Atomic Gyroscopics, Negative Velocity & Relative Spin

This booklet is to be coupled with my videos to help visualize the concepts:

Rodin Coils, John Searl's Technology and The Illusion of "Pull"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGe_ILg608w

Atomic Gyroscopics and the Science of Spirituality Part 1 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbmTzYZeDVU Atomic Gyroscopics and The Science of Spirituality Part 2 of 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8dnAmS1IzM Twin Opposing Vortexes and Misconceptions of Space
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_PQnsxW56Q&feature=related

Part of the reason why I came to this conclusion is the Rodin Coil, Searl's Technology, Walter Russell's work, Leedskalnin's work, Peir Ighina, DB Larson and all the people I've been talking about for the past 5 years. I'm FINALLY able to communicate and vocalize what I've been thinking about for much longer than my 5 year intense search to explain what I've been pondering. A normal speaker has a ring magnet and a coil of wire inside it. When there's electricity, it jumps out the ring. A Rodin Coil has a ring of wire with a magnet inside it. When there's electricity, it jumps in the ring. Not only does it jump in, but it spins centripetally. That means to me that the magnet is searching for a distance that isn't physically available (4D). Otherwise it should jump further in the donut. But no physical space is available so the magnet spins. Something searching for a Negative Distance within itself will attract other mass. That mass will too search within itself. A chain reaction will take place. Just like conscious minds. When 1 thing sees something that changes perception... all other perceptions around it will start to change. Literally, mass is not attracting, but rather it's being PUSHED to the center. But it can only go to the center so far at which point it will spin. The spin is 90 degrees to the direction it Would travel. There is outward push and inward push. If you try to push something inward further than physical distance will allow and it can't reflect the centripetal spin on it's axis, then that mass will heat up equal to the force being applied. Things heat up because they can't spin on their centripetal axis fast enough. Centripetal axis cools things down. Vibration and Oscillation heats things up. All conventional technology uses outward electric motions.

The parts of the machine aren't in sync and can't move freely enough to spin on their centripetal axis. There fore the parts heat up. Spinning on a centripetal axis pushes "electrons" down that vortex being initiated. Compacted electrons = cold. Electrons themselves are exponentially smaller than hydrogen atoms. They are spinning on their centripetal axis faster than Einstein's failed theory of relativity will "allow." But they are spinning that fast anyway. The faster the centripetal spin, the cooler it gets, given there's no friction impeding the spin. An object can only get so cold on the scale it's on. An electron is soooo small, it spins MANY times faster than what any measurable object can travel in a linear direction. That creates a lot of cold. About 0 Kelvin cold. And that's the temperature of space. Because space is compacted electrons. The more electrons, the colder. Electrons are converted to useable electricity. They are everywhere. And where they think there is nothing... there is everything. They don't believe in negative distance or equate Centripetal spin as such, so they don't look within themselves. They say there is no within yourself and not to bother to look. But if you look hard enough for something that's not there or for a distance that can't be.... you will find it anyway. Space is 0 Kelvin because of the compacted electrons, but the lowest they can measure is 4 Kelvin because the only reason why the electrons are able to stay in that charged state is because of the Discharge of mass on larger scales.

The forces of discharge that reach the depths of space are at tangential angles in certain zones which create what science would label a "black hole." Just like there are peaks and troughs to valleys, there are peaks and troughs to parts of space. At the peaks, there is solid matter. At the troughs there is the absence of matter. The tangential pushing forces in the depths of space create undisturbed zones where the energy is charging from all the discharging of other matter. Therefore... no matter how much energy we use, there will always be more charge than we can possibly use. Tesla knew it and John Searl proved it before.

LAW OF SQUARES AND RELATIVE SPIN: The SEG is so important because it's the only machine that accounts for the SPIN of the make up of the parts. Science accounts for the density, but not the charge of the mass. All the charges of the materials are cumulatively equal from layer to layer. Each element in the SEG are relative to each other. What does that mean? We are relative to the Earth right now. Meaning we have the same spin! The Law of Squares accounts for the SPIN of the atoms that make up a given material. If each layer was the same weight, that would be accounting for an outward force. Weight is representative of pushing against something else trying to pass through it. But we don't want the weight or density of the materials relative to each other... we want the SPIN of the materials to be relative to each other! Density and spin are 2 different things. Trying to pass through something and Seeking a negative distance in place are 2 different things. The density refers to how much mass is there and how much is compacted together.

But the spin is something different. That same density mass can be spinning centripetally at a different rate. And the Law of Squares finds the Random components of atoms... meaning, the Centripetal Spin of the atoms. not the density. So the cumulative spin of the atoms in the neodymium core is relative to the cumulative spin of the atoms in the teflon, Ferrite layer and copper. The sizes and weight might be different... but the spin is the same. And there's no physical way to find the spin of each atom really other than the L.O.S. That's why it's seemingly random. Because we are trying to measure by the density, or shape or size or distance traveled. The Law of Squares must measure the negative force, or the inward force, or the Centripetal charge of atoms and their "parts". When you have those in resonance.... that is the ultimate in universal energy. Because ALL energy itself is resonating to that centripetal charge. If you harmonically resonate the spin of elements in a system, it will be able to reap all the energy at that resonating level... which is all the energy of deep space!!!!

There are 2 different scales: Density or Spin / Mass or Energy / Time or Space The 2 scales are NOT equal.

Spin = Gravity, more specifically, Spin = Inward Thrust. (Inward Thrust SIMULATES "gravity") Mass cannot thrust inward in on itself, but mass can flow with a wave which Can flow in on itself. Density Spin Density what Psyence labels gravity. The Same density of 2 materials does NOT equal the same spin.

Just because you have 1 gram of neodymium and 1 gram of copper does not mean the spin of the neodymium is the same as copper. The Density might be relative, but the Spin is Not. Density is not relative to Spin. You would have to have more than 1 gram of copper to equal the same relative spin of neodymium. The spin is in regards to the atoms. When a spinning systems parts have relative spin that system will reap IN more electrons than it sheds. Electrons seek the path of least resistance just like water and every other thing. By aligning the relative spin of atoms in resonance, there is more cumulative force than what mainstream science is accounting for. There is a Synergistic effect and harmonic or ordered output. Conventional Technology only accounts for relative density of parts. Conventional on the left Searl Tech on the right. Relative Density in = Random Spin (Energy) Out Seemingly Random Density In = Relative Spin (Energy) Out

AS ENERGY IS FORCED DOWN IN A CENTRIPETAL SPIN, MASS EQUALLY AND OPPOSITELY IS FORCED UP. Normally, mass is being forced down, but objects on the surface of the Earth can't reflect centripetal spin great enough to equalize, so they heat up and break down over time. Oxidize, etc. If you generate a field big enough (of opposite polarity to Earth's field) while accounting for the relative spin of the system generating that field... the mass of the system will BE FORCED UP = "anti gravity" / Inverse "Gravity". . . . Pi = the Depth of the Universal Vortex and the Center which can NEVER be reached. Let's test this out and see if it works. We take a circle and find the radius. That will tell us where the center is right?

Now let's zoom in to the dot we marked as the "center", and find the radius of that circle:

Now let's zoom in to the dot we marked as the "center", and find the radius of That circle:

Now let's zoom in to the dot we marked as the "center", and find the radius of THAT circle:

etc etc etc. at Infinitum. How far down the center of the rabbit hole do you really want to go? Pi never ends and gets smaller and smaller because the end can never be reached and the dot will always get smaller and smaller as you attempt to go in and calculate in. Forever running away from you. This universe is fractal in Nature.

A 2D circle in IS a cross-section of a vortex cut off by matter.

Mass wants to PUSH down a vortex. All mass wants to seeks the peak of the vortex of greatest influence. The peak is at the center of any given circle.

But the peak will always extend farther than the mass can physically reach so we see the cross section as a circle in the center of a vortex on the ground. Mass takes up space... but the peak of a vortex reaches within space. Inner Space or Negative Distance. Mass can never reach the center of a circle. It will try to, and on our scale it will SEEM like it's in the center. On our scale, it's a "good enough" estimate to discern the object is in the center. But the exact center cannot be calculated and concluded. 22/7 = Pi = When we see a hurricane and look from the top down, we see a circle. But that circle is representative of how much further down the vortex (wave field projects Inward.

The diamond shape represents a certain volume of negative distance. There are 2 intersecting wave-fields (Twin Opposing Vortexes)

All mass will be able to collect AROUND the diamond. If that mass cant spin on its Centripetal Axis to reflect the energy required to travel that Negative Distance in that mass will heat up from the resistance encountered. Volume is representative of space in 3 dimensions, so we cant accurately call the cumulative negative space as volume. This is something 4D. Inner space. But the energy within that negative volume is somehow proportional to a linear distance. An object wants to spin on its centripetal axis in an attempt to reflect what WOULD be a certain amount of energy required to propel that mass outward in a linear direction. We only see the mass. We dont see the wave field that the mass is flowing around. Wave Fields can pass through each other Mass cannot. That gives the false impression that matter collects or is attracted to other mass. Density does Not equal gravity. And what is labeled gravity is a pushing force.

The Center of the Earth spins because it seeks to be Hollow but the space it wants to fill isnt available. All the mass is attempting to Repel THROUGH each other and find the "center" of

Earth's Wave Field.(There are 2 wave fields at the North and South Pole. The fields themselves extend through each other out the other side of the Planet)

Mass doesn't collect at the center of the Earth. Mass doesn't collect At the center of a Vortex. Mass collects AROUND the center of a vortex. The center of a vortex is void of mass. But the center can be so tiny that the mass is SEEMINGLY being attracted to the center. If there is more mass than the physical space will allow... that mass will ATTEMPT to pass Through each other but it can't. The mass can't even reflect it's Centripetal Spin that it wants to, therefore the center of the Earth heats up. There is more negative space at the center of the Earth than the physical mass can travel to. Therefore it spins at the center. But because it can't spin beyond relativistic speeds.. it heats up.

Terminal velocity is measured only to the CRUST of the Earth. If an object were able to fall THROUGH the Crust, it would ACCELERATE to what they label "the speed of light." But Mass can't pass through other pass. The wave-field of Earth extends many thousands of miles IN the center further than the physical space allows. Because mass can't travel past the crust, it PUSHES down in an attempt to reach the end of the wave field. (bottom of the vortex) Gravity is an electric PUSHING force from the top down. Not a pulling force from the bottom up.

The Psyentists can measure the center of the Earth and all they will see is compacted matter which will give them the false impression that "gravity" is "pulling" all that mass to it's center.

A circle in 2D is representative of a cross section of a Vortex in 3D. Look at a tornado. When it touches down, it creates a circle where the center is void of force. There is stillness in the center. All things in motion seek to achieve a state of rest. Therefore all mass will ATTEMPT to reach the bottom of that vortex. You can tell how far down a wave field (vortex) reaches past the physical ground by the diameter of the circle in the center of the vortex in relation to the amount of power driving that vortex. Pi is something more than what Humanity realizes. I think Pi is representative of the Universal Wave Field which extends to INFINITY. Therefore all mass will ALWAYS attempt to reach the "center" or the bottom of the vortex. But that extends infinitely far WITHIN, therefore ALL mass in the universe will attempt to "fall" down that vortex. "Electrons" are so small that they are able to reflect more of the spin closer to the "center" of that universal vortex. But even an electron can only spin centripetally so fast before it breaks apart. It will find an equilibrium between the infinite wave field and the finite physical realm. That scale follows Maxwell's equation (up to a point) There is more to the Lorentz Force than Humanity realizes too. -- Jason Verbelli

Nazi Occultic "Black Sun"

Dream Catcher

The depth of Negative distance inward (4D) is proportional to the rate of Centripetal spin in 3D. There are 2 Scales of Centripetal Spin. An object can spin on its Centripetal Axis as a whole... or the atoms that make up an object can spin on their individual axis while retaining the shape of the whole! If a basket ball is on your finger and isnt spinning as a whole, it wont have balance. If every atom of the basket ball was spinning on its own centripetal axis while retaining the shape of the whole the ball would LOOK stationary, but have the energy AS IF it is spinning on your finger. The spin force that Would propel the mass as a whole is distributed evenly among every atom making up the ball. In that state, the ball could remain stationary on your finger yet be balanced! Because the cumulative charge necessary to create stability is still there, just on the atomic scale. This is one of the differences between Yin and Yang. Yang is spinning as a whole. Yin is all the parts of the whole spinning as one. Yang will experience inertia. But Yin will cancel inertia. You can have a plane flying through the air... or a UFO levitating in the air. The plane is made up of atoms. The atoms of the plane are all flying as a whole. Therefore it has to travel a linear path, exert outward force and experience time as it does so. It is balanced in the air as it flies. (Relative Density) If the plane stopped moving in the air... it would fall to the ground like a rock. The atoms of the UFO are spinning on their centripetal axis individually.

