Truly aesome let’s see what happened lots going on these days with foljs afar iam bak at wok in the last couple if days my leg thing I lost a month and a half ut healing fast still on antibiotics but iam started my mega vitamins again each day is getting ether my doctors are writtingvacpaperbonkybrare situation I’ll try and find the link to what I ha d
Electrodes inside copper spheres, inside a faraday box. Similar to how Meyl demonstrates scalar transmission, with a spherical transmitter and receiver. It was used to detect scalar radiation from the sun passing through the moon during an eclipse.
While on the subject, the equally simple schematic for reverse-biased diode quantum noise used to detect gravitational fluctuations can be found in this paper (page 26): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312018402
Regarding slide 16 from VEGA and the paisley shaped holes...
Dr. Heinrich Kusch is an Austrian archeo speleologist. He has researched man made caves in the Steiermark from the paleolithic (lots of them with a toroidal shape btw.). He cites some absolutely insane claims made by the local church. They say the caves were used to teleport from one place to another. Dating of the "Strebelgang": At least 20k years old by TCN dating (=Terrestrial Cosmogenic Nuklides, surface exposure dating). 3D scan confirms smoothness of the cave walls is +/- 1cm.
Everything very amusing and wild, until I saw this microscopic picture of a sample of the wall:
Please tell me I'm not going crazy! This is the smokiest of guns I've ever seen for an advanced ancient civilization. Or did I just watch too much EDS footage?
Did he plant this microstructure? The linked video is 7 years old. And he himself thinks the iron inside the spherule is from a high frequency drill bit. He has no clue where else it could come from... so I've come here.
Yes - I have seen this from various sources, I had come across it many moons ago. Yin Gazda (who is Austrian) recently caught up with some of the team.
I just wanted to add here that your clarification on BH taxonomy below, in response to Jerome, is really helpful, Bob. A recent YT rerun from Thunderbolts Project with S. Crothers brought some shade to BH, BB, and MBR, which is fine (2014!) However, that "it" can be micro as well as Hyper-Macro has always given me an extremely grounded sense of "as above, so below," into our very bodies, minds, and spirits. Like the terms CF, and LENR etc, I am used to language innovations to arrive at novel yet ever-more-accurate concepts derived from physical phenomena. For heaven's sake, look at the language in medicine/pharmacology and even molecular biology! Astonishing words! (An old friend in Ann Arbor is a linguist and turned me on to Hermeneutics,late 70s, yay!) I have always subscribed to a phenomenological approach to matter-as-experience, as in seeing an art and a craft to all areas of aesthetics, science, and ethics. Intentionality Lives! So thank you once again for your assertive clarity in responding to these "matters." hehe.
At some point humans have to agree on a word to refer to a phenomena or object, that doesn't mean that a particular explanation attached to it defines that word and therefore the word is wrong, it just means the explanation is wrong.
However, in my view, using the label "Black hole" is somehow endorsing and conveying the idea that light cannot escape from this region.
Yet, latest measurement show that these regions are far from being black (see my comment mentioning temperatures measurements of M87*).
Bob, Corky : Do you agree that, if the description of a phenomenon is wrong, then it is more difficult to devise a satisfying understanding ?
Sticking to a common label is essential, yet at some point it may be wise to point out that the label is in fact not appropriate at all. There is a unavoidable epistemological process of transition of models that implies a feedback loop between concepts and terminology (well... I admit that this is a model in itself...)
Anyway, I thought it might be of interest for Bob and other readers to be aware of a possible and non negligible discrepancy between what the label suggests and what is actually "seen" through measurements.
Dec 18, 2023·edited Dec 18, 2023Liked by Bob Greenyer
Bob, have you heard of Jean-Pierre Petit (JPP) ?
He is an 86-year independent, free ! , french astrophysicist.
He has a background in aerospace engineering and had a first career at french CNRS where he became one, if not the, specialist in... MHD (70's - 80's)
There he realized that his work was not appreciated by the "aparatchik" and faced strong pressure/intimidations.
