Moon Race

[bperet]

Jeff Bezos Wants to Set Up Amazon on the Moon
what next ? Bill Gates offering a windows based Moon Trip?
why do I get the feeling this is some sort of money laundering scheme?

There is quite a lengthy back-story about this, now that NASA has been exposed as yet another deceitful government agency that faked most of its accomplishments. A lot of it is on the ConsciousHugs forum. One would think that the governments and the military would have worked out how to get to the moon by now, as it would make one heck of a military base. But they haven't... so the big push now is to put that research into the hands of the commercial inventors out for big profits, to see if they can actually get a rocket to the moon.

Things like LIGO seem to be money scams, when you look into their funding. But I think this push is real, in the sense that our imperious leaders want to get off this rock before something "bad" happens.

We know from Larson (The Universe of Motion) that astronomy is BACKWARDS. So if they have been basing spaceflight on backwards reasoning, how are they actually getting probes "out there"? If they actually are... and there is mounting evidence showing that they aren't--it is CGI.

The RS does provide insight into the system, as previously mentioned, through the structure of quasars and pulsars. I'm still looking at this as a potential anti-gravity propulsion system, but am having problems with the theoretical model because the anti-gravity field not only lifts against gravity--but also pushes the molecules apart in the engine (since it is scalar). It apparently has the same problems of the famous, Marvin the Martian "disintegrating gun." Start the engine and it disintegrates (the molecules disassociate into gas). Got a solution to that problem? I'm stumped for the moment...

[blaine]

Just from reading about supposed antigrav devices such as TR-3B and similar craft talk about rotating vortices of Mercury with a large applied voltage. My initial (probably incorrect because it seems too simple) guess about this is that you essentially need some medium through which you can transfer a strong electric current (motion of space) in some sort of vortex pattern. Perhaps the vortex would concentrate the neutralization of the gravitational inward motion in such a way to provide maximum thrust in a given direction. Then you could employ three of these to triangulate that force in the desired direction for maneuvering.

I suppose the difficulty is that the magnetic fields produced shouldn't provide enough thrust just based on the measured magnetic field strength of the Earth and those produced via reasonably achievable rotational speeds of the fluid. What I'm interested in investigating more is if the existing equations used to determine electromagnetic effects (Maxwell's equations) could be missing important effects because of the defects in our interpretation of electric and magnetic phenomena as pointed out by Larson in Basic Properties of Matter. Here we find the biggest differences between Larson and Maxwell's systems are that in RS theory normal electric currents are motion of space (uncharged electrons) and magnetostatic phenomena is due to 2-d rotational vibrations. Electrostatic phenomena is motion due to 1-d rotational vibration. Electromagnetic phenomena is then due to motion of electrons through material aggregates, neutralizing the inward gravitational motion in 1 or more scalar dimensions to create magnetic phenomena.

Perhaps if one were to formulate field equations directly from RS, the differences between Maxwell and Larson could be highlighted more so as to better understand their differences. Right now it seems the main differences lies in the uncharged vs charged electron, which would seem to just ignore the radial force term proportional to the charge number. However, I'm sure there are more subtle differences. Note that this is something that Larson wasn't sure of in BPM:

As it happens, however, the previous work in magnetism, and to some extent in electricity as well, has followed along lines that are very different from those that are defined for us by the concept of a universe of motion, and the results of that previous work are, to a large extent, expressed in language that is altogether foreign to the manner in which our findings must necessarily be stated. This makes it difficult to determine just where we reach the point beyond which we are in agreement with previously existing theory. Whether the clarification of the electric and magnetic relations in the special areas covered in the preceding pages will be sufficient, together with a translation of present-day theory into the appropriate language, to put electricity and magnetism on a sound theoretical footing, or whether some more radical reconstruction of theory will be required, is not definitely indicated as yet.

It definitely seems possible to create such a field theory but you would necessarily have to include gravity due the relationship between vibrational rotation and rotational motions.

Anyway, back on the topic of propulsion: if the mercury idea isn't just a hoax (which is quite likely), then you'd have to overcome the fact that the high current would tend to get absorbed over time, transmuting the mercury 4-4-(6) into gold 4-4-(7). Perhaps this could be overcome chemically with a suspension of a material that likes to electron capture more than mercury. Also, what I'm also not sure about is why mercury is the element talked about. It becomes a superconductor at extremely low temperatures (< 4 K), but otherwise it is a diamagnetic material. So it would seem that one would also need to cool it to superconducting temperatures if one is to use it for propulsion?

Have you read of this idea before, bperet? Is it any way related to the concepts you were bouncing around?

[bperet]

Have you read of this idea before, bperet? Is it any way related to the concepts you were bouncing around?

Yes; the "mercury vortex engine" comes from the writings of David Hatcher Childress and the Stelle Group from back in the 1980s. It is based on a study of the Vimana aircraft described in the mythological texts of India. (I'm sure Gopi would know more about Vimana.)