Therefore it can be hovering stationary in the air yet it is AS IF the UFO is flying. Balanced in this case means all the atoms are spinning but the whole is stationary. (Relative Spin) If the atoms of the UFO stopped spinning on their centripetal axis, the UFO would fall to the ground like a rock.

So... you can SUBTRACT the amount of time and energy it WOULD take you to travel a linear distance as a whole. If you were to travel Without accounting for the relative spin of the atoms making up your body, you experience inertia and time and full force of resistance. If you have a table with a grid of gyroscopes attached to it.... And the gyroscopes aren't spinning... when you go to move the table, you will be pushing the total weight of the table and gyroscopes. If all the gyroscopes are spinning on their centripetal axis REALLY fast and then you went to lift up the table (at an angle) you could subtract the amount of force you WOULD have to exert Equal to the cumulative spin force of all the relative spinning gyroscopes.

Same principle on the atomic level. That means the table would SEEM to weigh less. Even though the density is the same... the spin is not. Therefore you feel the difference in spin. If there is less difference in spin because the parts of the whole are distributing that force evenly throughout the whole... it means it is AS IF the table only weighs 1 pound (while you go to move it at an angle) On a scale.. the weight is the same. It's only when you go to travel or exert energy at an angle do you notice the difference in weight, time, etc. Same mass is moving the same distance... but the time it takes and energy required to get it there is subtracted (equal to the total spin force distributed. Yes. Growth is charging, or condensing. Death is discharging or expanding. Sun is discharging, Planets are charging. Earth is growing. Sun is shrinking. Centripetal Spin carries a velocity which represents increments of negative time! Vibration or oscillation is increments in positive time because it takes time to bounce back and forth or trace a circumference. But a centripetal spin isn't traveling Anywhere in no time at all! Relativity stays a constant between what though? The density or the spin of the atoms? It has to be one or the other since Density Spin. It's not a bubble but rather translating the energy that Would push on you into centripetal spin force of the atoms being hit. I can punch you in your arm as a whole and it will hurt you. But if you were spinning the atoms in your arm on their own centripetal axis equal to the linear force that I hit you.... When I go to hit you... you wouldn't feel a thing.

I could exert all the energy I wanted. The atoms that normally WOULD absorb the impact and knock against the atom next to it is now spinning on it's own centripetal axis like a bearing. That linear force (outward) is translated to centripetal spin. (inward) So, the forces instantly cancel.... therefore you feel nothing while the other person wastes their time and energy. Apply this to linear motion and traveling. When you travel, there is linear resistance on your atoms. If you were able to spin the atoms that make up the entire front side of your body, on their own centripetal axis... you could walk without resistance, and experience no time while you traveled from A to B. Apply to a UFO or ship. The front side of the ufo traveling forward is charged in such a way as to create a centripetal barrier of spin force that cancels/ translates all linear inertia and resistance. From outside perspective, it might SEEM like there is a protective "bubble" of energy around that object, but it's not. There is only centripetal spin that translates the motion. "The speed of light" is only in regards to linear motion WITHOUT accounting for individual atomic spin. If you spin in place as a whole equal to the energy required to propel you "the speed of light".. your body would rip apart from the centrifugal reactionary forces outward. But an atom is so small it can spin at that rate unaffected. Individually they can all spin like that and equal the cumulative spin force required to propel you a linear distance at "the speed of light." Canceling the resistance you would feel is "as simple" as translating the positive linear motion to a negative centripetal motion on the atomic level. As you charge with negative time, you are traveling a negative distance. Meaning the atoms are just spinning in place while retaining the shape of the whole.

As they discharge that energy, motion occurs. But that motion occurs in zero time because the charge and discharge are canceled simultaneously. Charge = negative time (atoms spinning in place) Discharge = experience time (atoms loose their spin) You can't reverse time, but you can slow time to zero relative to what we experience now. You can't travel back in time to look younger, but you Can replenish the current cells to be as healthy as they used to be. (and more) The size and mass of something dictates how fast it can spin in place. Something huge will experience MUCH more centrifugal force when spinning on a centripetal axis. Something very tiny can spin at a much faster rate before experiencing that same amount of centrifugal force. Smaller object, more centripetal spin before it rips apart. An electron is soooo much smaller than any atom or any "thing" that it's spin is ungodly fast. So fast... that it's giving off negative space relative to all matter. The size and mass dictates how fast something can also travel in a linear direction before it burns up. An asteroid will experience the burn of entry into the atmosphere, but broken up particles of that asteroid can make it down to the Earth. Smaller things can translate linear force into a centripetal spin faster than larger things. The amount of force required to spin a large object 3 times a second is MUCH more than something the size of a pebble 3 times a second. If all the pebbles of a boulder were able to spin on their own axis.. it would be as if the boulder weighed much less when you went to lift it. An object as a whole is a gyroscope. An atom is a gyroscope. It takes less force to spin an atom centripetally at "the speed of light" than it does to spin a boulder "the speed of light."

Stationary as a whole

Spinning as a whole

If all the atoms of the top are simultaneously spinning on their individual Centripetal Axis the top would LOOK the same but the spin force is evenly distributed amongst the entire object; therefore you can have that same top sitting stable on its point without spinning it as a whole. Where the object would normally fall over from lack of spin the objects needed spin force is compensated on the atomic level to create stability as a whole. Object stationary as a whole yet the atoms are spinning relative to everything else around it = electrostatic charge

Its a difference in spin that we interpret as electricity. If the atoms of a particular object are spinning collectively on their centripetal axis and you attempt to touch it you will feel the difference in atomic spin, therefore you will feel an electric shock equal in intensity to the difference in atomic centripetal spin.

--Jason Verbelli

Huge Realization about Toroidal Systems

I think I discovered something about the Rodin Coil and Toroidal Systems in general. First thing... if something has moving parts, then the design needs to have all those parts traveling in the same direction at the same speed, at the same time, with the same amount of force. All the parts need to be the same, shape and same ATOMIC SPIN as discussed in the previous chapter. If you're using solid state, than the charges need to be in resonance and pulsed at tangential angles forming a ring. So, pretty much, if the foundation of the design isn't a donut, then you're losing energy, creating more heat, etc. And if you DO follow all those rules (Law of Squares), then you reap the energy that WOULD be converted to heat through resistance. And at the same time you initiate any normal action. You will create Space (vacuum) which = compacted electrons. Less resistance, less heat and more energy. Exponentially more. That extra energy that would be lost will be projected in a Bi-linear fashion @ 180 degrees in phase. That will help stabilize the system and that's another reason why there's no vibration. The energy balances itself out. ------------------------------------------------------------------Explanation of a regular speaker: A regular subwoofer has a cylinder with wires wrapped around it like a Tesla Coil. All neat and stacked.

That connects to the back of the part we see.

That cylinder with wire is called the Voice Coil. That sits in the center of a ring shaped magnet.

When you put electricity through the wire, the voice coil wants to jump out of the center of the ring magnet.

If you are able to keep it there and attach it to something like the cone of the speaker we see, it will bounce up and down. Bouncing 10 times a second = 10 hertz. 100 times = 100 hertz The sound travels out from the speaker in 1 direction. Okay.. here's some cool stuff. Explanation of a Rodin Speaker: The Rodin Coil is like the inverse of a speaker. You can take a cylinder shaped magnet (or any shape) and put it in the center of the geometrically wound Ring of Wires.

When you put electricity through the wires, the magnet wants to suck to the center of the coil rather than jump out. But you can only be sucked into the center so far. Can't physically have negative distance. But the magnet Wants to! In reality, there is NO such thing as "pull". A bunch of pushes at tangential angles in a ring will SIMULATE "pull", but there is no pull. It's an illusion of observation. It's literally an inward thrusting. Inward Push SEEMS like "pull" or "attract", but the magnet is being pushed inward at tangential angles which moves it to the center.

As the magnet reaches the center, it also wants to spin. A CENTRIPETAL SPIN IS A SEARCH FOR NEGATIVE DISTANCE. (VORTEX) Spinning 10 times a second = 10 hertz. 100 times = 100 hertz. But a different type of hertz! (See my paper regarding detailed descriptions of the differences between Electronic Hertz and Magnetic Hertz) Harmonics of Wobbling Spheres and Equatorial Rings http://www.scribd.com/doc/52771110/Harmonics-of-Wobbling-Spheres-andEquatorial-Rings -------------------------------------------------------------------But if you don't allow the magnet to spin the magnetic field itself will spin. SOMEthing has to be spinning. If something cant reflect its natural reactionary spin, it will heat up from the resistance. If the magnet is stationary relative to the coil around it, then the field around the magnet will spin when you apply a charge. If the field is stationary relative to a magnet... then the coil will spin when you apply a charge. 1 thing will always be spinning while the other 2 are stationary relative to each other. Stationary magnet and field = moving coil = friction. Stationary coil and field = moving magnet = friction. Stationary magnet and coil = moving field = no friction. When 1 of those things is stationary it creates resistance. All the resistance we know of is in the form of heat. Heat is lost energy that WOULD have been sound, or WOULD have been more useable electricity, etc. But the resistance in the case of the Rodin Coil will create sound in TWO directions and without the bouncing because a stationary magnet and coil = no friction which = no heat or lost energy. All the energy that would have been lost is blasting out the other side of the ring in the form of sound!! Undisturbed.

That's why a Rodin Coil doesn't get hot at the same input / output as a regular coil. And you get the other half of the sound that would normally convert to heat without the bouncing and vibration. I'll repeat that... Without the bouncing and vibration!! Not only that... The sound is created by being PUSHED TO the center of the coil! The center of the coil is negative magnetic pressure. Positive seeks negative, meaning.... a regular speaker pushes sound outward in 1 direction... and the Rodin Coil the sound is being pushed inward from 180 degrees on top and bottom of the donut. Like a quasar. It might Seem like the volume is being projected out from the center of the Rodin coil out, but it's not. We are hearing the sound being drawn In TO the center. You can whistle with your lips by blowing out, or you can suck in air and whistle too to make the same sound. There's a difference. ALL subwoofers bounce and blow sound out in 1 direction. All speakers bounce. Could you imagine my Life Saver Coil in the trunk of a car!! It would blast sound like a Quasar in 2 directions and the speaker wouldn't really move!! ANDD.... The amount of space taken up in a trunk is a lot less because the magnet isn't sticking out the back of the subwoofer. It's contained in the center of the ring for a more compact fit. There is ZERO change of direction in a Rodin Coil. That is so unbelievably important I can't begin to stress it.... A speaker bounces. There is a change of direction with every bounce. A loss of energy with each change. But there is only energy GAIN when a system has all the parts moving in the same direction. A vibration loses energy and transfers that energy big time. A centripetal spin doesn't loose any energy and transfers no energy. It IS Charging. A spin creates a vortex which has a dual push in both directions simultaneously.