He decided to move his research toward theoretical cosmology. He developed the "Janus model" (with many ideas that he credits to Andrei Sakharov), a model that predicted a number of phenomena that were recently confirmed by the observations of made by the JWST, contrary to what he calls the "dark theories" (dark matter, black holes) that fail against observations.
Although you talk about such concepts as "dark matter" and "dark holes", I feel that JPP's insights might be fully compatible with yours.
His web site is mostly in french : https://www.jp-petit.org/, however he do work and write articles in english.
I have. However, I work predominantly from physical things that nature shows repeatedly across multiple systems and then try to synthesise the message it is telling us. Be that the way matter is manipulated, arrangements of transmuted material or things flying around in our reactors.
As you can see, my model evolved only from physical observations.
I also see that, in order to conceptualize what happens, you do borrow some concepts like "black hole" and "dark matter" that are purely speculative (i.e. do not explain what is observed at the galactic scale, see the recent big surprise on discovering fresh pictures from JWST). In some ways such concepts could mislead your model-creation process.
JPP is really a observation-oriented physicist and his Janus model really seems to have explanatory power (I am not an expert, but I found some of his points particularly striking, for example this 1/3 temperature ratio observed on images of so called "black holes". I'll add a link in english when I can pinpoint it !...).
So I thought that some of the concept that he presents could enhance yours, but then, of course, it is up to your feeling and intuition.
When I refer to dark matter, I refer to Relic [anti]Neutrinos. Neutrinos are necessary in weak interactions, these are existant low energy versions. They are dark because they barely interact with ordinary matter so it is difficult to detect them. That being said, I translated the work of Dr. Alexander Parkhomov of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He built on the this paper,
Дмитриевский И.М. Возможность сохранения четности в слабых взаимодействиях. Сознание и физическая реальность, 1(4), 43-47(1996).
Dmitrievsky I.M. Possibility of maintaining parity in weak interactions. Consciousness and Physical Reality, 1(4), 43-47 (1996).
Over decades of experiments, which he recorded in his book SPACE. EARTH. HUMAN.
Now, on the other matter, there are things in the universe that have been given the name Black holes. Something exists at these points. I argue that they are the cores of complex vacuum current structures. I use the name so people know what I am referring to. It would be absurd to say there is no such thing as a black hole and then try to offer an alternative explanation for it. Even with in main stream astronomy, there is something like three mutually exclusive explanations - however, they all refer to the thing as a black hole. At some point one has to agree on naming something - we can disagree about what makes that thing what it is.
Dec 18, 2023·edited Dec 18, 2023Liked by Bob Greenyer
Thank you for these clear clarifications !
I think that I totally understand and share what you mean.
Yet, you seem to consider JPP as a pure theoretical scientist while he, just like you, insists on the importance of confronting theory to observation.
Regarding "Black holes", he comments on pictures from the center of M87 galaxy and shows how the consensus labels it as a "black hole" (named M87*) while in fact the temperature measurements show that it is not cold at all, i.e it does radiate.
Besides he shows that there is a 1/3 ratio btw temperatures in darkest spot and brightest spots, a red-shift ratio that, according to him, was predicted by Schwarzchild work in 1916 (in an article written in german, a key formula of which has unfortunately been mistranslated into english). He shows a diagram that explains what should be seen according to current black hole models and what is actually seen (in accordance w/ Schwarzchild theory).
Now, I acknowledge that I am completely unable to understand the details of JPP's work and make an informed critic of it, just as I don't understand the details of yours.
I just feel that there is something similar in both approaches and way of thinking, something that mixes "genuine" and "genius".
When I mentioned JPP, you replied with insisting that you were focused on observation : for me, this suggested that you viewed him as an abstract theoretical guy. Is this really a mis-interpretation ?
It came about from observation of the marks left on many independent experiments.