Mercury is one of the alchemical substances and being a liquid metal is somewhat unusual in Nature. I have not looked at it in detail, but the displacements don't indicate anything extraordinary, so any unusual behavior must have to do with its liquid metallic state. It is a diamagnetic material, so it might be possible to utilize that to repel the Earth's magnetic field to produce lift. I'd have to dig some more into the Vimana ideas to see what it is that they were trying to do.

Of course, there are a few problems with these kinds of propulsion systems:

• Diamagnetic: only works if you are in a magnetic field. If you were to try to use it over the poles, it would fail. It would also give you about a 1400-mile upper limit, at the lower portion of the Van Allen belt--in which the charged particles would cause it to fail.
• Antigravity: only works in a gravitational field. Once you reach the Earth's gravitational limit--you're STUCK.

I've been looking at the physical structure of ultra-high speed motion, based on how the RS would define it--basically, it would require a gradient of motion, the 3-x having to be in a "core" that was separated by an intermediate (2-x) speed. Quasars are a good example, in that they create a bubble around them (see Nehru's paper on Galactic Bubbles) because they are receding into the cosmic sector (basically, the central portion is shrinking, but normalization of the effect makes it appear that a bubble is forming around it). The bubble, itself, is in the low-speed range and moves regular matter along with it.

This would probably be the structure one would need for an antigravity propulsion system--a spherical, hollow ball with an "internal sun" moving in the 3-x speed range. You could triangulate with it, which would explain the appearance of the TR-3B, as well as the older, Adamski-style "bell craft" that the Germans claimed to have.

Such a propulsion system would get a device to the moon, but probably not far beyond it, since the Earth's gravitational limit is about that distance and once you go beyond that, you enter the 3D coordinate time "aether field" of the sun. The ship would then become asteroid-like in that it would move with the flow of the solar field, but being encased in its own 3D spatial bubble, would not be able to propel itself with an anti-G drive.

[duane]

Such a propulsion system would get a device to the moon, but probably not far beyond it, since the Earth's gravitational limit is about that distance and once you go beyond that, you enter the 3D coordinate time "aether field" of the sun. The ship would then become asteroid-like in that it would move with the flow of the solar field, but being encased in its own 3D spatial bubble, would not be able to propel itself with an anti-G drive

couldn't you have a two position switch on your control panel
so that once you leave the Earth's field
the anti-gravity works against the sun's gravity ?

[bperet]

couldn't you have a two position switch on your control panel
so that once you leave the Earth's field
the anti-gravity works against the sun's gravity ?

If you read --daniel's early papers discussing the reverse-engineering of "foreign technology" (aka UFO propulsion systems), that is exactly what they found was being done--a propulsion and navigation system that works both in 3D space and 3D time, simultaneously.

A toggle switch won't work because the gravitational limit, being based on a mass aggregate, is a smooth transition between coordinate space and coordinate time, not a thin, hard barrier. With a switch, you could get stuck in that "mud." You would need a knob to smoothly slide between the two across the transition band.

But I am making slow progress on the Dewey Drive... since Quasars seem to be the key to understanding this type of propulsion, I am typesetting Larson's book, Quasars and Pulsars (been out of print for a LONG time), since everything astronomers put out is just wild speculation--Larson's analysis is a precise derivation of how quasars form and operate, based on natural consequences.

What it comes down to is this: quasars have the bulk of their matter in the 4-x speed range (the cosmic 3-x range, as Larson defines six speed ranges, 3 material and 3 cosmic). This causes the aggregate, itself, to be pulled across the unit speed boundary and into the cosmic sector. The quasar is actually shrinking in size, as its core (where the motion is the fastest) transitions into the cosmic sector--literally being "sucked" into the cosmic. It actually has properties more in common with a "black hole" than a conventional black hole does (the high-energy, "white" of the quasar is actually the "black" hole).

If one were to copy the structure of the quasar and corresponding "galactic bubble" surrounding it at a much smaller scale, it may provide a mechanism for an anti-G propulsion system. In conventional terms, one would need a micro-singularity at the core of the engine to generate the temporal gravity that would translate into spatial progression--that "push" against existing, gravitational fields. I do not (yet) have any idea on how to create such a micro-singularity using Reciprocal System premises, but the theory behind it does match the observational behavior of astronomical objects.

[duane]

another simple experiment about rockets
a balloon car brings down the space program

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSR-mKl3zqM

NASA SPACE PROGRAMING HINGES NUMBER ONE LIE ON FLAT EARTH|SO BAD FOR NASA


note: I think it's a bad thing that "the moon landing hoax" and "flat earth" are getting tied together

[bperet]

another simple experiment about rockets a balloon car brings down the space program
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSR-mKl3zqM

Excellent video, clearly demonstrating the problem. I particularly like the bit where they deflect the thrust and no motion results... if it was an internal pressure differential, it would not matter where the thrust was "pointed," only that it exited the system.

note: I think it's a bad thing that "the moon landing hoax" and "flat earth" are getting tied together

I guess "like hoaxes" attract! Must be a co-hoax. (Play on Nehru's comagnetism, where likes attract.)