Look at John Searl's SEG, and the M.Y.T. Engine, and a Vortex. TOROIDAL SYSTEMS SEEM TO CLEAN THE SPACE AROUND THEM AT THE SCALE OF THE POWER SOURCE DRIVING THE SYSTEM! Here are a couple pictures of my 24 Inch woven Rodin Coil. The first of its kind.

Negative Distance - Negative Velocity (Negativity): The more negative distance an object tries to reach in a given amount of time will = how fast it's spinning in place. Thats what Einsteins depression of space graph actually represents. A vortex IS a centripetal spin. And a centripetal spin is seeking a negative distance that doesn't physically exist. Negative distance seems to be negative magnetic pressure. If you travel out in any given direction, that is a Centrifugal Action. Any seemingly straight line you try to travel is still an arc in the grand scheme of things. An arc is part of an oscillation. An oscillation is linear. A centripetal spin in non linear. If an object is 10 meters in diameter and travels 1 kilometer in 1 second without spinning at all, we can calculate the amount of force it takes for that object to reach Point A to Point B. If an object is 10 meters in diameter and wants to travel Negative 1 kilometer in 1 second, but remains in place.... that would mean that object is spinning with an INCREDIBLE amount of Torque. There is no Point A or B for a centripetal spin, so all that energy is compacted into a vortex. Point A and B are chasing each other Around you. The object becomes the fulcrum between Point A and B. The time it takes for that vortex to unwind (Reach the negative distance) will be proportional to the voltage applied, the density of the object, and relative surrounding environment. When you stop applying voltage, the object stops seeking negative distance, therefore it stops spinning. But the density of the object will keep it spinning. That's a vortex unwinding at which point the mass follows the field. that's the Cause. All we see is the effect of the weight of the mass spinning.

When you spin a top, you are charging the top's magnetic field. It takes time for that charge to deplete. All we see is the mass which gives us a false perspective on what's really happening. -------------------------------------------------------------------Rodin's Coil is driven by electricity, therefore all will be healed on an electric scale. The M.Y.T. Engine uses fuel and cleans the air around it of those sized particles. The SEG uses the very energy of the "vacuum" and cleans Everything around it. All known engines have pistons that go back and forth causing a vibration. The MYT has all the pistons traveling in the same direction and doing the intake, compression, firing and exhaust all at the same time. Take a look at this graphic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfE8eiZvYXM

Now imagine those pistons as the SEG rollers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhbbAL2HBQU

See how the repel each other and keep moving in the video? This leads me to think that when 2 magnets are forced together when they want to repel... that is equal to the compression of gas in a cylinder. The action of the magnet being pushed away from the other magnet is equal to the firing of the gas. (There is NO pull... only push. Just like Walter Russell's models and my own theory. There only exists PUSH in Nature. And when you try to change the direction of something with another pushing force.. you loose energy. But if you keep pushing in the Same direction... you won't loose energy, and you might even keep gaining energy!) Now look at Searl's SEG mock up demonstration with the voltage control. I'm seeing the magnets move just like the pistons in the MYT engine. Understandable, it's a different technology... but the dynamics of the MYT are so similar to the SEG. Both SEG and MYT have few parts that all travel the same direction. Both clean the air around it. (SEG cleans on a much wider range from "atomic" to macro). Just apply the same logic to Searl's technology.

If something is spinning on it's centripetal axis in the terrahertz, it will emit light, but will generate cold! Just like if something vibrates back and forth it will create light and heat. (linear motion) If something is oscillating in an orbit, it will create light and heat. (Linear motion) If something is spinning on it's centripetal axis, it's not vibrating or oscillating. But something solid and bigger than a hydrogen atom will rip apart if spinning at that speed, but you can resonate with hydrogen or lower elements to spin induce a resonant centripetal spin which would make the hydrogen itself glow Without heat. The bigger the mass, the slower the centripetal spin until critical mass and it breaks apart. The smaller the mass, the slower the Vibration or Oscillation until critical mass and it breaks apart. The bigger the mass, the faster it's linear motion (vibration or oscillation) will be and also heat up. (Planetary Motion) The smaller the mass, the faster it's centripetal spin will be while cooling down in the process and all things around it. (The Aether, or unrecognized particles in space smaller than hydrogen) See Walter Russell's Diagram. -- Jason Verbelli

The REAL Table of Elements:

I think there are 2 forms of positive and 1 form of Negative. Vibration and Oscillation are 2 different types of Positive, and Centripetal Spin is Negative. Positive seeks Negative. Negative is a Vortex and all things seek to fall down a vortex. For every vibration or oscillation, there is a centripetal spin, and vice versa.

Centripetal Spin and Magnetic Current in relation to Water Pressure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W_3GRvKyPU -----------------------------------------------------------------Negative is Female Negative goes in, like down a vortex. Implosion. Vaginas go in. Easy way to remember. Positive is Male. Positive goes out, like an explosion. Penises protrude out. Positive always seeks Negative like Male seeks Female. One always chases the other. The one being chased is female (Negative Passive) relative to the one chasing (Positive Dominance) Cathode = Male Anode = Female Yang = Male Yin = Female --------------------------------------------------------------------In sonoluminescence... it's unknown where the bubble goes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence I have a theory. It's said that 99% of All "atoms" are empty space. And if you compacted all the actual mass together and got rid of the empty space, that your entire body would fit on the head of a pin.

Which means we are filled with a whole lot of nothing! What makes the constituents of "atoms" any different? If hydrogen itself is made up of much smaller pieces as Walter Russell shows, then the bubble that seemingly disappears for the scientists is actually still there! But smaller than the atomic scale. Those parts of the atom are actually being put back together, not broken apart. It's when an atom breaks apart that it heats up and we can measure it. But when you induce a centripetal spin, the parts of that atom will flow down that mini vortex and start filling in the empty space with the parts already present. So it's like refitting a puzzle. It doesn't disappear but rather changes form on such a small scale we would call it "nothing" or Aether. Pier Ighina and John Keely both created microscopes that could see "atoms" in real time and in real color. Read Ighina's observations regarding what he called The Magnetic Atom here: http://www.rexresearch.com/ighina/ighina.htm --------------------------------------------------------------------Rearranging Matter: If you sloppily put things in a moving truck, you're not going to be able to fit many things. Same thing with the atoms that make up our body. It's like a sloppy fit. Sure, on our scale it works perfectly.. but on the atomic scale, we are a big mess. So, if you can play Tetris, and re-arrange the junk in that truck, you can compact what looked like an entire truck load into a tiny corner. The weight is the same, but it got drastically smaller in size. So, depending on how small of a scale your technology will allow.. you can Rearrange matter rather than compacting it.

If you try to compress water... good luck. But if you were to rearrange the parts of the atom that make up the molecules.... you could turn a glass of water into a drop. Without compressing it. You're just rearranging everything on a smaller scale. So, pretty much... the energy in space is so small and rearranged, the only time we can actually measure it is by breaking it apart and returning it to a sloppy state relative to the stable state it was in on that scale. There's resistance in space, because there's so much STUFF! But that stuff is rearranged so tiny, that we can't even measure it. There's no way for us to break apart that small scale to even measure. If we break apart a hydrogen atom.... we get a hydrogen bomb explosion. We don't want to break anything. We want to rearrange what's already there. You need the inverse centripetal spin on that particular scale and 180 degrees in phase... not to vibrate or oscillate something in hopes that you'll generate the same energy. (CERN...) That's a big difference between Toroidal Technologies and Conventional Technologies. Even CERN is using conventional methods. They are shooting 2 "electrons" at each other in opposite directions. You need for everything to move in the same direction. No breaking, no collisions. If something is spinning centripetally to the right, you need to spin clockwise also.... but 180 degrees in phase to what is already spinning. (Twin Opposing Vortex) Toroidal Technologies are Centripetal Dominant while Conventional technologies are Centrifugal Dominant. You have to lock on to a Centripetal Spin by locking on to it with the Same spin, but 180 degrees facing each other. If you want to speed it up, you need to lock on to the shaft (electric current) 180 degrees out of phase. The shaft IS the electric current.

I need a 3D computer program to show what I'm visualizing. ----------------------------------------------------------------------Time is Centrifugal! Distance is Centrifugal! If you can achieve negative distance through a Centripetal Spin... then that must also mean that a Centripetal Spin = Negative Time! You physically can't go to a negative distance and you can't physically go back in time, but you can create a spinning field around you at which point you are ISOLATED from surrounding distance and time. It will take a while for me to understand the implications of that. One thing that means is that you can create a field around you that reduces the time you age relative to outside that field. SEG... UFOs... etc. -----------------------------------------------------------------------If you want to travel 1 mile in a linear direction, you might need to equal the amount of energy you WOULD use in a straight line and apply that to a vortex while you're standing in place. Then you can subtract that amount of force needed to get to Point B because you already accounted for it. So, when you go to travel in that direction, it's as if you're already starting from the subtracted distance from your target If you want to travel 1 mile and you are generating a centripetal spin equal to the force it takes you to travel 1 mile.... when you go to travel that mile in any given direction while charged in that state.... you will travel a mile instantly. Because you already accounted for the energy. If you want to travel a mile, you have to exert X amount of energy. But you can exert that Centrifugally second by second.... or, you can exert that Centripetally. Build up the energy in place and don't even need to move. Then when you move, it's as if you're already there. Rather than taking the linear time to go there foot by foot and second by second. It's the difference between traveling to your target and having your target travel to you.

You can travel through the universe Centrifugally, or you can have the Universe travel around you Centripetally. Still have to account for the same energy, but one is Yang and the other is Yin. All Humanity knows is Yang.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------Canceling Inertia: It's a drastic change in fields that results in inertia!! If you spun the atoms of your body on their individual centripetal axis equal to the amount of force needed to push that same mass a linear distance.... There would be NO CHANGE in time or inertia while traveling from Point A to Point B. You are diminishing your field AS you travel. Your field is the centripetal spin of each individual axis of each atom. You are constantly having to replenish your field while it diminishes during travel in Any given direction. But if you charge your field up Before you travel a distance... the energy you would normally need to exert to replenish as already been accounted for. That means ZERO resistance between Point A and B. Which = instant travel or what Psyence calls "Beyond Light Speed!" Inertia is the force you have to exert to make up for the lost energy of your field while you travel. It's like having a padding around you. ELECTRONS = what we call EMPTY SPACE Right now it's 0 because we are relative to Earths Spin. By spinning your atoms individually relative to the Earths spin you charge with what we call electricity. But if you change the atomic spin (the field) around you and charge it... that electron padding will thicken. As you travel, that padding gets thinner. When there's no more padding, you heat up and experience inertia. The only time we have that Inertial Padding is at a standstill relative to the Earth. But if you were able to charge the field around you (SEG), you could create a thick padding proportional to the distance you want to travel. The amount of electron padding around you will = that much negative distance. You can subtract the amount of time it Would normally take you to travel that if you have that padding. We normally carry electrons in our wake rather than in our front as a shielding. That would mean Zero Inertia/ Resistance and Instant Travel.

Twin Opposing Vortexes and The Illusion of Pull

(This note is to be coupled with my video here) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_PQnsxW56Q

All direction is curved and all motion is spiral because mass is in motion and all mass is following around a vortex as discussed in the previous chapters.