First the core [magneto]-hydrodynamic structure, then the sothic triangle cone and lower part, then the overall circle which aligned with various other features in experiments.
You can follow the whole realisation process from 2017 by reviewing in sequence every "O-Day" video.
This is a very late one in the process where I reveal the 3D version.
Note : in the video "O-day another dimension", it seems that each one of the long sides of the triangle includes the point of intersection of two of the diagram circles. If it is the case, then the triangle is a "near-sothic" one (with an 24.3° top angle).
For more clarity, I draw a diagram that shows the near-sothic vs sothic triangles :
No they did not, but the depth of these truths appears to belong with the Trimurti within the Sri Yantra and Vajra brother, then Chinese Bagua in 8X8=64=32+32. Please see my avatar as it is the source of all you speak to with regard to the Yin Yang, which is what Nikolai Tesla was referring to as regards the magnificence of 369 through Solfeggio though and 147 and 528 (love) and Pascal's Wager (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager).
11^0 = 1
11^1 = 11
11^2 = 121
11^3 = 1331
(please recall my other post regarding prime number and time-lines)
Link below to what may be a helicopter vs disruption zone at Chernobyl. I bet the fastest spinning parts failed first. Look at how it falls apart. Reminds me of distification.
there is no impact to the crane, look at the dynamic. The chopper start to lose abruptly the height and then it "liquify". In addition if you go frame by frame there are little flashes around. Maybe arre artifacts (but they are only in few frames), maybe not
I need to finish doing the transcript translation and publish the full Leonid Urutskoev (person who coined the phrase "Strange Radiation") account of his experiences at Chernobyl that forced him to leave mainstream physics where there was no answers to what he witnessed and reach out to the Cold Transmutation of Nuclei and Ball Lightning (CTN & BL) community for answers.
Yeah. I seem to recall stuff about other “strange” damage to the reactor vessel and associated pumps and pipes. But the way that helo just dropped and fell apart... right in front of everyone. Especially the way the tail crumble and the blades broke.
Never mind. I guess it hit the crane. But the way the tail broke sure looks odd. Along with where the main rotor broke made me thing it flew into the disruption zone.
An excellent presentation again Bob, one that got me thinking.
Now, another name for moment is torque. When there are two or more fractal toroids arranged in a circle (to form another toroid), an origin is established at the centre of the new, larger toroid. As this happens, the force emanating from the centre of each smaller fractal toroid becomes a moment (torque) about the new centre. As you were explaining in your presentation, Bob, a toroid on its own generates a flow on exit that exerts a more linear force - I say this as I believe the point at the centre of each toroid, in the limit, moves toward a singularity, but never quite gets there - and why? Because matter flowing (in a vortex flow) into the centre point eventually undergoes nuclear collapse to such an extent that is reduced to aetheric matter , and it is then that it flows onward and outward as an aetheric flow. Now, this aetheric flow is not directly influenced by electromagnetic fields, so the question is, why, when smaller toroids are arranged to form a larger toroid, the flows arc around the new centre of the larger toroid, to which I suggest there is a field established around the new centre with which aetheric flows interact, this new aether-level field being also responsible for the event horizon established around the new toroid (such discontinuities forming around each toroid at every fractal level, forming horizons (discontinuities) within horizons within horizons), with the outer-most horizon being the one that we see creating the clean cuts in the matter in or through which the outer toroid travels. So, for a simple case of two opposite toroids, as the centre emerges (to form a Catherine wheel-like structure) , locking the two smaller toroids into a pair, a spherical field expands from the centre that causes the flows from the now in-lock-step toroids to flow round inside the sphere (due to both the discontinuity at the edge of “the bubble” and the flow of any electrons that seem to like to wrap themselves around with aether) causing a positive feed-forward/feed-back loop that further strengthens the flows, and forces now acting as moments, strengthening the centre, strengthening the spherical field causing a positive self re-enforcing loop, allowing the outer toroid to grow - and what starts this all off is the bar between the two poles (of a dipole, perhaps), the same bar as seen at the centre of galaxies-or the great scar of Mars - Valles Marinaras - that is intense electromagnetic activity. At least, that is what I believe is happening - either tgat, or some slight variant of it.
