory we could ever need to build
free energy machines, without violating the law of conservation of
energy, because it's simply a matter of converting available
(zero-point or vacuum) energy into a useable form.


>
> It is clear that magnetic fields have some sort of vortex field component hidden within them; or another words a rotational component, perhaps orthogonal to linear space?

Well, the most simple explanation is that the rotational component is
a rotation of the fluid-like medium we call "aether".


> In tornadoes (a matter vortex) pieces of straw are sometimes shot through glass windows without breaking the glass.  Other similar phenomena have been documented.  This is obviously a multi-dimensional phenomena.

No, that is not "obviously" true.

Since matter is known to have this wave-particle duality character, it
has an oscillating element to it (i.e.: the angular velocity), so
higher order (resonating) oscillations are possible. All one needs to
do is rotate a string and it becomes clear how that would work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb1ToYeCVnI

This way, we would get matter in higher oscillation mode, which would
alter it's properties. And apparently, matter in such a higher state
of vibration is capable of shooting trough matter in it's normal state
of vibration....


>
> Think about the physics, not the math.  What is the structure of time and space?  Once you can create a model of how it works you can then apply the math.  Then you can give it to the engineers and build incredible machines.

Space can be considered to be 3 dimensional and filled with a
fluid-like medium, which has a number of measurable properties such as
characteristic impedance of 377 Ohms. Within this medium, waves can
propagate and vortices c.q. rotational movements can occur. The
dynamics thereof can be described by extending the 3 spatial
dimensions with a 4th dimension called "time".

The math for such physics comes down to applying textbook fluid
dynamics, most compactly described with vector theory and application
of the Helmholtz decomposition and the Laplacian. This in order to be
able to decouple and describe translational movements separate from
rotational movements as the "fields" of force known as the electric
field [E] and the magnetic field [B] respectively.

Best regards,

Arend.