We have to redefine a lot of terminology and create new phrases to specify North from South, Positive from Negative. We need new words for gravity and light. We need to discern the difference between Electric Thrust and Gravity. We need to Re-conceptualize old equations and develop new equations around new concepts. As Dewey B Larson stated in his 1978 keynote address, the math is correct, but conceptually the equations are all wrong. North doesn't necessarily mean up. South doesn't necessarily mean down. But there exists a dual energy always. For every inward thrust, there is a simultaneous outward thrust. Both are PUSHING motions. But the inward push is magnetism and the outward push is radiation. The inward pushing force SIMULATES gravity. (but it's not true gravity) Both magnetism and radiation are electricity. But those 2 parts of electricity are opposing forces. Radiation is the positive electricity and Magnetism is negative electricity. Can't have one without the other. Can't have positive without the negative, or male without female. It's a constant sexual and rhythmic balanced interchange. Walter Russell called it the Twin Opposing Vortexes. There is no nucleus to the center of our Galaxy. It's VOID of matter. Not some fallacious black hole made of matter so dense that all things are attracted to it. NO. There is no nucleus to a galaxy OR an atom. I have yet to see an actual picture or proof of the nucleus of an atom. All we see are cartoon drawings and computer renderings. They cant show you the nucleus of an atom because it doesnt exist. They are trying to argue that the center of a hurricane has some invisible mass so dense that the vortex around the Eye is being sucked into itself. Absurd! There is nothing in the center of the vortex, not micro, nor macro. When two people look at the same thing, one may see something completely opposite the other. When one person observes a glowing circle, they could assume they are looking at the silhouette of a solid sphere and base an entire system of math based upon that illusion of observation. Another person could observe that same glowing circle and see a ring or toroid. One person can see a solid ring while the other

sees something traveling in a circle so fast that its creating the illusion of a solid ring. Scientists are notorious for inventing equations to describe an illusion of observation that might not necessarily be accurate. One of the best examples is the invention of the classic black hole creating gravity so great that not even light can escape. Why cant they just accept nothingness for what it is? There is nothing in the center of a vortex. Stop making up rules and equations for dark matter. Theres just nothing there. Its that simple They think gravity is some pulling force from the center point (singularity). They have it backwards. All things are trying to push TO the center from the Outside In. Not pull from the inside out. They are looking at the inverse thrust of electricity which SIMULATES gravity. Gravity is the attraction to Light which = REST. They think light is the thing traveling 186,000 miles a second. NO. WE are traveling. WE are made of matter. All matter is already in motion. But science views matter as the stationary force and light as the moving thing. It's just not true. Gravity is the attraction to stillness. All things in motion seek to achieve a state of rest. But the irony of Man, is that we seek to achieve light by running faster and faster. That only adds more resistance and gets us farther from our goal. There is no speed of light. There is no nucleus to an atom. Opposites Don't attract. Nothing Ever travels in a straight line. These guys.... I'll tell ya. LOL c is only a constant because c = 0 There IS NO speed of light. Light IS the stationary fulcrum by which + or - charged matter can even exist. (Be centered, Find balance. ) How can you square 0? E mc^2 in regards to classic understanding because c represents the stationary Isness of Light. I don't know what they're currently measuring with c but it sure isn't the speed of absolute rest. Need to replace c with something else, or change what c actually represents. In the physical universe, we are observing the EFFECTS.

Science can only measure Effects, never the CAUSE. There is no such thing as Pull in space. ONLY PUSH. Pulling is a CONSCIOUS action relative to another body. When you pull on a door knob, that is a conscious action. When you throw a ball in the air and it naturally comes back down to the Earth... the ball is experiencing a PUSHING force toward the center of the Earth in an attempt to repel THROUGH it. You pushed the ball up and when it met the crest of the wave it inverses and is thrust downward with equal potential. The Earth is not "pulling" objects in it's "gravity." Density gravity Show me an asteroid in space pulling another Asteroid by a rope. They PUSH into each other. If you were floating in space with nothing around you... how would you pull yourself to something? You can't. You'd have to create THRUST forward. And if you wanted to turn around, you'd have to create thrust in the opposite direction at squared the amount of energy you're already going forward. If something individually can only PUSH through space, how does that magically become pull simply because 2 or more individual things are relative to each other? Humans created the concept of attract (in the physical sense) because a human is always born relative to something else and will only see the universe from that perspective. The game "Tug of War" is a man made game being played by conscious people. HUMANS pull. And we judge the universe by our Human actions and perspectives. Our senses fool us. The science of observation is a failure. You can push yourself around space even if you aren't relative to another body. But you can't pull yourself through space with nothing to pull on. When a large object quickly passes by another object, there is a suction force from being "pulled" in the wake. But what IS the wake? The wake is either a counterclockwise or clockwise vortex of energy passing by

the object. The smaller object itself meets a different pressure potential and the positive pressure around it PUSHES the smaller object toward the bigger one creating the illusion of being "pulled" in the wake. North Pole vortex is always clockwise. South Pole vortex is always counterclockwise. South and North Repel each other, but THROUGH each other. As they attempt to pass through each other, they speed up. But before they can pass through each other... the actual mass of the magnet blocks the passing. Therefore the magnets stick together. A counter clockwise vortex and clockwise vortex will lock together. That LOOKS like attract. But in the universal perspective it's still repel. Just the opposite thrust of repel. Rather than being repelled away from each other, they are repelled as they go through each other. All we see is the mass collecting, which gives the false impression of attract. Indeed the matter is collecting, but everything on Earth is trying to go THROUGH the Earth. I feel that the very center of the Earth is hollow. Or it wants to be. All things are being pushed from the outside in, not pulled from the inside out. The pressure from being pushed from the outside in causes a centripetal spin at the focal point (singularity). The reactionary centrifugal forces pushes all mass away from the center and the mass spins around what science label an event horizon. Something accelerating toward the center of something will always overshoot its goal. Then have to come back and try again. But it will accelerate again and over shoot at which point you will see a vortex form. All matter collects Around it. 2 vortexes spinning in the same direction won't push together because there is nothing to lock in place. This is the opposite thrust of gravity outward which is still a pushing force. This is classic repel from our perspective because the magnets won't touch. In reality, there is no such thing as pull. No such thing as attract from the Universal and PHYSICAL perspective. But because we ARE matter, our relative perception fools us at every turn. Magnets stick together.

Not because they pull together, but because their opposing vortexes seek to repel THROUGH each other. While they are going through each other, they are ONE. The reason for the force of the magnets sticking together is the constant acceleration which MIMICS gravity. A moth is attracted to the light of a flame, not because the flame is magnetic, but because the light IS gravity. Gravity is the only attractive force. But its not really a force and it isnt physical. Magnetism and radiation are forces in opposition. But light IS. Scuba dive at night and light a torch. Light attracts Life. Not because its magnetic, but because all life is in motion. All things in motion seek to achieve a state of rest. Light is rest and all life effortlessly is attracted to the light. (Go into the light. Rest in peace.) All life began in the light and all will return to it. The spirit of a Man and the spirit of a Woman are no different. The like spirits seek each other out. They will push their way to each other. The physical bodies are different and fool our universal perspective. You can look at it as Like attracts Like. In regards to electric potential, science, pressure, philosophy, etc. Opposites repel. A basketball is void of mass or filled with negative pressure compared to being solid and filled with positive pressure. Underwater is positive pressure. Try holding a basketball filled with air underwater. The ball seeks to achieve its like pressure potential. War does Not bring Peace. And if you show Love, it doesn't bring War. Opposites don't attract on a philosophical or physical level. If you're looking at it from a Human point of view, or man made mentality, then opposites attract. But in nature.... opposites repel. A male dog has to mount a female dog. The female doesn't want it. A male cat has to mount a female cat. The female doesn't want it. Same with a raccoon and most animals in the kingdom. The penis of many males in the animal kingdom has spikes on it. Spiky penises REPEL females. But Not the human. Man has worked so hard to separate himself from Nature. So look at it from

Nature's perspective... Not Man. Humans are a part of Nature, yes... but we sure don't act like it. Splitting the atom is one of the greatest violations and insults to Nature. So, how dare we even view ourselves as part of Nature when we seek so much to destroy it and separate ourselves from it. We judge everything from man made perspectives. A perfectly cylindrical neodymium magnet doesn't exist in nature. Yet man judges magnetic fields by man made magnets. A perfectly straight laser beam doesn't exist in nature. Yet man judges light and trajectory by man made light. There is also no mathematical symbol to denote the simultaneous decomposition of an equation AS you calculate and arrive at the answer. Everything degrades even integers. So your answer will never be exactly what your paper says. Cant just have an integer in reality since they actually represent something. And everything decomposes the instant its created. (See next chapter called The Apple of My Eye) What happens in Walter Russell's concepts when 2 twin opposing vortexes get together? One vortex is male, the other vortex is female. When you force together the points of 2 twin opposing vortexes, you get 2 becoming 1 (Life) where they harmonically converge. Both vortexes are spinning in opposite directions. They Repel. Opposites Repel. There is no such thing as Pull in the void because only physical Life pulls. Spin a vortex clock wise and another one counterclockwise and have the tips meet 180 degrees from each other. (Magnetic Phase Conjugation) What do you get? A galaxy. And you establish the canvass for Life. A poem or a symphony doesnt write itself, nor does life create itself. It takes conscious effort. The notes of a symphony or words of a poem can debate all they want whether or not there was ever a composer or if there were ever a poet. Just as man forever debates the origin of his own existence. If something has validity, it has a sense of urgency. If you resonate with what Ive written here, please add me on: http://www.Facebook.com/Verbelli -- Jason Verbelli

THIS PICTURE IS FROM WALTER RUSSELL'S "Genero Radiative Concept of Cyclical Motion" I feel he has the last 2 forces backwards.Centripetal is MAGNETIC DOMINANT And Centrifugal is ELECTRIC DOMINANT. (literally, we should say Magnetic and Radiative Dominant, since both are technically Electricity)

Walter Russell: http://www.feandft.com A New Concept of the Universe http://www.scribd.com/doc/45559746/A-New-Concept-ofthe-Universe-by-Walter-Russell Genero - Radiative Concept or The Cyclic Theory of Continuous Motion http://www.scribd.com/doc/49306163/Walter-RussellGenero-Radiative-Concept-or-The-Cyclic-Theory-ofContinuous-Motion The Universal One http://www.scribd.com/doc/49306379/Walter-Russell-theUniversal-One-Alchemy-Chemistry

You get what you pay for. And you pay for what you want. The people of the world pay for gas, oil, radiation, and the carcinogens that come with it. For war, for company bailouts, etc. We must Really want all that stuff! Money spent on war, gas, oil, nukes, bailouts . $1,864,592,488,503,009,778,021,599 (and rising) Money spent on Free Energy Technology . $0 Follow the money as they say. If they are too big to fail, then we must be too small to succeed. Rather than dropping another 25 million dollar missile on some poor persons home in Afghanistan why not hold off on 1 missile, give that money to people like John Searl, John Bedini, Tom Bearden, Joseph Newman, Andrea Rossi or SOMEONE who will try something new rather than spending BILLIONS of dollars to repeat our actions expecting different results. We all know Einsteins famous quote regarding Insanity. All Im saying is if the Pentagon spent $84 million dollars today why cant we get 1? All Im saying is if BP oil can make 5.6 BILLION dollar PROFIT after spilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Why cant we get 1 million? All Im saying is if the Federal Government can print fiat currency notes out of thin air to bail out banks and car companies for BILLIONS of dollars why cant they just print some more out so WE can have some too? If free energy technologies were given equal funding to NASA or CERN, we would feed the world rather than bomb the world. You get what you pay for. So what are YOUR tax dollars doing these days?

OPEN LETTER TO MICHIO KAKU FROM DR. ROBERT KOONTZ

Open Letter to Professor Michio Kaku: "You Could Be Sued for Millions and Ridiculed for Centuries" May 15, 2009 Dear Dr. Kaku: This open letter relates to your disparagement of energy-producing devices which at this juncture in time are demonstrably critical to our nation's survival. And I write this letter as a Ph.D. experimental nuclear physicist with qualifications that I believe allow me to speak to the subject in question, namely production of energy using nonconventional means. I ask that you read this letter carefully and ask that you not dismiss it out of hand in the manner of many of our country's physicists. Recently, on the popular late-night radio program, "Coast to Coast AM," which reportedly has a listening audience of millions, you indicated that investors call you up daily and ask whether certain inventions will work. Characterizing those devices as "perpetual motion machines" you said they were impossible to make. But that can be proven to be a false statement. Such devices can exist if negative mass electrons can be introduced into electronic circuits and possibly certain machines. They can also exist if other forms of negative energy can be created, and apparently they can. Finally, it appears to be the case that gauge transformations could allow such devices to work. This would not involve a violation of one of the most important laws of physics, namely energy conservation, either, Dr. Kaku. I believe you assume that such devices do violate the laws of physics, which is also an assumption that appears to be made by others. Dr. Kaku: You appear to believe that the universe has 11 dimensions, many of which are supposed to be hidden. Why would that be true while creation of energy using negative mass electrons or using gauge transformations would be impossible? Could you be wrong, sir? Undoubtedly you think you are not wrong, but could you be wrong, sir?