One possible way a pair of toroids could form is via a flux loop - is it possible H+ - OH- pairs form a flux loop? With the H+ - OH- forming through H2O molecules being subject to shear forces , such as those created through repeated buffeting from longitudinal ultrasonic waves of the correct (harmonic) frequencies to shear the H+ from the OH-
H2O molecules always contain more or less static electricity/ether. You gave me the idea that the ether is released using the sound waves in an ULTR and it is then the source of the toroids that are the active agent. When you increase the amount of ether in H2O, the polar properties of H2O decrease and it changes to gas form. This happens during the production of browns gas.
I had prepared some graphics finally to show the sub-tor field interactions which I showed to the professors assembled in Taiwan (but camera had cut out). I may do a short presentation on it.
Thanks GD. I'm enjoying your visualizations. A 4D animation from Bob's perspective can't be far off, but that effort warrants being backed up by a super-refined model, such as you, Axil Axil, and Bob, Malcolm, others seem so naturally to articulate. BTW my focus of late in on the Egyptian "tools" and the distress they carry. Perhaps a link to the Hutchinson Effect, but IDK. Deeper SEM analysis required. Solving the GP riddle is getting rather viral. Peace.
OK, so perhaps this will catch your All-seeing eYe within the vesica piscis as the double slit ove the observer effect and quantum contextuality of consciousness. Providence (Horus and Ra) atop the cap-stone-less pyramid on the obverse of ONE Dollar bill and IN GOD WE TRUST without as-King who's GOD ,and what TRUST, eh? The answers are in terms of NEYEN TENET, in 12 cycles of periodic form in the periodic table as a kingdom of elemental form that gives rise through noble gas and noble metals to the plant and animal kingdom and human kingdom through magic squares, and Kepler's Mysterium Cosmographicum is integral.
Why is it there are 12 cycles in epic epicycle of epoch of Protium before there is fluidity (quasicrystalLINE form of quaternion pair symmetry) and coherence with the field of consciousness of Homer Simpson, the donuts (torus to torOID in the plasmOID).
Oh love it thanks Bob love all your findings I get ideas thank you
I am looking forward to your up and coming experiments, hope to be in California in Jan. Might be the only time next year.
Truly aesome let’s see what happened lots going on these days with foljs afar iam bak at wok in the last couple if days my leg thing I lost a month and a half ut healing fast still on antibiotics but iam started my mega vitamins again each day is getting ether my doctors are writtingvacpaperbonkybrare situation I’ll try and find the link to what I ha d
This is ease https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5553506/
Is this what you had?
Yes but today my leg looks normal very rare that’s why the doctor is writting a paper and also his friend the dentist my teeth get fixed
You leg looking normal makes me happy - as long as the rest of your does not look normal, I'll be even happier ;-)
The scalar detector: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301740054_An_Electroscalar_Energy_of_the_Sun_Observation_and_Research
Electrodes inside copper spheres, inside a faraday box. Similar to how Meyl demonstrates scalar transmission, with a spherical transmitter and receiver. It was used to detect scalar radiation from the sun passing through the moon during an eclipse.
A link I had for copper spheres, www.necopperworks.com/copper-balls.aspx
While on the subject, the equally simple schematic for reverse-biased diode quantum noise used to detect gravitational fluctuations can be found in this paper (page 26): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312018402
The latter method is used by Parkhomov - Kozyrev inspired.
https://youtu.be/r1HzbkLGQz4?si=OylJ3GAwaYoGw-iv&t=1058
Is that N. A. Kozyrev of the Kozyrev mirror?
I believe so. Haven't checked though.
Thank you for opening new areas for me to ponder in this beautiful plasmoid universe.
I'm sure Martin Fleischmann would be proud of your efforts.
