Hey Bob, This is fantastic. I think you've atoned for your sin of saying in every video "I don't really like to confuse people with formulas an mathematics and prefer to explain things such that any 5 year old could understand). Very good attention to detail you saw dots that were a single pixel in size ;)
Since you specifically asked I checked the formulas and I found afew differences.
I'm shocked you did as well as you did. My eyes are burning just from just comparing them for 20 minutes. This very much reminds me of some of Meyl's work in his vortex books where he discusses the symmetry for magnetic and electric fields that is missing due to the absence of scalar fields and does full derivations. This seems to be able to comfortable explain the effects without needing to make any fundamental adjustments though. I'm intrigued to see where this all goes. (As in are there "errors in the equations" as Ben said, and I felt Meyl presented a good argument for. Or can we muddle on with our existing formulas :)
eq 3) for Hd it ends with "e(phi)(0)" and you typed "e(theta)(0)"
between equations 5 and 6) it should read "(r0-r)/c" and you typed "(t*r0/c)/c"
eq 6) (same as equation 3) for Ak it ends with "e(phi)(0)" and you typed "e(theta)(0)"
eq 10) the denominator in the last term is "c^2r0" and you typed "c^2r"
eq 11) for ET the last term has an I with three dots above it, you typed 2
(now make a video explaining what this all means :D I know it's coming so I probably needn't ask).
May 9, 2022ยทedited May 9, 2022Liked by Bob Greenyer
This is supposedly the model of physical reality they were working with in the Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk time experiments https://youtu.be/rMir5NTkI80?t=1526 (a clear view of the Torus of Time slide: https://imgur.com/a/JZjZjnI ). They were using spinor electrodynamics, mentioned in this Nevessky paper (@17:06 in the video), since the model describes the 5th dimension as a spinor. The center of the torus is "zero time" (which could also be considered scalar or complex space), which is apparently how you can jump to other universes.
Thanks very much for these "Bagel Game" presentations, Bob!
WRT the "as above, so below", "toroid", "mini electron" and the like findings, I think you'd be very interested in the "charge field" model of the Universe of Miles Mathis. It has a steep learning curve, so Iโve done my best to summarise it at
Hopefully you and others in the group will find this interesting. Hereโs an executive summary to whet your appetite and show why I believe this is relevant to your recent (and prior) presentations.
1) There are a huge number (spread out thinly across the Universe but concentrated around what we call "matter") of exceptionally small particles like incompressible billiard balls, zipping around at the speed of light. They are as small compared to an electron as (roughly) an electron is to a village. Although too small to detect with any of our instruments they appear "en masse" as the 3 degree "cosmic microwave background".
2) Through partial collisions with other particles they can build up discrete and quantised "layers" of spin; axially and in x/y/z coordinates, with each "layer" resulting in a particle that looks larger and more massive to our instruments. Multiple โlayersโ can be built up on top of each other as long as they are different to the layer below (and above). The particle is only stable if the next โlayerโ doubles the size (similar to a gyroscope).
3) Once particles reach the size of an electron, they are so large that they act as a porous spinning ball, or more actually toroid (often somewhat flattened due to the speed of the spin), with a constant stream of smaller particles passing through them. Due to centrifugal force most of the smaller particles are ejected around the equator, and the most likely entry point without suffering a collision is via the poles. This can be seen on the Earth and other planets as well - the "magnetic field" channels particles into the poles, which in energetic times result in auroras, and there is an excess of infrared energy leaving the Earth around the equator, especially just North and South of the equator (image available if interested).
The main difference between this and a more conventional aether model is that the background sea of particles is NOT mainly static; it's zooming around at c and is not only interacting with every particle but is an inherent part of all particles the size of an electron or larger (Miles estimates that 95% of what we measure as the mass of a proton is actually that of these smaller particles "passing through"). The other is that whilst the particles are flying in all directions, there are more than an average number of them heading in certain directions, as mentioned above. So there is not so much an "aether wind blowing past the earth" but instead an aether wind blowing through the Earth at all times, and which is actually a fundamental part of the Earth. It also means all macro-particles are somewhat connected, locally at least, through the interchange of the smaller particles.