You might say to me that negative mass electrons have never been seen. But those many dimensions you believe in have never been seen either. And is it not true that we physicists for decades have used negative mass electrons in our theories in order to reach agreement with experiment? And wasn't the positron discovered because Dirac invoked the existence of negative mass electrons -approximately 80 years ago? Perhaps it is true that we physicists have not yet observed negative mass electrons, but does that mean they do not exist? Now let me ask you this: Have you ever examined even one of the devices that you tell investors cannot work? I suspect you haven't. There are in fact inventions that produce energy without having any kind of conventional fuel. You may see one work in a web page of mine linked to below. But perhaps you think you don't even need to look. Could that be the case, Dr. Kaku? Perhaps you simply "know" these devices can't work. Might you not also have said many years ago that airplanes could never fly? Before the Wright brothers were flying airplanes, renowned scientists said it was impossible. So, I ask that you examine the video linked to below and I ask that you examine other such videos. http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/Steven%20Mark/Stephe n_Mark_video2.mp4 (Please give the video time to load -- as the file is large. The small black device shown in the video is producing the power. Then a larger unit is shown.) Here is the link to another web page of mine that has links to more such TPU videos. I can assure you the TPU device works, sir. For the sake of our nation and the world, I ask that you take the small amount of time needed to examine these videos. http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/Steven%20Mark/Steven _Mark.htm Please don't say that the above demonstrations were faked, Dr. Kaku. There are many engineers who examined the device. And some demonstrations were made outdoors, far from any possible sources of energy.

The TPU units shown in the videos apparently use gauge transformations. Those would be the same kind of gauge transformations that, for decades, you theorists have been telling us allow for electromagnetic energy non-conservation, but then say don't have any practical applications. And we know that theoretical physicists are never wrong, don't we? So the device cannot work, can it? So why then does it work? Could it be that gauge transformations do have practical applications? Could it thus be that theoretical physicists could be wrong about the impracticality of using gauge transformations to make energy? I think so. Do not gauge transformations lead to electromagnetic energy nonconservation? And is it not true that in your analysis of free energy devices you assume that electromagnetic energy is conserved? That is a grave inconsistency, sir. And arguing that gauge transformations lead to no change in the electric and magnetic fields is not at all convincing as the question relates to energy, not electric and magnetic fields. Would you say that gauge waves cannot exist? And if you do allow that they can exist, would they not carry energy, possibly in both positive and negative forms? Where then am I wrong, Dr. Kaku? Or could I be right -- along with many other Ph.D. physicists and engineers who are regularly dismissed as crackpots? You have said that you greatly respect the work of Nikola Tesla, and surely you have studied his inventions and his life. If so, then you might be aware that Nikola Tesla was planning to transmit power all over the world in a way that you would surely say is impossible. But you must know that Nikola Tesla was a very careful experimenter who tested every idea before employing it. What then is the answer to the implied dilemma? So, Nikola Tesla was just a wild man, right? A nut. While Michio Kaku and his 11 dimensions make wonderful sense. Or could you and others be wrong about what Nikola Tesla was doing? Could it even be the case that Tesla was using electromagnetic theory that included the very gauge transformations that physicists of this era do

not include? Is that not possible, sir, and if not, why not? Therefore, if I may speak freely, I would say that while millions or even billions of people live in desperate poverty, and while millions of Americans lose their jobs because we don't have this kind of technology -- you tell people that such technology is impossible, when it isn't. Is everyone who disagrees with you and other leading theorists a crackpot, Dr. Kaku? Was Nikola Tesla a crackpot? I would strongly suggest that he wasn't at all a crackpot but was one of the greatest inventors in the history of the world -- and I believe you have also said as much. So why then would you dismiss Tesla's ideas about free energy? I must say that I have seen many smirks in association with production of free energy -- Smirks -- while millions of Americans lose their jobs and the United States falls into a terrible economic decline. Smirks. Is that appropriate, sir? I would say not. But the matter does not end with the above TPU units. There is also the work of Thomas Henry Moray who was able to produce an estimated 50 kilowatts of power from a tabletop unit that my analysis indicates involved employment of negative mass electrons which Dr. Moray apparently captured in very special circuits he built -- many, many decades ago. Here is a link to what I have written about Dr. Moray's work. There are many more links on the Internet: Please do take the time to investigate. A world desperate for energy waits. http://www.doctorkoontz.com/Scalar_Physics/Energy/index.htm Robert W. Koontz, Ph.D.Experimental Nuclear Physicist The URL of my web site is given below. There is a link on the main page to my bio: http://www.DoctorKoontz.com/

Free Energy Flyer for the Public - With Working Links

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56042386/Free-Energy-Flyer-for-thePublic-With-Working-Links

The Apple of My Eye

Aristotle killed the work of Democritus because Aristotle didn't believe things could float in the air. He said if there are things called atoms, they would fall to the ground like tiny pebbles and that nothing could float in the sky. People built upon the notions of misconceptions and here we are. Man's Inductive reasoning verses Nature Laws. Mathematics on paper shows perfection. But nothing is perfect in the universe. Nothing is exactly spherical on all scales. 1 + 1 = 1.99999 because you loose just a tiny bit of energy by the time you reach your answer. 1 + 1 = 2 works on paper and perfectly describes perfection and 100%. But nothing is ever at 100% because the energy immediately degrades. 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. But by the time you added those apples together, the apple decomposed a bit the instant you went to add them and now it isn't the same apple you started the equation with. Everything is converting and trying to get back to 0. Current math is perfect. That's the problem. The universe is perfectly imperfect. Nothing is 100% real. No one is 100% right.

What works on paper is not reality. Things come in 3's and 10 is not divisible by 3. 3.33 x 3 = 9.999. That's as close to perfection you can get. 9 = 100% , not 10 Start with 0 end with 0. A straight line is perfectly straight. 100%. But all motion is curved in reality. It's all illusions. Energy will degrade over time which means your straight line will eventually curve more and more. The higher the equations and deeper in space they try and calculate, the farther they'll be off because all they know is straight lines. There are no straight lines in nature. Only on a wall from the light distributed through a prism, or on a paper. Mathematics should be called "Mythematics" because it perfectly describes things that aren't real. Thus, Plato's Allegory of the Cave. Aristotle must have missed that lesson from Plato that day.. None of my past teachers have even heard of Walter Russell, Leedskalnin, etc. It's They who carry a tradition of ignorance because it took so much work to be accepted by their peers and earn their position of so called "expertise." Those peers wanted to be accepted by theirs so they carried the same tradition of ignorance. Like my friend says, "The 4th Law of Thermodynamics states as follows: If you have a good enough argument against the first 3... no funding for you." Speak your truth no matter who scrutinizes and ridicules. Because if your truth is indeed THE truth, then the word will spread and good people will find you. You'll get to the bottom of it eventually. Never Stop Searching. Saying 1 + 1 always equals 2 is like saying 1 apple + 1 apple always = 2 apples. Or 1 full battery + 1 full battery = 2 full batteries.

1 + 1 should still equal 2 after a month. I doubt that 2 apples will not mold or decompose at all in that month. Just like a battery will not retain a 100% charge forever. Energy degrades over time. So after a month, your equation of 1 apple + 1 apple is now 1 moldy core plus 1 moldy core. What happened to your equation? I thought it lasted forever. That's what you get when you don't account for the constant conversion of energy over time in reality. Nothing is stationary. Not in place nor in time, so when you add to something your equation is effortlessly already beginning to subtract. When you multiply your equation is simultaneously begun to divide. For every action there is a simultaneous reaction and instant degradation. Every action and reaction in Nature voids itself, or cancels itself out as those actions and reactions occur. A picture of 2 apples on paper will always equal 2 apples. Even after a month, those drawings will still be on that paper for people to observe. The 2D picture said so, therefore it must be true in 3D reality... right? But in reality, even the picture is slowly degrading. You just can't see it. Even when the paper tears and fades, people will still try to claim there are 2 whole apples. Like Walter Russell said, "If Newton had bothered to sit with the apple that fell on his head for another 3 weeks, he would have seen that apple rise to the heavens as a low potential gas seeking it's like potential in the sky." Everything is in constant movement and is degrading the instant it's created. Things are created, consolidate and sink, and then they die, decompose and rise. Newton's apple is a one way universe. Reality is a 2-way cycle of rhythmic balanced interchange. Think cyclically, not objectively.

Reshaping Physicality and The Misconception of "Time Travel"

Time doesn't exist as people think. Just because something moves faster or slower doesn't mean that "time" is affected. YOUR interpretation of "time" is affected because you are judging from the motion of everything around you. If everything around you moved in slow motion, you would OBSERVE "time" slowing down. But is time really slowing down? No. The matter is slowing down. Matter time, but people often associate the two together and measure time using matter. In reality, there is no such thing as time travel. You can't go back in time and you can't move forward through time faster. But... you can Reshape the physical universe around you to MIMIC another time and/ or place. If you reshaped the world around you to duplicate what the year 1800 looked like... did you actually travel "back in time?" No. You can interact with people, see historical events similar to YOUR past... but it won't actually be your past. You can't unlearn something, can't unexperience something, and you can't change your own history.

But... you Can reshape the world around you to simulate the past. And you can get all the closure you want and re-live everything you wanted to. But it's not going to be "real", meaning... you aren't really in the past. The "atoms" that made up the past are long gone. But you can rearrange current atoms to build a world that once existed. Illusion of relative perception will make it APPEAR that you are time traveling... but in reality, you are reshaping things. Nothing can ever make you younger, but you Can reshape your body to be just like you used to be. Are you actually getting younger? No. The Grandfather Paradox is not real. You can't go back in time and kill your grandfather. But... you Can reshape the world around you to Mimic your own past, at which point you can kill your grandfather and set new things in motion from that point in that "reality." It's not really another reality... just another scenario. Only 1 reality. Only 1 time. But we can reshape anything. And reshaping can be misinterpreted as time traveling, or Linear motion in general. Einstein speculated that you would have to travel faster than light in order to travel back in time. But Einstein never heard of Walter Russell who said that "Light doesn't travel at all." WE travel. Matter is in motion and we are made of matter, giving us a false perspective. Light is the only stationary "thing" in the universe, but it's not physical and it's not really a force. It just IS. (See my paper below called Twin Opposing Vortexes) Dewey B Larson pointed out that the math we currently use is correct... but conceptually the equations are all wrong. What science is actually measuring is not what they think. We need to re-define a lot of terminology.

Paradoxes do not exist in reality. There is no "check-mate" for the universe and there's nothing you can do to make the universe fall apart because you messed with your own "time-line." Time isn't "linear", therefore there's technically no such thing as a time "line." Nothing ever travels in a straight line. All direction is curved and all motion is spiral. By other people's logic, as you travel back in time, you lose your memory and if you traveled more than a few hours back, you would forget what the machine you are using actually does. You'd be screwed and clueless. Paradox. Or, the other scenario using classic logic would be that as you travel back in time, everything you just did will happen in reverse; therefore, the instant you turned on the time machine and started going back, it would be like pressing rewind on a movie and you'd be stuck in an infinite loop. Paradox. There is only a constant conversion while continuing down the vortex of what we would call "time." I like to call this action, "Vortation." You can reshape anything you want using what you have at your disposal. You can't turn back the clock, you can't undo what you've already done. You can't go back and save the one you love. You can't go back and prevent an event from occurring that already occurred. Accepting that fact can be tough, but the reality of the universe is much more fantastic than every Hollywood movie combined. You Can give yourself closure while psychologically And physically fooling yourself into thinking you altered the past. But it won't truly be your past. What ever physical scenario you are in at the moment is what is "real". "What is real? How do you define, real? If real is what you can feel, smell, taste and see, then 'real' is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain" - Morpheus from the Matrix But in the regard of "time travel" and altering one's own past... that might be what it Looks like... but looks can be deceiving. That will be a debate for future generations I'm sure. Is it moral to duplicate your past and attempt to correct all your mistakes?