Pleasure, doing what I can.
Regarding slide 16 from VEGA and the paisley shaped holes...
Dr. Heinrich Kusch is an Austrian archeo speleologist. He has researched man made caves in the Steiermark from the paleolithic (lots of them with a toroidal shape btw.). He cites some absolutely insane claims made by the local church. They say the caves were used to teleport from one place to another. Dating of the "Strebelgang": At least 20k years old by TCN dating (=Terrestrial Cosmogenic Nuklides, surface exposure dating). 3D scan confirms smoothness of the cave walls is +/- 1cm.
Everything very amusing and wild, until I saw this microscopic picture of a sample of the wall:
https://youtu.be/MglvrMTtdF0?si=eG1r1Z06AihzvZ_t
And close-up (scale added in later videos, spherule about 25-30µm in diameter):
https://youtu.be/MglvrMTtdF0?si=uJgr77bcaIilJ_mE&t=4968
Please tell me I'm not going crazy! This is the smokiest of guns I've ever seen for an advanced ancient civilization. Or did I just watch too much EDS footage?
Did he plant this microstructure? The linked video is 7 years old. And he himself thinks the iron inside the spherule is from a high frequency drill bit. He has no clue where else it could come from... so I've come here.
Yes - I have seen this from various sources, I had come across it many moons ago. Yin Gazda (who is Austrian) recently caught up with some of the team.
I think it used related technology.
Glad to hear that. I hope Randall Carlson is in the loop, too.
I just wanted to add here that your clarification on BH taxonomy below, in response to Jerome, is really helpful, Bob. A recent YT rerun from Thunderbolts Project with S. Crothers brought some shade to BH, BB, and MBR, which is fine (2014!) However, that "it" can be micro as well as Hyper-Macro has always given me an extremely grounded sense of "as above, so below," into our very bodies, minds, and spirits. Like the terms CF, and LENR etc, I am used to language innovations to arrive at novel yet ever-more-accurate concepts derived from physical phenomena. For heaven's sake, look at the language in medicine/pharmacology and even molecular biology! Astonishing words! (An old friend in Ann Arbor is a linguist and turned me on to Hermeneutics,late 70s, yay!) I have always subscribed to a phenomenological approach to matter-as-experience, as in seeing an art and a craft to all areas of aesthetics, science, and ethics. Intentionality Lives! So thank you once again for your assertive clarity in responding to these "matters." hehe.
At some point humans have to agree on a word to refer to a phenomena or object, that doesn't mean that a particular explanation attached to it defines that word and therefore the word is wrong, it just means the explanation is wrong.
Yes,
However, in my view, using the label "Black hole" is somehow endorsing and conveying the idea that light cannot escape from this region.
Yet, latest measurement show that these regions are far from being black (see my comment mentioning temperatures measurements of M87*).
Bob, Corky : Do you agree that, if the description of a phenomenon is wrong, then it is more difficult to devise a satisfying understanding ?
Sticking to a common label is essential, yet at some point it may be wise to point out that the label is in fact not appropriate at all. There is a unavoidable epistemological process of transition of models that implies a feedback loop between concepts and terminology (well... I admit that this is a model in itself...)
Anyway, I thought it might be of interest for Bob and other readers to be aware of a possible and non negligible discrepancy between what the label suggests and what is actually "seen" through measurements.
Bob, have you heard of Jean-Pierre Petit (JPP) ?
He is an 86-year independent, free ! , french astrophysicist.
He has a background in aerospace engineering and had a first career at french CNRS where he became one, if not the, specialist in... MHD (70's - 80's)
There he realized that his work was not appreciated by the "aparatchik" and faced strong pressure/intimidations.
He decided to move his research toward theoretical cosmology. He developed the "Janus model" (with many ideas that he credits to Andrei Sakharov), a model that predicted a number of phenomena that were recently confirmed by the observations of made by the JWST, contrary to what he calls the "dark theories" (dark matter, black holes) that fail against observations.