This also explains why Michelson-Morley were unable to find anything (much), as their equipment was looking for a "wind" running parallel to the ground. This also explains why Martin Grusenick's replication of the Michelson-Morley experiment with the interferometer being altered to make it perpendicular to the ground did pick up a strong positive result. It also wouldn't be unusual if there were diurnal and seasonal variations, as well as variations after large CMEs, bearing in mind the solar origin of most of the particles travelling to Earth.
Also as the kicker it is this flow of particles that literally is charge, electricity and magnetism. Thereโs a lot more in Milesโs model about how the stable particles then form stable atomic nuclei, and then molecules, and what their structure and properties are because of this, all based on this flow of โmini-electronsโ.
You continue to see this rotating stable spherical/toroidal structure with the main inflow via the poles and outflows via the equator at higher levels like the plasmoids/ball lightning/EVOs et al, all the way up through planets, stars and galaxies.
Happy to discuss with anyone whoโs interested (purplepete@gmail.com). I have more detail on my website re how this fits into some of the Electric Universe Theory models and the work of Per Bak.
BTW this is basically a summary of my 50 years of looking for a good model of the physical universe as a research scientist.
Hey Bob. First, I would like to say thank you very much for taking the time to answer our questions. We know you have much more important things to do.
There are some things about electromagnetic phantom that I'm wondering if I have understood correctly.
If the smallest turns of the wire had been in nanno size and it was not only a c-torus but a multi -torus. Would the electrical and magnetic forces then be much greater?
It is started with an ac current of 30 Hz. I can not think of where in nature there is ac power. Could it be that the fhantom could be started with an impulse?
Apparently there are two different fhantoms. Some with a magnetic field on the outside and some with an electric field. Does it give them different properties, for example that the latter can ionize the air?
Hey Bob, This is fantastic. I think you've atoned for your sin of saying in every video "I don't really like to confuse people with formulas an mathematics and prefer to explain things such that any 5 year old could understand). Very good attention to detail you saw dots that were a single pixel in size ;)
Since you specifically asked I checked the formulas and I found afew differences.
I'm shocked you did as well as you did. My eyes are burning just from just comparing them for 20 minutes. This very much reminds me of some of Meyl's work in his vortex books where he discusses the symmetry for magnetic and electric fields that is missing due to the absence of scalar fields and does full derivations. This seems to be able to comfortable explain the effects without needing to make any fundamental adjustments though. I'm intrigued to see where this all goes. (As in are there "errors in the equations" as Ben said, and I felt Meyl presented a good argument for. Or can we muddle on with our existing formulas :)
eq 3) for Hd it ends with "e(phi)(0)" and you typed "e(theta)(0)"
between equations 5 and 6) it should read "(r0-r)/c" and you typed "(t*r0/c)/c"
eq 6) (same as equation 3) for Ak it ends with "e(phi)(0)" and you typed "e(theta)(0)"
eq 10) the denominator in the last term is "c^2r0" and you typed "c^2r"
eq 11) for ET the last term has an I with three dots above it, you typed 2
(now make a video explaining what this all means :D I know it's coming so I probably needn't ask).
This is supposedly the model of physical reality they were working with in the Philadelphia Experiment and Montauk time experiments https://youtu.be/rMir5NTkI80?t=1526 (a clear view of the Torus of Time slide: https://imgur.com/a/JZjZjnI ). They were using spinor electrodynamics, mentioned in this Nevessky paper (@17:06 in the video), since the model describes the 5th dimension as a spinor. The center of the torus is "zero time" (which could also be considered scalar or complex space), which is apparently how you can jump to other universes.
thank you
Thanks very much for these "Bagel Game" presentations, Bob!
WRT the "as above, so below", "toroid", "mini electron" and the like findings, I think you'd be very interested in the "charge field" model of the Universe of Miles Mathis. It has a steep learning curve, so Iโve done my best to summarise it at
https://thehonestscientist.com/miles-mathis/
Hopefully you and others in the group will find this interesting. Hereโs an executive summary to whet your appetite and show why I believe this is relevant to your recent (and prior) presentations.