Is it solely for the closure of the traveler? Would it affect your Karma if you reshaped what looked like your past and indeed altered an event? You could spend your whole life trying to make up for what you feel guilty for, or you can accept who you are and the accumulation of your own experiences. Create your own reality using what you have at your disposal. Ultimately Humanity will learn that we don't need anything at all in order to reshape physicality. "The Truth is stranger than fiction." . . DB Larson - Reciprocal Systems 1978 Conference - Real Science vs Man's Invention (Psyence) Part 1 of 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu-ol5iPez8 The Collected Works of Dewey B Larson http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/dbl . . Walter Russell: http://www.feandft.com A New Concept of the Universe http://www.scribd.com/doc/45559746/A-New-Concept-of-the-Universe-byWalter-Russell?in_collection=2873582 Genero - Radiative Concept or The Cyclic Theory of Continuous Motion http://www.scribd.com/doc/49306163/Walter-Russell-Genero-RadiativeConcept-or-The-Cyclic-Theory-of-Continuous-Motion

Harmonics of Wobbling Spheres and Equatorial Rings This note is to be coupled with my most recent videos, Magnetoelectric Spectrum and Magnetic Sine Waves - Harmonics of Wobbling Rings

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0KTcx1CQQ0
And my recent visit to Searl Magnetic Headquarters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2YRy_Og6ME

If a straight line = 0, then we cant use the integer 0 in Spherical Harmonics because a straight string wrapped around a rounded object becomes a ring. There are no straight lines on a sphere. The shape of the fundamental frequency in String Harmonics can only be achieved if work is exerted on the string. You cannot maintain a constant fundamental frequency without a constant force being exerted on the string by a violin bow. But the bow is only so long, therefore the constant of the fundamental frequency will correlate with the length of the bow. But it doesnt take any energy for the equator of a sphere to maintain the shape of the fundamental frequency of String Harmonics. If you were looking at the equator of a sphere from a straight on perspective, the ring of the equator would APPEAR as a straight line. But with a simple tilt of the sphere, the observers perspective changes and exposes the illusion of the straight line which becomes the shape of String Harmonics fundamental frequency.

The position of the nodes and antinodes in Spherical Harmonics represent the 180 degree perspective of the equatorial wave while in a wobble. It seems we need some new scientific symbols in order to communicate this concept mathematically. We cant use T = string tension for Spherical Harmonics, because there is no string. We would have to use Voltage, because the amount of tension of an equatorial ring is dependent upon the amount of power used to magnetize a material. The equatorial ring in this case is the magnetic line of force. We cant use m = string mass because the RING of energy has no mass. We cant use L = string length because length refers to a straight line, we need circumference which is r^2 greater than the length of any given string relative to the equivalent length of the diameter of Sphere. Zero in String Harmonics is rest. But there is no rest in Spherical Harmonics if comparing it relative to String Harmonics. Rest in spherical harmonics is equal to 1 relative to the Strings. Any number other than 0, is infinitely greater than 0. Every number past 0 is that many times greater than infinity. But zero is rest, and zero IS infinity. Anything other than rest is motion. All things in motion seek a state of rest. The only constant in String Harmonics is 0. All integers are representative of something other than just a stand alone integer. 1 + 1 = 2, is only conceptual because the integers don't represent anything. The equation itself is a constant and doesn't accurately describe any scenario in nature because all things in nature that the equation would represent are constantly decomposing and breaking down. Coming to rest like the vibration of a string. Nothing ever remains a constant except the integer 0 itself. Any integer other than 0, came FROM zero and wants to return to it. Attempting to keep an equation or calculation at a constant is like trying to hold a basketball under water. All "things" degrade and decompose, even integers. All integers are trying to get back to 0 just like a vibrating string is constantly trying to achieve a state of rest. When you pluck the string, it instantly begins to achieve a state of rest. An integer is like the vibration of a string at it's peak.

All vibrations diminish the instant they reach their peak; therefore, the very equation you are calculating is naturally reducing itself back to 0. There needs to be a new scientific symbol to denote the simultaneous degradation of an equation AS you calculate and arrive at the answer. All matter shed particles while traveling from point A to point B. If an integer is describing something in the physical universe, then the reality of decomposition must be taken into account no matter how infinitessimal the decomposition may be. We can never be too technical in science and mathematics. All energy dampens from A to B just as all integers are slowly reducing back to zero as you calculate an equation and arrive at an answer. In Spherical Harmonics we dont have to worry about the equation reducing to 0 because there is no string, the energy has no mass and the fundamental frequency is a constant. That cannot happen in the physical and electric universe of String Harmonics. But in the intangible and magnetic universe of the Harmonic Spheres, it is the only that can be. And it can only be that way because magnetism isnt physical therefore it isnt subject to friction or the laws of thermodynamics and conservation. Magnetism is the opposite. Physical friction causes heat. From the information Ive collected so far, I believe that magnetic friction causes cold and abides by an entirely different set of inversed mathematics with additional symbols not currently used. I refer to the dynamics of synergistic magnetic fields as Cryodynamics and Liberation. String Harmonics pertains to Physics. Spherical Harmonics pertains to Magnetics. I feel that we should make a clear distinction between the two sets of dynamics. Both can be individually calculated, but the laws for the Strings cannot accurately describe the dynamics of the Spheres.

Here is a spherical neodymium magnet. Using a standard magnetic viewing film, we can see the "magnetic line of force" (Bloch Wall) separating the North from the South, or Positive from Negative.

The magnetic viewing film acts as an oscilloscope so we can view the magnetic wave form:

The so called Line of Force is actually a Ring around the magnet. In string harmonics, we have a straight line to start out with. When the string is pulled tight and isn't moving, N=0 But a string around a sphere is a curve. There are no straight lines on a curve. So the first wave of motion in String Harmonics = a Spherical Standstill. A sphere standing perfectly straight up and down and spinning on its vertical axis. A crystal ball with a line drawn on it's equator will appear stationary even while in a spin.

There is no way to tell what rate of Centripetal Spin the sphere is rotating on it's axis until you tilt the sphere and initiate a gyroscopic motion. That line drawn on the equator will appear as a wave and you can measure the wave. But the 2D wave you measure isn't an accurate reflection of the 3D reality. Where N = 1 in String Harmonics, N will = 0 in the harmonics of spheres. Electric Harmonics seems to be a base 10 science while Magnetic Harmonics seems to be Base 9. We either skip N=1 in the spheres altogether, or magnetic harmonics will always be 1 number off from string harmonics. But the higher the calculation... that 1 number off becomes exponentially greater. The weight distribution on a tilted sphere is the same as upright, therefore it takes the same amount of force to create varying amplitudes. The angle of the Bloch Wall (magnetic line of force) while experiencing a vertical Centripetal spin will dictate the amplitude. The rate of spin will determine the frequency. A magnet's wavelength is always a constant since the circumference of the magnet itself remains a constant.

The Theory of Relativity assumes that the universe operates under the laws of String Harmonics. But that's only the 2D interpretation we perceive. The fallacious notion of a fabric of space-time or flat meniscus to the universe upon which all celestial bodies sit is absurd.

What the problem of the scientific community seems to be, is that people are trying to measure the dynamics of Spherical Harmonics using the math of String Harmonics. Can't do that. That's another reason why John Searl's Law of Squares is so important. In string harmonics no motion is N=0. One oscillation a second is N=1. Two oscillations a second is N=2. And so on. But in Spherical Harmonics, N=0 is equal to N=1 in String Harmonics. So the more complex the equation, the farther off the calculation. What science calls a Magnetic "Line" of Force is actually a fixed RING around a magnet. The strength of a magnet is a constant, therefore the diameter of the ring is a constant. Just as the length of a string is a constant in wave harmonics. A line is 2 Dimensional. A sphere is 3 Dimensional. String Harmonics (Electricity) is a 2nd Dimensional Force, Magnetism is a 3rd Dimensional Force. Electricity IS resistance, so trying to use electricity to generate more electricity is

futile. And that's what people have been doing which is why people don't "believe" in over-unity. You need to start from the source. Magnetism generates electricity. The metal of a magnet is made up of electric waves, yet the force itself is magnetism. They repel each other, so the only place for the magnetic force to go is outward radially in a ring. Using electricity as we are now and starting from N = 0 is like experiencing the resistance of an entire dimension when initiating any given action. A line is linear. A sphere is non-linear because that same line becomes a curve. In order to maintain a curve in string harmonics, you must exert an x amount of force. Work has to be done in order to maintain a curve (oscillation) in string harmonics. Simply by using Spherical Harmonics, we don't have to exert any force to maintain a curve. N = 0 is STILL getting power even though the math says it's not. Math is a meter. And we aren't getting any signal, yet the integer 0 is performing as if it were a non zero. r^2 in this case seems to refer to the ratio of energy increase from string harmonics to spherical harmonics. If the fixed length of a string (diameter) determines the amount of ultimate power or height of the wave, then you will get dramatically more power in spherical harmonics because it takes more string just to wrap around a sphere (circumference). More string yields more power. So the same equation will reap exponentially bigger calculations simply by using the geometry of a platonic solid rather than a 2 Dimensional straight line. We are able to perceive sound, light, heat, etc, because WE are the eddy current which renders a 3D wave into a 2D force. A 3D wave is naturally silent, but when it meets resistance, it looses energy. That lost energy is what we interpret. The harmonics of the spheres are the sounds of silence. You can't hear magnetic waves. But you can hear the electric reactions initiated by magnetic waves. A harmonic sphere is a magnet. The magnetic line of force is the string. By wobbling the magnetic line of force, you are plucking the string. 0 = 1 in spherical harmonics. Math is a meter and 0 doesn't register on a meter. By the time you reach high frequency wobble, the math will be off many

calculations. Your observation will contradict what you "know" to be true. Here is a recent test conducted by the European Space Agency validating Searl's work and many others. http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html According to the ESA, "It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field." "the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts." "We ran more than 250 experiments, improved the facility over 3 years and discussed the validity of the results for 8 months before making this announcement. Now we are confident about the measurement." And they were only spinning a FLAT magnet! The reason they measured such huge variations was because it was vibrating at high RPMs which made it WOBBLE. Imagine the readings they'd get if they angled that big magnet at a 45 degree angle! They would see a dramatic loss in weight and more. The angle of a magnet will determine the amplitude of the wave while in a Centripetal spin. The ring will wobble creating a wave form. If viewing this waveform on an oscilloscope, you will observe the illusion that the wave travels from one side of the screen to the other. That is a 2D representation of viewing a ring from the side.

We don't see the other half of the orbit on a sphere from our perspective (while in a flat spin). That means we are registering half the energy. But if you angle the magnet and then spin it, you will only see points of intersection, or experience points of resistance; therefore, you will see a wave. A flat line or disk that wobbles will appear as a wave if viewing it from a 90 degree side view. In regards to Magnetic Sine Waves, we are actually viewing wobbling rings of energy. The WPS, or Wobble Per Second will determine the "hertz." RPM = Revolution Per Minute and is referring to either a Centrifugal Orbit or Centripetal Spin. WPM (Wobble Per Minute) = The 3rd wave form which helps perpetuates the other two when all are in sync. Orbit, Spin, Wobble. (Nutation)

The magnetic RING of force is always fixed around a magnet, but you can expand or collapse the size of a ring using electromagnets. The size and charge of a magnet will determine the diameter of the ring of energy. The rate at which the ring wobbles will determine the frequency. The angle of the magnet / ring will determine the amplitude. A 90 degree angle is the maximum amplitude on any given size magnet while in a Centripetal Spin. This means the magnet is tumbling end over end N S N S N S. But that doesn't register a wave. That's more like the teeth on a spur gear clanking together. But anything other than 0 or 90 will register a wave and act as a helical gear. Less backlash and more efficiency. A ring with a 45 tilt seems to create an optimum sine wave. People are trying to create free energy devices by rotating magnets at either a 0 or 90 degree angle. That creates maximum resistance with greatest amperage or none at all.

