Marko Rodin - Smart Lazer Technology

[link to www.physorg.com]

"It is really amazing how the new research field developed since we found the first traces of Efimov states, "said Grimm. "Now things have become reality, things we did not even dream about five years ago."

Every atom that we know of is a) spinning, b) contains charge, and c) has a magnetic moment. What do we do to create charge (electricity)? We spin things in magnetic fields. On earth we have gravity and air friction to overcome, so must continually supply power to keep a generator spinning. But in space once in motion..... Also we know that the EM force is 10 to the 39 powers stronger than gravity, so to an electron spinning around a nucleus the force of gravity is negligible. This is why gravity only theories fail at the atomic level. Even rocks have spaces between atoms, so friction at an atomic scale is not relevant like it is to a generator that must pass through billions of air molecules per revolution.

One atom to the next, what other circuit do you need? Look at Tesla's experiments, the arcs of discharge can be emitted randomly into air, where is that circuit completing? As for heat, have you never seen wires glow when enough charge was running through them? Why do batteries get warm when used? Ever grabbed a light bulb after its been on for awhile? Electricity has no problem generating heat.

In order for you to have magnetism you have to have electrical currents, and since every atom we know of has a magnetic moment, current must be flowing, that or charge itself is enough to create magnetic fields. We know current flowing in a wire produces magnetic fields, but then every atom itself has a magnetic field, so perhaps only charge is needed, not flowing current. Do atoms in batteries have stronger magnetic fields after being charged than before? I do not know so am asking, but I surmise the answer would be yes if our equipment was sensitive enough to measure it. Even the atoms in electrical wires have magnetic moments when no current is flowing.

Neutrons do have charge, just both negative and positive, which is why electrons are both attracted and repelled by them and vice versa. You can call it neutral if you want, but the fact is they contain equal amounts of both charges so they attract and repel both negatively and positively charged particles. This is why the electron never collides with the neutron as it is held in orbit by both the attractive and repulsive aspects. The electrons charge state only determines it's orbital distance. Which I say is the exact same thing that determines orbital distances in our solar system and galaxy.

Speed-of-light experiments give baffling result at Cern
22 September 2011


[link to www.bbc.co.uk]



this is NOT ego

but

if you saw it in a movie
it would be science fiction

The problem is they didn't publish their results because they want someone to disprove those results, not validate them. They are basically begging someone to come up with a different solution that they can accept, so that all will be well with the universe again and standard cosmology can proceed as king again. They are asking for help in disproving the results, not proving them, one needs just read the words.

military keep nudging me on the topic of skynet for a couple of years now

i detect it comforts them to possess it

as in their anticipation/reaction is quicker so they feel more adequate in "keeping up"

so it seems

This is exactly my thoughts on it. Flowing current is not necessary, at least at the micro scale. It is the furthering of complexity that begins 'changing' the 'requirements'...charge creates the field of magnetism. Field of magnetism creates the 'structure' of the 'pulse' of charge. Field holds the charge. If it were any different, then charge would occur, but wouldn't be in a stable configuration, and would 'dissipate' into the surround.

ORTHOGONAL

1
a : intersecting or lying at right angles
b : having perpendicular slopes or tangents at the point of intersection <orthogonal curves>
2
: having a sum of products or an integral that is zero or sometimes one under specified conditions: as a of real-valued functions : having the integral of the product of each pair of functions over a specific interval equal to zero b of vectors : having the scalar product equal to zero c of a square matrix : having the sum of products of corresponding elements in any two rows or any two columns equal to one if the rows or columns are the same and equal to zero otherwise : having a transpose with which the product equals the identity matrix
3
of a linear transformation : having a matrix that is orthogonal : preserving length and distance
4
: composed of mutually orthogonal elements <an orthogonal basis of a vector space>
5
: statistically independent

So I have a question.

I know my system, and am completely self contained in the 3-6-9 circle. The 1-2-4-5-7-8 is another system. What is it? I am unfamiliar.

Please teach me.

So I have a question.

I know my system, and am completely self contained in the 3-6-9 circle. The 1-2-4-5-7-8 is another system. What is it? I am unfamiliar.

Please teach me.

your non material 369 the other is materia

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

More detail:

Orthogonality is a system design property facilitating feasibility and compactness of complex designs. Orthogonality guarantees that modifying the technical effect produced by a component of a system neither creates nor propagates side effects to other components of the system. The emergent behavior of a system consisting of components should be controlled strictly by formal definitions of its logic and not by side effects resulting from poor integration, i.e. non-orthogonal design of modules and interfaces. Orthogonality reduces testing and development time because it is easier to verify designs that neither cause side effects nor depend on them.

the consequences of your existence

the consequences of your existence

Yet another test of Andrea Rossi's Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) has been performed on a 4.5 kW version near the University of Bologna. This time a new set of observers were present, one of which is the chairman of the Swedish Skeptics Society, who confirmed that Copper is being formed from Hydrogen and Nickel -- cold fusion!

That really looks promising.

I should think they will continue to tighten up the procedure for validation purposes. At this stage, it is weight of evidence that counts and the results will need to be reproduced in other laboratories (I suppose the patents have been filed and methods will be readily shared).

The commercial and practical implications are huge but are nothing compared to the impact these results will have on the fundamental science. Cold fusion has been rejected by consensus science because current nuclear theory doesn't allow it. What we have here is one of those inconvenient facts which shatter theories.

Evening everyone...

Well yes...Alberts "special" and general theories...Are only local and yes they work "locally"...


The key to faster than light is (Gc) "gravatational constant"

here is the equation...Now I cannot write this here as an equation because of keyboard limitations...However this.

Gc=C²(p/over/u)beta

Decrease of Gc per annum = 7.5x10 (to the power of)-11

The gravitational field is constant in all newtonion mechanics.
The gravitational field is an interactive variable in the mechanics of relativity. Its action is dependent on mass and
the dynanics of mass and the dynamics of space...Gavity is a negative condition it has only 1 pole...Under Magnetism which has 2 poles there is the key to anti-gravity...

HTH...Indy

I remember now, LOL. It is in the Physorg links posted recently on this thread.