1) There are a huge number (spread out thinly across the Universe but concentrated around what we call "matter") of exceptionally small particles like incompressible billiard balls, zipping around at the speed of light. They are as small compared to an electron as (roughly) an electron is to a village. Although too small to detect with any of our instruments they appear "en masse" as the 3 degree "cosmic microwave background".
2) Through partial collisions with other particles they can build up discrete and quantised "layers" of spin; axially and in x/y/z coordinates, with each "layer" resulting in a particle that looks larger and more massive to our instruments. Multiple โlayersโ can be built up on top of each other as long as they are different to the layer below (and above). The particle is only stable if the next โlayerโ doubles the size (similar to a gyroscope).
3) Once particles reach the size of an electron, they are so large that they act as a porous spinning ball, or more actually toroid (often somewhat flattened due to the speed of the spin), with a constant stream of smaller particles passing through them. Due to centrifugal force most of the smaller particles are ejected around the equator, and the most likely entry point without suffering a collision is via the poles. This can be seen on the Earth and other planets as well - the "magnetic field" channels particles into the poles, which in energetic times result in auroras, and there is an excess of infrared energy leaving the Earth around the equator, especially just North and South of the equator (image available if interested).
The main difference between this and a more conventional aether model is that the background sea of particles is NOT mainly static; it's zooming around at c and is not only interacting with every particle but is an inherent part of all particles the size of an electron or larger (Miles estimates that 95% of what we measure as the mass of a proton is actually that of these smaller particles "passing through"). The other is that whilst the particles are flying in all directions, there are more than an average number of them heading in certain directions, as mentioned above. So there is not so much an "aether wind blowing past the earth" but instead an aether wind blowing through the Earth at all times, and which is actually a fundamental part of the Earth. It also means all macro-particles are somewhat connected, locally at least, through the interchange of the smaller particles.
This also explains why Michelson-Morley were unable to find anything (much), as their equipment was looking for a "wind" running parallel to the ground. This also explains why Martin Grusenick's replication of the Michelson-Morley experiment with the interferometer being altered to make it perpendicular to the ground did pick up a strong positive result. It also wouldn't be unusual if there were diurnal and seasonal variations, as well as variations after large CMEs, bearing in mind the solar origin of most of the particles travelling to Earth.
Also as the kicker it is this flow of particles that literally is charge, electricity and magnetism. Thereโs a lot more in Milesโs model about how the stable particles then form stable atomic nuclei, and then molecules, and what their structure and properties are because of this, all based on this flow of โmini-electronsโ.
You continue to see this rotating stable spherical/toroidal structure with the main inflow via the poles and outflows via the equator at higher levels like the plasmoids/ball lightning/EVOs et al, all the way up through planets, stars and galaxies.
Happy to discuss with anyone whoโs interested (purplepete@gmail.com). I have more detail on my website re how this fits into some of the Electric Universe Theory models and the work of Per Bak.
BTW this is basically a summary of my 50 years of looking for a good model of the physical universe as a research scientist.
Hey Bob. First, I would like to say thank you very much for taking the time to answer our questions. We know you have much more important things to do.
There are some things about electromagnetic phantom that I'm wondering if I have understood correctly.
If the smallest turns of the wire had been in nanno size and it was not only a c-torus but a multi -torus. Would the electrical and magnetic forces then be much greater?
It is started with an ac current of 30 Hz. I can not think of where in nature there is ac power. Could it be that the fhantom could be started with an impulse?
Apparently there are two different fhantoms. Some with a magnetic field on the outside and some with an electric field. Does it give them different properties, for example that the latter can ionize the air?
Cosmic Dave (UK)
34 ไฝ่จ้ฑ่
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=k5e2wZDhuiQ
Do you have his email address? I want to buy a bagel coil from him. thank you
This presentation of problems with maxwellโs equations might be of relevance to understanding what is going on here: https://youtu.be/2ED3D-MlIBA