I grew up on the Connecticut shore and been out on the ocean a good part of my youth. I know the Earth isn't flat--you can watch the boats disappear over the curvature, and watch the towns disappear from the bottom, up, as you head out to sea and grow from the top, down, as you return. It wouldn't do that if it was flat.

[Nick]

First of all, Bruce, I do appreciate your ideas and tireless work. It is needed for us, and our Planet, so please, continue!

But I suggest, that it would be more productive to concentrate on the new tech (so called “Dewey Drive”). Otherwise, this discussion will go into the “yet-another-crank-pot-conspiracy-theory” direction, when you deny “positively established scientific facts”.
Not good.

And I would suggest at least reading about the basics here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle.

What bother me, is the vulnerable zone you created. If someone decided to show that some or all data in this forum are complete nonsense, no problem! Here it is: rocket engine discussion in the Moon Race topic.
Again, not good.

I recommend your site to the aero-space engineers some time ago, and all this stuff about rocket engines, that mentions “youtube-experts”, places me at an awkward position now, although this is not a big deal.

Let's not forget, by the way, that classical mechanics works just the same way in RS as in traditional science, and you just can not lightly throw off solid experimental data from the previous years.

Also, we do not see papers on the subject, I requested earlier. Do they really exist?

Next thing is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSR-mKl3zqM.

Yes, “internal pressure differential” is not an explanation, but other part is yet another Flat Earth-like quasi scientific fake. Plain and simple. How could someone believe it escapes me, but nevemind.

The Internet is filled with facts and fiction, and it is not easy to tell one from another, considering that the web of lies and hoaxes is more complex than we tend to think.

So if they have been basing spaceflight on backwards reasoning, how are they actually getting probes "out there"? If they actually are... and there is mounting evidence showing that they aren't--it is CGI.

It seems, the idea that "everything we are told is lie or backwards" does not apply to "positively established scientific facts". Otherwise, there would not be such thing as RS theory too.

And if you doubt NASA has real probes, then Russia and China do have. And they produced more than one. I have seen some. They are real.
So the probes do exist, they leaved the Earth gravity field with escape velocity and some of them re-entered Earth's atmosphere after orbiting the Moon, for example. We can see them, we can analyse erosion of their heat protecting shields to determine temperature and re-entry velocity. No CGI here, just plain material data.

Also, we have ICBMs. They would not be such an issue without properly working rocket engines.
And, by the way, nuclear bombs(induced atomic fission devices in RS terms) does exists, explodes, somehow ignoring theories from the Daniel's papers and are used nowadays.

If still in doubt, you could consult your friend David Wilcock. He has a lot of the information to share about various space programs and mix of half-truths and hoaxes surrounding them. And William Tompkins has a lot to say on the subject, if we are open-minded enough to listen .

[blaine]

TR3B-like craft patent released https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=pate ... 145019.pdf

The interesting part of this patent is

A) the combination of the line of charge produced at each corner of the triangle with vertically (with respect to the horizonatal plane of the triangle) polarized electromagnetic waves. The interaction of these fields produces the force per unit volume that provides lift. See the equation under [0009]

B) "This combination of yields produces a spacetime curvature as determined by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity." The energy of this interaction characterized by the electromagnetic tensor F will provide a component to the gravitational stress energy tensor T as follows:

[Philip]

Related to thrust in a vacuum, here is a diagram of a rocket combustion chamber and nozzle. The expanding gas in the combustion chamber creates a pressure that acts both within the chamber and in the nozzle to produce pressure that yields a thrust (force = pressure x area) component. There are also offsetting forces acting on the sides of the chamber and nozzle. I don’t see any reliance on an atmosphere to generate this thrust.



After watching the balloon car video linked in an earlier post, the car successfully moves when the balloon expels its compressed air. That's not a surprise and since the car is not in a vacuum it does not really prove anything. The second part where a piece of paper is used to block and deflect the exhaust air is problematic. The paper block is intended to avoid having the exhaust interact with the atmosphere behind the car, but of course it can't really do that. Even worse, the exhaust air creates a resistance drag when it encounters the paper, so it’s not a surprise that the car hardly moves. Overall, I would say not much is learned from the experiment.

Related to the cluesforum discussion linked in an earlier post, the argument of free expansion of the gas into the vacuum sounds logical, but from the diagram I posted it still looks to me like some pressure is acting on the walls of the combustion chamber and nozzle to create thrust before the gas can exit the vehicle.

On the same theme of whether rockets work in a vacuum, my attention was drawn to space probes where thrusters are used to reposition the probes.

Finally, to debate the idea that all space probes are CGI, consider the Pioneer anomaly, and similar anomalies experienced by other space probes (see recent post. It seems likely to me that the probes are really out in the solar system otherwise the anomaly would never have been observed and reported.