Twin Opposing Vortexes and The Illusion of Pull

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