Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CERN
Were going to go over the Higgs Model and why the explanation as its
presented is absurd and backwards. Phenomenon is real, but the
terminology and diagrams are sorely lacking.
In the Higgs diagram below, they show massive particles being generated
at the bottom by a massless particle on top. The arrow starts at the top of
the hill indicating that a massless particle somehow creates a hill by
curving space and then magically gains mass as it travels a straight path
down the hill following the vertical line.
In Searl's diagram, it shows the inverse. The rollers orbiting the stator IS
the mass at the bottom in the trough. But the trough of what?
Certainly not some non-existent curvature of space.
The blue lines in Searls diagram (which are cut off at the equator in the
Higgs diagram) are representative of magnetic field lines. Something real,
accepted, measurable, observable by anyone with iron shavings,
compasses, ferrofluid, etc.
There are satellite magnets orbiting a stator ring like planetary gears. With
unique magnetization resulting in high frequency waveforms. That when in
rotation at critical speeds generate a spiraling flux cone (frustum) for the
path of "electrons" 90 degrees to the tangential field lines propagating Up
the cone. Which causes them to converge and condense, accumulating
negative energy. (compressed electrons)
Part of the problem here is the model for the electron. Its commonly taught
that an electron has mass. And a negative charge. So, if a bunch of mass
is converging and condensing, it should form a solid ball. But for every
positive theres a negative. So, if theres positive mass, then there must be
negative mass.
If positive mass is said to curve space and make a well. then an
accumulation of electrons should make a well. Not a hill.
Therefore, the model of the electron is backward. (at the very least)
It should be thought of as negative mass with a negative charge. (The
math for a negative mass and positive charge works out the same as a
positive mass with a negative charge.) Look it up.
http://www.diracwasright.com
First a well with straight lines and now a "hill" with straight lines on 1
plane that aren't even connected to anything. Magnetic field lines loop
around in 3 dimensions. The erroneous grid in the Higgs diagram
represents nothing in reality.
Nature is all about Spirals:
If positive mass generates a well, then why would zero mass generate a
hill?
Wouldn't "negative mass" generate the opposite of positive mass? If a
proton is positive, aren't "electrons" supposed to be negative?
Wouldn't zero mass just be "flat" according to their own model?
Once you get to zero, that's it according to them.
No negative inertia. No negative mass.
So why then isn't the rest of their graphs just a bunch of gopher hills
randomly placed? Hey, there's no mass over there... let's arbitrarily put a
hill! Does that make Any sense people?!
O_o
Wait... let's look at that model for space curvature again...
How come the graph (with what's supposed to represent the magnetic field
lines) just stops at the lip around the hill? Where does it go?
How can the graph represent space curving if they say space is empty?
O_o
Taking a step back.... do you folks Really believe a particle can be more
massless than another non-existent massless particle?
O_o
They are saying there are different degrees of Zero now?
So now 0 is different than 0.00. Which is different than 0.0000?
Which has more volume then? Lol INSANE!!!
I think some people really need to go back to school and learn about the
concept of ZERO 0 . Absence of.
You cannot have something be more zero than something else.
There is no such thing as a massless particle. No such thing as nothing
becoming something.
CERN: There only exists positive mass and then different degrees of zero/
masslessness. There is no such thing as negative. (only 1 side to a coin)
Logic: There exists positive and negative of any state in the universe. Zero/
0 being the absence of or neutralization of those opposing states. There is
no such thing as varying degrees of nothingness.
uummm Dont the points on CERNs graph fall BELOW the 0 line of the
X axis? Thats negative territory.
If No Mass means (0,0) then what would (5,-2) be?
According to their own diagram, that means Negative Mass.
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/Step
hen_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/Steve
n_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.
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/
But theres a major difference between a very tight conical frustum and a
closed cone. ABSOLUTE FAILURE!!!! Why call it a black hole and then
give a diagram for a closed well as if bending the meniscus of water?
Thats like saying the Pupil of your eye is compacted dark matter that
generates the iris and sclera and holds the rest of your eye together
FAIL!
An open frustum cone is not a closed well. Sort of defeats the entire notion
of a singularity/ infinite densities/ dark matter/ curved space/ empty
space, etc. Should look more like a bundt cake mold.
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk
And they say the well is generated by the mass of the Earth
But they just said a hill is generated by a massless particle
2 sides of the same meniscus...
Why isnt the Mass of the Earth generated by Massless particles by pulling
the fabric of space from the other side then?
Massless particles bend space now.. so why not state that all matter is just
the result of massless particles combining on the other side of the
meniscus of nonexistent curved space?
See how laughable this is?!
If 1 side of space sinks, then the other side must raise by my simple mind.
Sorta the whole idea behind looking at a parabolic dish from both sides. 1
side is convex, the other side is concave. 2 sides same bowl.
If you state 1 thing you have to account for the scenario in the inverse.