Although you talk about such concepts as "dark matter" and "dark holes", I feel that JPP's insights might be fully compatible with yours.
His web site is mostly in french : https://www.jp-petit.org/, however he do work and write articles in english.
Here is a english-sub video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYXV-zNM8s0
Hope it can help ,
I have. However, I work predominantly from physical things that nature shows repeatedly across multiple systems and then try to synthesise the message it is telling us. Be that the way matter is manipulated, arrangements of transmuted material or things flying around in our reactors.
As you can see, my model evolved only from physical observations.
Yes, I see,
I also see that, in order to conceptualize what happens, you do borrow some concepts like "black hole" and "dark matter" that are purely speculative (i.e. do not explain what is observed at the galactic scale, see the recent big surprise on discovering fresh pictures from JWST). In some ways such concepts could mislead your model-creation process.
JPP is really a observation-oriented physicist and his Janus model really seems to have explanatory power (I am not an expert, but I found some of his points particularly striking, for example this 1/3 temperature ratio observed on images of so called "black holes". I'll add a link in english when I can pinpoint it !...).
So I thought that some of the concept that he presents could enhance yours, but then, of course, it is up to your feeling and intuition.
When I refer to dark matter, I refer to Relic [anti]Neutrinos. Neutrinos are necessary in weak interactions, these are existant low energy versions. They are dark because they barely interact with ordinary matter so it is difficult to detect them. That being said, I translated the work of Dr. Alexander Parkhomov of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He built on the this paper,
Дмитриевский И.М. Возможность сохранения четности в слабых взаимодействиях. Сознание и физическая реальность, 1(4), 43-47(1996).
Dmitrievsky I.M. Possibility of maintaining parity in weak interactions. Consciousness and Physical Reality, 1(4), 43-47 (1996).
Over decades of experiments, which he recorded in his book SPACE. EARTH. HUMAN.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/171122121X
Now, on the other matter, there are things in the universe that have been given the name Black holes. Something exists at these points. I argue that they are the cores of complex vacuum current structures. I use the name so people know what I am referring to. It would be absurd to say there is no such thing as a black hole and then try to offer an alternative explanation for it. Even with in main stream astronomy, there is something like three mutually exclusive explanations - however, they all refer to the thing as a black hole. At some point one has to agree on naming something - we can disagree about what makes that thing what it is.
Thank you for these clear clarifications !
I think that I totally understand and share what you mean.
Yet, you seem to consider JPP as a pure theoretical scientist while he, just like you, insists on the importance of confronting theory to observation.
Regarding "Black holes", he comments on pictures from the center of M87 galaxy and shows how the consensus labels it as a "black hole" (named M87*) while in fact the temperature measurements show that it is not cold at all, i.e it does radiate.
Besides he shows that there is a 1/3 ratio btw temperatures in darkest spot and brightest spots, a red-shift ratio that, according to him, was predicted by Schwarzchild work in 1916 (in an article written in german, a key formula of which has unfortunately been mistranslated into english). He shows a diagram that explains what should be seen according to current black hole models and what is actually seen (in accordance w/ Schwarzchild theory).
https://youtu.be/rYXV-zNM8s0?t=3851
Now, I acknowledge that I am completely unable to understand the details of JPP's work and make an informed critic of it, just as I don't understand the details of yours.
I just feel that there is something similar in both approaches and way of thinking, something that mixes "genuine" and "genius".
I am not sure I commented much on JPP, I am not sure I said he was a pure theoretical scientist either.
Arff ! Sorry,
When I mentioned JPP, you replied with insisting that you were focused on observation : for me, this suggested that you viewed him as an abstract theoretical guy. Is this really a mis-interpretation ?
Thanks for sharing this fascinating work.
Regarding the "sacred geometry" diagram that you often refer to (cover and conclusion in this presentation)...
is there any video where you explain how you came across this particular diagram (among tens of others) ?