A wobbling gyroscope seeks to balance itself. So if you pulse a charge and knock the spinning needle off balance, it effortlessly returns to a stable position without any need for an additional pulse to restore its position. If you keep pulsing the charge, a gyroscopic wave is achieved. The needle wobbling is evidence that the magnetic field is wobbling. A wobbling magnetic field is a magnetic sine wave, which is a non hertzian and non linear wave. If you can increase the frequency of the wobble to every 30 degrees, 22.5, 15, 7.5, etc. the magnetic wave will increase. Pulsing a charge every 22.5 degrees of a 360 degree rotation will result in a 16 "hertz" wave. But we can't call it hertz, because it's a spherical wave, not an acoustic wave. So, you can make a deal. Sacrifice some amps to create a Synergistic weave of interlocking waves (Constructive Interference) abiding by the laws of Cryodynamics and Liberation.... or try to go full force, lose energy in the process be subject to the laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation. You'll generate energy both ways, but the bigger the machine operating with angled waves will experience less resistance, will cool and gain energy, while the bigger the machine operating with straight or 90 degree magnets will experience maximum resistance, will heat and loose energy.

A string is a straight line. Like a harp, guitar, piano, etc. But there are no straight lines on a magnet, because the magnetic field itself is a ring. No part of a ring is straight. So imagine an instrument with curved strings. How would a string sound pulled tight yet be curved? You can't do that with a string, or any straight line for that matter. Every time you pull a string tight, it will straighten out. But that's what a magnetic field is trying to constantly do. It's trying to straighten out. But it can't. So the energy is a constant because it's trapped in a ring constantly trying to become straight. Strings are matter. And matter is electric. Even the sound produced from plucking a string is electric. We want magnetism which can't be touched and can never travel straight. As Walter Russell stated, All direction is curved and all motion is spiral. All matter in the universe is electric. Sound vibrates the particles within our relative gravity field. But magnetism vibrates the very gravity by which those particles exist!! You can roll a ball across a carpet were it will constantly touch the carpet and be subject to the friction of it... or you can grab the carpet with your hands and ripple it which will send the ball flying across the room riding the wave you initiated. It doesn't take any more energy to maintain the wave to the end of the carpet after you put in the work to create the ripple.

It doesn't matter if you spin a sphere 1 time a second or 186,000 times a second, a harmonic sphere (magnet) will render a "flat line" unless it's tilted. (And science says that you can't spin, orbit or wobble matter faster than 186,000 times a second. That's maybe true individually, but when all 3 types of spin are working harmoniously together, they cancel out the bi-products of inertia, friction, etc. Magnetic waves aren't matter, therefore it can spin, orbit or wobble, many times faster than what science labels the speed of light." This is the difference between traveling through space and riding a gravity wave. Or rather, repelling the matter around you while you travel through space.

Arial View

Side View

We will always travel through space, but the amount of resistance you experience is dictated by the polarity of the wave you initiate while traveling forward. Electric = Positive. Magnetic = Negative.

The faster you try and travel using electric waves will equally slow you down to resist. (Lenz Law and back EMF) Like pressure potential attracts like pressure potential. The more force and faster you travel using a positive polarity thrust (push) forward will determine how much resistance you experience. (Thermo) The more negative pressure (magnetism) you create in front of you will determine how much resistance you experience while traveling forward with the same amount of force. Lowering the pressure means reversing the polarity and you will be pulled forward as if you are falling. Magnetism is negative, matter is positive. Matter is electric. Magnetism repels electricity. The more dense the matter, the faster magnetism will travel through it because there is more electric pressure to push off of while repelling through it. That's why metals are so reactive, they are denser per particle.

The Yin Yang symbol seems to be representative of an angled spherical magnet spinning on a centripetal axis which gives the illusion of the magnetic line of force appearing as a wave.

THE FALLACY OF A STRAIGHT LINE AND MISCONCEPTION OF BLACK HOLES

Part of my problem understanding Dr. Hawking's model on alleged black holes is my philosophy that nothing ever travels in a straight line and that there is no such thing as a fabric of space-time. Im not sure if Stephen Hawking had ever exposed himself to the work of Walter Russell. All direction is curved and all motion is spiral. There is no such thing as a straight line in our Phi spiraling 3D void. Mainstream science and math is like Platos Allegory of the Cave. Current models only work on paper, up to a point. A prism is distributed in straight lines on a wall. But nothing in is straight in our helical reality. Rainbows are curved because the prism of the Phi Spiraling void is curved. There are no straight lines. Look at the straightest ruler you have available. Now take a microscope and look at the edge of that ruler. Is that ruler truly a straight line? No, its jagged. Now zoom in even further. It's made up of smaller things compacted together called atoms and molecules. What is the shape of an atom? Oh, thats right no one has ever actually observed an atom. There are no pictures, nor any proof of an atom. All we are shown are computer models and 3D renderings of what people THINK it looks like. Entire branches of science have been founded upon a non-observation. Blaspheming their own scientific method they hold so dear. The structure of an atom is not some particle so dense that it pulls all things to it yet nothing actually touches it. There is no nucleus to an atom. Its a void of matter as the center of a hurricane. But for fun lets play Devils Advocate using their own models.

Can you please point out One straight line that makes up an atom. Everything is spherical and travels in an arc. A Cartesian Coordinate system is a fictitious concept that works on paper but not in 3D space. Not even with a Z axis. Scientists claim things travel in straight lines in space yet they use Spherical Coordinate Systems to map helical trajectories for their satellites. Nothing travels in a straight line. Everything travels in an arc. Everything has positive and negative. The rate of arc can be so great, that from your relative perception, it Seems as if it's a straight line, but when you truly investigate, you see it's not really straight. It's a bunch of arcs compacted together and when you zoom out, you see the total sum of the parts. So, lets look at these current models of space:

I have NEVER understood this or believed the above fictitious models. No 2D in our 3D reality. The Earth is not flat, and neither is the solar system. Nothing is stationary in space, stars are moving like comets and other heavenly bodies are following in the helical wake of larger bodies. What is THIS we see above?!?!? Its a blank graph. where are the other stars and planets? Where is the helical trajectory (Phi)? If thats a model of a black hole. where are the particles? Where is the other cone 180 degrees mirroring the first cone? Please tell me what travels in a straight line through space with zero influence from other gravity like in that graph And why doesnt the graph have a Z axis? Its 3D space. Where does that depression in fabric of space-time come into play when you have a Z axis and things traveling from every given direction? I believe there is a force other than gravity, which causes objects to spin

and rotate WHILE they push towards or away from something. My make believe word for this is "vortation." What science thinks is gravity is electric thrust. Inward thrust simulates attraction. Outward thrust we view as classic repulsion. Vortating is motion of an object in the 3D Phi spiral of the void. This force causes those bodies to spin, grow in a spiral as evidence of the path, and become spherical in nature. Why is there no evidence of any rotation in the 4 picture examples of space? Look at Phi.... follow nature. Everything spirals. Why dont the current models of space have any spin? It doesnt seem natural even as an example. Their models are fiction. Look at nature:

And why does their grid show ANY straight lines if it's representing 3D space?!?! Get rid of the grid altogether, but if you want to use it as an example, then change the grid to look like the surface of an ever moving ocean.... not a frozen lake. On your relative scale, an arc may appear flat, but it's not on the grand scheme of things. A still image of a frozen lake isnt missing much action. A still image of the ocean will show ripples and variation. No flatness at any given time you click the camera.

And NO part of the ocean is perfectly flat since the Earth is round and water flows Around the surface. The ocean experiences constant resistance because its trying to fall to the center of the Earth. It naturally wants to fall in Phi spiral. Thats not just Coreolis Force. And the picture models of the universe are stagnant. A picture is frozen in time. The ocean is not frozen in time. The picture models would need to constantly move and change in order to be accurate. And if it did that... then it wouldn't be flat and stagnant. All of the pictures for the current models of space are only a flash in time. Just like taking a picture of you with a camera. That one picture doesn't represent your whole life.... only a moment of your life. All of the current models of space only represent the non existent fabric of space-time as a frozen lake and when something sits on the frozen lake the ice bends and creates a depression in the meniscus of the water as if it was liquid How can the frozen meniscus of water bend as if it's liquid? It simply can't. And how can even the liquid meniscus of water be flat if the molecules making up that water are not flat themselves? What you are seeing is the total sum of the parts, which gives the false impression of a 2 dimensional interpretation for your 3D observation. What you are seeing is water frozen in time on your scale, but when you look in another dimension (microscope) you see the reality. Nothing is flat, nothing travels in a straight line. Everything arcs, spirals, vortates. Nothing is stagnant because nothing can stay at absolute zero. Everything decomposes, nothing is absolute. The ocean of space is not like a frozen lake. The ocean of space is a void filled with Aether and because we are ever accelerating down the Phi spiral of the void, there is constant inertia on all bodies in space. Your picture models don't account for this because they don't move, not to mention youre only measuring prisms on a wall rather than 3D reality. Even the molecules and atoms in the frozen meniscus of a lake are still moving. You just can't see it. Because on your scale... it's "frozen."

Is it really frozen on the grand scheme of things? No. Is a ruler really straight when you look at it under a microscope? No. Lets take a "perfectly flat" meniscus of liquid water. When a water bug walks on the surface of the water, what happens? Lets compare the current model of space, to nature.

The current models of space are saying the meniscus of space-time (Fabric) can't be broken. Can the surface of water ever be broken? Of course. The amount of force required to break the meniscus is what we call surface tension. But there is no surface tension to space itself because there is no fabric. If we could see a particle of sand floating around the depression in the water near the bug's leg.... the particle of sand would NEVER be caught in a fictitious orbit around the water bug's leg. There is only helical wake in 3D Phi spiraling space no orbit. All things are moving, not stationary like the bug. The current models of space are saying that we are all floating on the surface of an ocean but there is nothing beneath the meniscus, or fabric? This is another reason why I have trouble with the term "fabric" of spacetime, or the mattress theory. Only computer models and holograms can show you the reality of our 3D space as Dr. Keshava Bhat proved. http://www.feandft.com/Dr.%20Bhat.htm

You cant be directly behind the Comet we call the Sun and see the reality of the solar system. We are looking straight down a cone and think its a circle.

it seems you'll be stuck in a paradox if you base a 3D computer model from a 2D perception. There are always 3 sides to every story. Yours, mine, and the truth. If all this crazy talk is my side, then the picture examples are of your side:

First of all... why is space represented as flat? What is that person standing on? And I think that guy standing there must be god because only he could stand on a non existent flat surface. If you can't make a hole in water and bend water around like the picture above... how can you compare the non existent fabric of space-time, to an ocean? If you're going to draw a flat line on paper, roll the paper up like a scroll since that represents the true path of an object in space. Phi. At least, put the paper in front of a fan so that it's constantly blowing and rippling. If an object traveled in a straight line, that would mean we are stationary in space. Or it would mean we are moving through space in a straight line. But nothing can travel parallel forever. At some point those 2 objects will intersect. It could take the amount of space available in the universe but they will eventually intersect. All motion is curved in reality. The rate of inclination is sooo small, that from your relative perception it SEEMS as if they are traveling parallel. But if you were able to witness it for eternity... those objects would crash into each other before an eternity. Even if those two object were the only two existing objects in the universe, they would STILL intersect because they each have a gravitational pull on one another. That pull will eventually cause an intersection. All things come from a point of zero motion and return to zero motion. They are solid at the half way point before returning to zero motion in the inverse. The zero motion is what science calls nothing. So all things come from nothing. A straight line is a fictional concept that only works on paper and is an "optical delusion" on our relative scale. Cartesian Coordinate systems do not work in 3D space because they deal with straight lines. If scientists say things travel in straight lines in space then why do they use a Spherical Coordinate system based on helical trajectories? What people accept now works just fine for our tiny universal frame of reference at this point in Humanity. But if we wanted to travel really really far, I think we would need to use Russellian Science. Water doesnt go down a drain water stays put while the universe vortates around it. Think about that one for a while.