Cant just have a well on 1 side of a meniscus without making a hill on the
other side by default. Is there only 1 side to a coin now too CERN?! Only 1
side to the bundt cake mold? Only 1 side to a sombrero?
If you make a divot on 1 side of a coin. Then whats on the other side of
the coin? A HILL
If you have a divot on 1 side of a bundt cake mold whats on the other
side? A HILL
So, by Einsteins logic, there should be 2 worlds. 1 on either side of his
non-existent meniscus of the fabric of space.
AS matter makes a divot on this side, then simultaneously a massless
particle would be making a hill from the other side. Ok by that logic,
which one generates the other?
Neither.. Why? Because the entire model is bullshit.
This is such a joke! Massless particles pulling the fabric of space into a hill
collecting matter NOT ONLY IN THE TROUGH OF THE SOMBRERO
BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MENISCUS
Absolutely Ridiculous.
CERN is trying to smash together 2 incoherent fermions in hopes of
coupling them together to make a coherent boson. (which they dont even
label in their erroneous diagram.)
O_o
Are they insane!?! (They must be since they're repeating their actions
expecting different results. It's like a pathetic gambler who needs just 1
more loan. They have the formula to win this year right? What a joke.)
Analogy:
That's like pointing 2 flashlights with white bulbs at each other in hopes
that it will someone isolate a particular bandwidth and make a laser beam.
So they spend more and more money on brighter white bulbs. Expecting
that by intensifying current failures with a more expensive set up will
somehow reap their results. O_o
If the square peg isn't fitting through the round hole.... you don't continue to
push harder. You try something else... (I learned that all by myself when I
was less than a year old!)
In order to even generate their higgs field, you need to have something in
an orbit first. Then it generates the frustum out of magnetic field lines which
then tighten like an iris. Might be so tight that you THINK its a closed
convex or concave shell, but theres a HOLE.
Not that theres a stationary massless ball particle that magically pulls
space to a hill to make a sombrero (while simultaneously mass is pushing
a well on the other side to fill the hat).
And then 1 ball particle of mass is generated in the trough of the sombrero.
Even in their diagram they show TWO divots but only 1 stationary ball
Which means that 1 ball would need to orbit on the Z axis around the Y
Axis while maintaining the same plane on the X axis at ( , -2). But always
staying 5 points away from the fulcrum/ shaft of the Y axis according to this
graph to make a circular orbit on 1 plane.
Cant have a stationary single ball make 2 divots in 2 points of space at the
same time. Nonsense!
At least grow a pair and have 2 balls for your 2D diagram cross section.
Whats the cross section of a torus look like?
That 1 diagram is from page 115 from just ONE of Searl's books. Here's a
picture of 25 of his books. The other 60 or so were on the shelves. Couldn't
fit them on the table... or the others in boxes...
Watch some leading University or CERN itself publish a new diagram soon
showing a "dynamic higgs field" with a swirling grid up the cone instead of
a "static higgs field" like in their current diagrams and understanding.
They'll probably try to attribute it to rotational frame-dragging and/or
LenseThirring Effect or a rotating Kerr "hill".
http://albert51.tripod.com/bhole.htm.
They would have to claim it's the result of a spinning massless particle.
Which is so laughable it's pathetic. At least call it negative mass.... or more
specifically, a rotation of an accumulation of "electrons". Condensed from
converging at the conical and tangential flux lines up the FRUSTUM.
(See why Im so frustrated!)
If they make a new sombrero model with a twist and claim credit, just look
back on this note and diagram and push to get Searl the support he needs.
Invest a fraction of the funding into Professor John Searl so we can
actually have a unit to Display these effects. Not just get a new diagram
with a twist and a claim they discovered it to justify their last billion dollar
budget.
LOTS more to discuss and share and show in context. Lots.
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-magic-quantum-revealed-coldatoms.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100412084525.htm
But if you were to see it head on, it would look like ripples in a pond.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo
That's why it's so confusing for people.
Because they ASSUME they are shooting ball particles, when really
they are sending expanding rings which look like waves from head
on. Because electrons have mass (negative). But mainstream says
all mass is positive. So they assume a ball particle and see a wave,
then make up a fantasy about how the ball becomes a wave as soon
as you look.
So you're not shooting 1 electron from a gun in the form of a ball.
You're shooting an electron at a specific energy density at which will
form ripples regardless. But the amplitude of the ripple will change
depending on how energy dense.
In the Poincare Conjecture, it's ASSUMED the ring shrinks down to a
"point." NOPE
A ring cannot become a point.
But at the Planck scale... when it WOULD become a point... you get a
"gravitational collapse" because the energy is converging at the
center of an iris. Has no where to go, then MUST do something else.
(phase transition)
Negative mass CANNOT form a sphere or point.
So it collapses like a cavitation bubble to form another ring.
But like how an "electron" jumps to a higher or lower energy state and
"jumps electron shells".