Regarding its construction, I can't figure out how the two symetric bottom segments are defined (the "nose" of the lady in the last slide).
It came about from observation of the marks left on many independent experiments.
First the core [magneto]-hydrodynamic structure, then the sothic triangle cone and lower part, then the overall circle which aligned with various other features in experiments.
You can follow the whole realisation process from 2017 by reviewing in sequence every "O-Day" video.
This is a very late one in the process where I reveal the 3D version.
https://remoteview.substack.com/p/o-day-another-dimension
Thanks for the quick reply !
For new-comers like me, a Sothic triangle is an 4 - 9 - 9 isocele triangle (with an approx 25.7° top angle) :
https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/537195061773128011/
Note : in the video "O-day another dimension", it seems that each one of the long sides of the triangle includes the point of intersection of two of the diagram circles. If it is the case, then the triangle is a "near-sothic" one (with an 24.3° top angle).
For more clarity, I draw a diagram that shows the near-sothic vs sothic triangles :
http://jer-graph.ouvaton.org/MFMP/Bob%20Greenyer%20diagram%20-%20Sothic%20vs%20near-sothic%20triangles.png
Question : is it of any importance in your understanding of the process ? if not, which one do you prefer ? ;-)
I don't think the Egyptians got it wrong, though it could be a "working understanding" on their part.
I stick to the Sothic proportions in my imagery.
No they did not, but the depth of these truths appears to belong with the Trimurti within the Sri Yantra and Vajra brother, then Chinese Bagua in 8X8=64=32+32. Please see my avatar as it is the source of all you speak to with regard to the Yin Yang, which is what Nikolai Tesla was referring to as regards the magnificence of 369 through Solfeggio though and 147 and 528 (love) and Pascal's Wager (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_wager).
11^0 = 1
11^1 = 11
11^2 = 121
11^3 = 1331
(please recall my other post regarding prime number and time-lines)
11^4=14641
111,111,111X111,111,11 = 12345678~9~87654321
3am - definitely watch on catch-up!
Link below to what may be a helicopter vs disruption zone at Chernobyl. I bet the fastest spinning parts failed first. Look at how it falls apart. Reminds me of distification.
.dustification
https://x.com/fasc1nate/status/1727125878969442689?s=46&t=xn8PCSW3z2-RNEkXl5ry5w
there is no impact to the crane, look at the dynamic. The chopper start to lose abruptly the height and then it "liquify". In addition if you go frame by frame there are little flashes around. Maybe arre artifacts (but they are only in few frames), maybe not
whew. Glad someone else sees it. I was thinking if the blades hit the crane cable they'd break differently. and the way the tail just crumblles...
I need to finish doing the transcript translation and publish the full Leonid Urutskoev (person who coined the phrase "Strange Radiation") account of his experiences at Chernobyl that forced him to leave mainstream physics where there was no answers to what he witnessed and reach out to the Cold Transmutation of Nuclei and Ball Lightning (CTN & BL) community for answers.
Yeah. I seem to recall stuff about other “strange” damage to the reactor vessel and associated pumps and pipes. But the way that helo just dropped and fell apart... right in front of everyone. Especially the way the tail crumble and the blades broke.
Never mind. I guess it hit the crane. But the way the tail broke sure looks odd. Along with where the main rotor broke made me thing it flew into the disruption zone.
An excellent presentation again Bob, one that got me thinking.