Since your point of origin never remains stationary, you might actually need a spherical coordinate system that constantly rotates in an ever-changing phi spiral. How are you supposed to draw a constantly moving Cartesian graph on paper? You simply cannot. And the arrows on a Cartesian Coordinate system which denote a line continuing forever is a fallacy. They dont continue forever. They spiral according to Phi and infinitely accelerate at the same time they break down, which gives the illusion of reality because we too are vortating relative to everything else. You need advanced computer systems like we do today or holographic systems to draw proof of 3D and 4D Phi spiraling reality in it's true context. (Look up the term Cubic Wave Field) There are no flat lines and no flat space, nor in a spherical coordinate system. And even a spherical coordinate system doesn't account for spin. All the models of the universe I see, only account for a Cartesian view on space. Where is the rotation? Where is the arc? Where does phi come into play? Space is not empty so therefore there will always be a force on an object no matter how deep into space it goes. Nothing will ever be without some pressure. Even in the so called vacuum of space. Saying space is a vacuum relative to Sea Level is like saying Sea Level is a vacuum relative to the Sea Floor. Its just a state of less pressure. Straight lines cause resistance since everything naturally flows in an arc and spins while it does so. (Helical trajectory) Of course our current models of space fall apart sooner or later because eventually, a straight line always meets resistance. This force other than gravity, makes All straight lines ARC on it's path. Thats like trying to ride a rainbow, but you crash through one leg see blackness and then crash into the inverse leg of the rainbow. Vortation natural and it's a force other than gravity. Take a ook at Marko Rodin's coil and Walter Russells vortex models.

Rodins coil dramatically reduces electrical resistance and barely any heat is generated. Its because its wrapped according to sacred geometry which mimics Phi. Marko Rodin's coil model is more accurate.

And a pic of John Searl's device called the SEG (Searl Effect Generator) The magnets, rollers, stator ring, etc are composed of arcs. No straight lines.

I used to think space was flat, then I thought it was a spiral, then I thought it was a sphere. Now I don't think space is made of anything at all. There is no fabric. Only pushing forces within the void, which act upon corporeal objects. All things are on their own path down a vortex. Newton says, "All objects travel on a straight path until an outside force acts upon them." Well, I don't think so. That applies to a prism distributed on a wall. Like Platos Allegory of the Cave once again. I sense that All objects Would travel in a straight line through space if it wasn't for the reality of vortation and the third and higher dimensions. Since there is always some gravity from background radiation in the deepest parts of space, there will always be pressure to add spin. I completely agree with Newton when he said, "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." But, For every inward thrust there is a simultaneous outward thrust. Inward thust being magnetic and outward being radiation. Both are dual opposing forces of the same electric field. But I don't believe in the flat space model as if space was like a mattress. There is no floor in space, no grid, and no fabric of space-time. A Black Hole is the anode side of a star coming straight at you. A star is a comet. There are no holes in space. Einsteins c is only unique to the speed at which our comet we call the Sun is traveling in a helical spiral.

Everything travels in an arc. Everything has positive and negative. There must be a force to balance out another force. Everything travels 2 by 2 in an ark. Everything is moving in space together yet independently. (Relativity) There are so many objects in space that there are an infinite number of neutral points in space. Therefore, there is pressure everywhere. So, phi is natural. A spiral is natural. The universe is electric. All things are electric, because all things in motion have an anode (into the wind) and cathode (facing away) If you have enough phi spirals intersecting on a small scale and you zoom out you will eventually see a straight line on a giant scale. The phi spiral is a pretty simple concept. Even though I believe in god, I think intersecting spirals is a simpler concept than god. Most people's Occam's Razor is god because its the simplest solution, so therefore people think it must be the correct one. But simple to one person, is complex to another. Everything is relative. --Jason Verbelli http://www.Facebook.com/Verbelli

This chapter is to help clarify Alex Pettys diagram for the 360-123 Coil I made. (24 inch Life Saver Ring) There are a total of 360 pins in the coil. The wires are wrapped every 123 degrees. His diagram shown here is for every 3rd Pin which is why it only shows 120 points.

You need a total of 360 pins. Specifically, 3 sets of 120. The diagram shows the schematics for only ONE of the colored sets. You only use 2 sets while leaving room for a third wire that youll never include. Below, I'll show a couple stages of making a 12 Pointed Coil. There are 3 sets of 12 Pins. Red, Blue and Yellow. You only use the Red and Blue.

For a 12 pointed coil, the steps are pretty simple. Start at 0 degrees and wrap the wire every 150 degrees (every 5 Red Pins) You will make 12 turns before you end up where you started. Here's what it looks like on a protractor:

Here is 1 of 2 sets completed on a Fisher Price baby donut:

And here is both the Red and Blue completed while leaving room for the 3rd Vibration, Oscillation and Centripetal Spin

Alex Petty's diagram shows Red, Blue and Yellow lines indicating the path of the wires, but you will only use the Red and the Blue. Leave room for the Yellow set and account for all the pins as if it were there, but there are only 2 leads in the coil. There are 120 Red Pins, 120 Blue and 120 Yellow. Every 3rd pin is Red. Shift over 1 and every 3rd Pin is blue, etc. Just like the 12 pointed coil, but with 10 times as many pins. You will make 120 turns before you end up where you started. On a 360 point ring, you wrap each colored set every 123 DEGREES.

But Alexs diagram shows every 41 POINTS. (The points being every 3rd pin.) So, 1 41 refers to... wrap the wire from the first Red Pin to the 42nd Red Pin. (That literally means every 123 Degrees) If you were to try and wrap the coil every 42 DEGREES, the wires wouldnt even cross the center and it wouldnt work out. But if you wrap the wire every 42 Red PINS, or Every 42 Blue PINS. it will work out. I originally labeled my ring from 1 to 360 all the way around. What I should have done was labeled it 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5, etc, all the way up to 120 120 120. That would result in a total of 360 points but labeled in 3 different sets of 120. 1 for Red, 1 for Blue and 1 for Yellow. Much easier to distinguish Alex Pettys diagram if you label 3 sets of 120 rather than 1 360. Here is the start of the 360-123 coil made out of a 24 inch Life Saver Ring.

I need to re-label the markings from Degrees to Points. I'm going to wind this Coil by following the diagram for the Points, not degrees. Rather than counting 123 pins after each wrap, it's much easier to do most of the work by labeling 3 sets of 120 and then going from pre-calculated point to point. I could wrap the coil by starting at Pin number 1 and counting to the right 123 times after each turn of the wire, but that would take ridiculously long. If you section off the pins into 3 groups of 120, you'd only have to count every 41 pins to the right and stick to that color grouping. Or, you can go by Alex Petty's schematic and follow each point. There are 120 Red Pins. Working with only the set of Red Pins, you wrap: Red 1 to Red 42 Red 42 to Red 83 Red 83 to Red 4 Red 4 to Red 45 Red 45 to Red 86 Red 86 to Red 7 Etc.

Then repeat the same list for the set of Blue Pins.

Here is an example of an interference coil. Rather than wrapping both Red and Blue sets the same direction... you wrap one clockwise and the other counterclockwise. In all the known Rodin Coils, you complete 1 full Set and then tackle the other set. Here is an example of what the coil would look like if you fully wrapped the Red Set, and then the Blue. Notice how the wires are flat on top of each other.

So, to make it extra difficult, I'm going to be winding both the Red and the Blue set simultaneously.

This will result in a wicker basket type weave. If the interference pattern in supposed to be the most beneficial, then why not weave every wire so that it creates exponentially more interference patterns?

I used a taylor's measuring tape to find the distance needed between each pin. 24 inch diameter = 610 mm. (610) = 1915.4 (circumference in mm.) 1915.4 / 360 pins = 1 pin every 5.32 mm. The best method I came up with is to use a ninja star or cowboy spur on a pizza cutter bearing. The spikes need to be evenly spaced on the spur. Put all the work into fabricating the spur, then you can just roll it and easily get evenly spaced dots on any surface, curved or flat. You could have spurs with 1 inch spaced spikes, 1/2, 5/16, or whatever needed. But since I don't have the means to do that, I had to use a taylor's measuring tape. What I think I need to do is mark every Red pin 1 2 3 4 all the way up to 120 ... going Clockwise. And I need to mark all the Blue Pins 1 - 120 but opposite going Counter Clockwise. That way I can wrap both the Red and the Blue Sets simultaneously and keep track of the winding as a mirror image.

From the Creation of the Idea to Fruition:

First Concepts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YdpxDSu2bw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4bUZdrVFw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDt4otndeIw Progression of the project and windings http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq-Mi_hY6_8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcTCBgFnzFY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDUSHjoqNDM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWAAiOSkiu0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo0b2-vVb7A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnASf1pjDZ0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9sEa-fYxrM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBdKSw2nOYQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRf4fvhU3GM

Universal Communication and Bypassing Deafness

I have an idea about how to help deaf people (or bypass the deafness) and also universally communicate with any human in any language. The premise is like connecting an ipod or microphone to a muscle stimulator. Like the ones that do sit ups for you.

But instead of a regular signal that zaps the muscle, it would be a modulated frequency. Pretty much it would be the electric version of sound. You just bump up the octaves from our audible range to the frequency of electricity. THEN zap the muscles at a low amperage through the same pads as the muscle stimulator or EKG tests.

Check out this "Solid State Tesla Coil" which modulates the sound into electricity. The plasma arcing off the coil IS the speaker. Instead of hearing zzzzzaaappp zzzjjjjjj zzzzjjjj, you hear the music you modulate through the circuit before it gets to the coil, therefore the electricity coming off the coil will make the sound of the music. (the fun starts at 1:45) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzNTptFf9EU

So modulate the frequency like that... then connect it to a muscle stimulator instead of a Tesla Coil. Put the 2 EKG pads behind the ears (at the intersection of the Occipital, Prietal and Temporal bones in the skull)

The modulated vibration would zap the entire head bones with the audio sounds and the person would "hear" it loud and clear regardless if they were completely deaf or not. It's pretty much accounting for the electric signal that the ears can't interpret, so it bypasses the ears and just vibrates everything. When you're at the barber and they buzz the back of your head, you hear the vibration of the razor regardless if you have plugged ears or not because it vibrates your head to that frequency. So by sending a modulated electric signal through the device, you would be able to hear without any headphones or give the deaf their ears back. You could connect the device to a TV, radio, computer, or have a live mic and the person will be able to "hear" everything just like everyone else. They could go to concerts, movie theaters, and hear the ocean if the mic is good enough quality. A new sense is a pretty cool thing to experience. In addition, you can incorporate a real time language translator. So imagine connecting that to your head and then when someone speaks to you

in Chinese, you just hear it in English in your head. Or whatever your language of choice. You could do it wirelessly too and eventually without needing the pads. Would be considered a "telepathy machine". And if it's wireless, you could theoretically communicate with every animal, plant and Human on any given planet if you were within "range". But if you combine THAT with "scalar" technology and non-linear communications through Helical Flow (Centripetal Spin)... you can communicate with anyone in any time throughout the universe as long as they could interpret the signal back.

Heres the actual device invented by Dr. Patrick Flanagan as a 14 year old in 1958 The Neurophone: http://www.scribd.com/doc/39597693/NEUROPHONE-ak