What happens is that the large ring become a more energy dense
smaller ring. Folds in on itself after reaching a critical compression
(condensation)
Or the inverse is a smaller ring expands to become a less energy
dense larger ring.
There are six shells for neodymium. Six concentric rings of varying
energy density. 2, 8, 18, 22, 8, 2
Not that there is actually 2 balls orbiting the nucleus in the inner shell,
8 balls orbiting in the second shell, 18 balls orbiting in the third shell,
22 balls orbiting in the fourth Shell, 8 balls orbiting in the fifth Shell, 2
balls orbiting in the valence sixth shell.
To me, it's more like the inner shell has the negative energy density
equivalent to two ball electrons but evenly distributed in one ring.
The 2nd shell has a negative energy density equivalent to eight ball
electrons but evenly distributed in 1 ring.
The 3rd shell has a negative energy density equivalent to 18 ball
electrons but evenly distributed in one ring.
The 4th shell has a negative energy density equivalent to 22 ball
electrons that are evenly distributed in one ring.
The 5th shell has a negative energy density equivalent to 8 ball
electrons that are evenly distributed in one ring.
The 6th shell has a negative energy density equivalent to 2 ball
electrons that are evenly distributed in one ring.
Not that ball electrons randomly pop into existence where ever you
happen to look. Ridiculous fantasy. Lol
Still have to show Dan Winter's donut with the colored spiral.
Which is actually representative of what mainstream would call
"frame dragging". Which is a lag in a rotating magnetic field.
Which causes an inverse centripetal spin of negative mass UP and
AROUND the outside of a frustum cone that forms in the center of the
donut like an iris. (Not down the inside of a cone like ball particles in a
water vortex)
Then the energy converges and condenses around the ever
decreasing radii of the iris field which then collapses like a cavitation
bubble through the donut to form a toroid shape itself again. But
because of the tangential field lines converging, the collapse
manifests as a swirling donut. (dynamic)
Like a "Kerr Black Hole" (which is NOT a well resulting from a positive
mass sphere) More like the iris of a camera.
You cannot shrink a sphere of positive mass to make a ring.
Nor can you cannot form a sphere out of a negative mass ring.
They are 2 different shapes and states.
Einstein called that the equivalence principle which is why he thought
gravity and inertia were the same.
That's like saying a sphere and a ring are the same. FAIL!
Relativity is for linear moving Spheres and positive mass.
Absolutivity is for non-linear spinning Rings and negative mass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_time_and_space
Pink Line on the square grid in the upper left corner represents E Field.
Red Line in that grid Represents B field.
You can transpose a Square grid into a torus where we see the correct
orientation of electric to magnetic. The 3rd Vector is rotation.
The Pink Line and Red Line are 90 degrees to each other. Just as
magnetic and electric forces act on each other.
How to get them to interact?
What is half of 90 degrees? 45 degrees.
So you take the 45 degree angle of the square grid and when you
transpose it onto a torus, you get a swirl or wave if you trace the path.
Which means a dynamic motion of both electric and magnetic forces.
Moving in the SAME direction, which accelerates the system.
The numbers correlate with weights/ densities needed to make the unit.
Cannot deviate from certain numbers or the unit won't function. Like how a
tuning fork won't hit a desired pitch unless it's precise.
Podkletnov:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0108005
Dr. Podkletnov describes his force beam generator experiment and his
improvements to increase the experimental gravity-beam. The force beam
is generated by passing a high-voltage discharge from a Marx-generator
through a YBCO emitter suspended in a magnetic field. He described it as
being powerful enough to knock over objects in the lab as well as capable
to punch holes in solid materials. After careful testing, Podkletnov found
the speed of the impulse to be approx. 64 times the speed of light (64c),
which he indicates doesn't conflict with interpretations of Relativity.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/05/update-on-podkletnov-gravity.html
"Podkletnov claims the gravitational beam is generated by a 3 to 5
megavolt drop onto a 4-inch diameter superconductor, which is enclosed in
a wrapped-solenoid to create a magnetic field around the apparatus."
http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-ongravity-shielding.html
"The beam doesn't disappear rapidly with distance -- in fact, its been
measured at distances of up to 5 kilometers and seems to penetrate all
materials without a decrease in force."
http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnov-onantigravity.html
"Someone in the laboratory was smoking and the smoke rose in a column
above the superconducting disc. We placed a ball-shaped magnet above
the disc. We found that any object above the disc lost some weight, and
we found that if we rotated the disc, the effect increased."
Where else can we find these little Higgs Field shapes in nature?
http://www.dailytech.com/Scientists+Solve+Greatest+Superconductor
+Puzzle+Yet/article12800.htm
Again, look at all that expensive equipment needed for this kind of
research. If that particular team working on researching
they would be able to explore what they are currently exploring?
A Counterintuitive Phenomenon:
http://phys.org/news/2014-06-counterintuitive-phenomenoncoexistence-superconductivity-dissipation.html