Now, another name for moment is torque. When there are two or more fractal toroids arranged in a circle (to form another toroid), an origin is established at the centre of the new, larger toroid. As this happens, the force emanating from the centre of each smaller fractal toroid becomes a moment (torque) about the new centre. As you were explaining in your presentation, Bob, a toroid on its own generates a flow on exit that exerts a more linear force - I say this as I believe the point at the centre of each toroid, in the limit, moves toward a singularity, but never quite gets there - and why? Because matter flowing (in a vortex flow) into the centre point eventually undergoes nuclear collapse to such an extent that is reduced to aetheric matter , and it is then that it flows onward and outward as an aetheric flow. Now, this aetheric flow is not directly influenced by electromagnetic fields, so the question is, why, when smaller toroids are arranged to form a larger toroid, the flows arc around the new centre of the larger toroid, to which I suggest there is a field established around the new centre with which aetheric flows interact, this new aether-level field being also responsible for the event horizon established around the new toroid (such discontinuities forming around each toroid at every fractal level, forming horizons (discontinuities) within horizons within horizons), with the outer-most horizon being the one that we see creating the clean cuts in the matter in or through which the outer toroid travels. So, for a simple case of two opposite toroids, as the centre emerges (to form a Catherine wheel-like structure) , locking the two smaller toroids into a pair, a spherical field expands from the centre that causes the flows from the now in-lock-step toroids to flow round inside the sphere (due to both the discontinuity at the edge of “the bubble” and the flow of any electrons that seem to like to wrap themselves around with aether) causing a positive feed-forward/feed-back loop that further strengthens the flows, and forces now acting as moments, strengthening the centre, strengthening the spherical field causing a positive self re-enforcing loop, allowing the outer toroid to grow - and what starts this all off is the bar between the two poles (of a dipole, perhaps), the same bar as seen at the centre of galaxies-or the great scar of Mars - Valles Marinaras - that is intense electromagnetic activity. At least, that is what I believe is happening - either tgat, or some slight variant of it.
One possible way a pair of toroids could form is via a flux loop - is it possible H+ - OH- pairs form a flux loop? With the H+ - OH- forming through H2O molecules being subject to shear forces , such as those created through repeated buffeting from longitudinal ultrasonic waves of the correct (harmonic) frequencies to shear the H+ from the OH-
H2O molecules always contain more or less static electricity/ether. You gave me the idea that the ether is released using the sound waves in an ULTR and it is then the source of the toroids that are the active agent. When you increase the amount of ether in H2O, the polar properties of H2O decrease and it changes to gas form. This happens during the production of browns gas.
Basically, yes.
I had prepared some graphics finally to show the sub-tor field interactions which I showed to the professors assembled in Taiwan (but camera had cut out). I may do a short presentation on it.
Thanks GD. I'm enjoying your visualizations. A 4D animation from Bob's perspective can't be far off, but that effort warrants being backed up by a super-refined model, such as you, Axil Axil, and Bob, Malcolm, others seem so naturally to articulate. BTW my focus of late in on the Egyptian "tools" and the distress they carry. Perhaps a link to the Hutchinson Effect, but IDK. Deeper SEM analysis required. Solving the GP riddle is getting rather viral. Peace.
OK, so perhaps this will catch your All-seeing eYe within the vesica piscis as the double slit ove the observer effect and quantum contextuality of consciousness. Providence (Horus and Ra) atop the cap-stone-less pyramid on the obverse of ONE Dollar bill and IN GOD WE TRUST without as-King who's GOD ,and what TRUST, eh? The answers are in terms of NEYEN TENET, in 12 cycles of periodic form in the periodic table as a kingdom of elemental form that gives rise through noble gas and noble metals to the plant and animal kingdom and human kingdom through magic squares, and Kepler's Mysterium Cosmographicum is integral.
Why is it there are 12 cycles in epic epicycle of epoch of Protium before there is fluidity (quasicrystalLINE form of quaternion pair symmetry) and coherence with the field of consciousness of Homer Simpson, the donuts (torus to torOID in the plasmOID).
Do Re MI Fa Sol La Ti... DOH!
https://youtu.be/QVuU2YCwHjw
https://rumble.com/v1e6469-ecologist-allan-savory-says-universities-suppress-critical-thinking-skills.html
hello, have you heart the story of this guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwiC9NKPfDk
https://youtube.com/shorts/EaE0crMSO2M?si=pCxPyJ7e6o6H0a_q
I made this only on here. It is private on my youtube channel. By the way Bob bring a umbrella with you. Floods to the North.