Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Hidden Science & Advanced Technology

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 21-07-2009, 07:27 PM   #21
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingmob View Post
Somebody watched Rodin's videos on youtube and now thinks he knows the secrets of the universe
What are Rodin's videos
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2009, 08:01 PM   #22
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by decim View Post
Encore!
Brown Nosing

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=73934



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ion-today.html

Quote:
After leaving university, she worked at the brand consultancy Wolff Olins. When she was 30, she went into partnership with her old school friend, Julia Hobsbawm, starting the Hobsbawm Macaulay public relations firm together. The firm landed contracts with the New Statesman, owned by Geoffrey Robinson.[2]
Quote:
Brown is also a close friend of writer J.K. Rowling (who donated £1 million to the Labour Party in 2008),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Brown_(spouse)

Quote:
Julia Hobsbawm's new company 'Editorial Intelligence' specialises in analysing and exploiting comment and opinion in both print and online media. In simple terms, 'Editorial Intelligence' helps realise the potential of controlling the shape and fabric of public opinion and (d)ebate by controlling what is published in comment areas, forum areas, letters pages and message boards. They have even coined a new word for the online/published briTish public; they call it the 'Commentariat' (a play upon the word 'Proletariat' - orginally coined to describe the lower or working classes).
Quote:
JULIA HOBSBAWN, GERRY, JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTRE, PHILIP GREEN (Julia Hobsbawm is also a trustee of the Jewish Community Centre for London
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archi...hp/t-9716.html

Quote:
New ‘Harry Potter’ Is a Holocaust Allegory
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/1091...aust-allegory/

Remember - Harry Potter rubbished devout Christian Charles Brush's spin gravity experimental results, never to be re-examined.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...629C946095D6CF

Biographies don't mention this

http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/brush.html

Shades of Tesla his contemporary
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2009, 08:06 PM   #23
storm knight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 145
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Has anyone thought about different types of dimensions for example Time.

Surely there is an ability to move through time.

It comes from the hypothesis that Dreams come true (when you sleep)

I've spoken to someone who correlated data and she came to the conclusion dreams do come true or it's just coincidence.

Either way theres more from David Wilcock who goes onto explain about it better than I will. He's on youtube if you type in 2012 enigma.

So if it's true you can dream and they come true, then your spirit (projected into the body to make a soul) must be on a higher dimension looking through time. Therefore we can say theres more than one dimension of time.
storm knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2009, 08:26 PM   #24
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm knight View Post
Has anyone thought about different types of dimensions for example Time.

Surely there is an ability to move through time.

It comes from the hypothesis that Dreams come true (when you sleep)

I've spoken to someone who correlated data and she came to the conclusion dreams do come true or it's just coincidence.

Either way theres more from David Wilcock who goes onto explain about it better than I will. He's on youtube if you type in 2012 enigma.

So if it's true you can dream and they come true, then your spirit (projected into the body to make a soul) must be on a higher dimension looking through time. Therefore we can say theres more than one dimension of time.
Wilcox is 100% charlatan and time travel is impossible, otherwise horse racing would have become extinct
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23-07-2009, 08:09 PM   #25
storm knight
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 145
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
Wilcox is 100% charlatan and time travel is impossible, otherwise horse racing would have become extinct
It would be nice if you would elbaborate on charlatan? I never said time travel is possible, alls I said is the aspect of looking through time from our current dimension.
storm knight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2009, 09:36 AM   #26
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by storm knight View Post
It would be nice if you would elbaborate on charlatan? I never said time travel is possible, alls I said is the aspect of looking through time from our current dimension.
There are no other dimensions than those listed in the OP. A charlatan is a disinformation agent in this case pushing pseudo scientific claptrap. Quantum consciousness - well what does that mean exactly? Of course it has a ring of truth about it and so you respond positively. The best disinfo after all is mostly truth. Balavsky is a source for this agenda but it goes right back to HRU/TIE.

We will be exploring the idea of an information field later in Dimensions.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2009, 08:26 PM   #27
the mark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Place Of Love
Posts: 688
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth.

Maybe we are wrong?.
the mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-07-2009, 10:06 PM   #28
tjohn
Senior Member
 
tjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Somewhere on planet Earth (I think!)
Posts: 3,297
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rodin View Post
There are only three. We defined them length height breadth. Maybe you can consider time a dimension that 3D space translates in. Anything higher is a hoax.

The New Age movement is just Blatavsky multiplied.

The spiritual world does not exist in another 'dimension'. It exists in another field.

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Special relativity another hoax.

Gravity is a lightspeed force, and the Earth expanded when superdense hydrogen was released from the core. First to about 1.5 today's diameter when dinosaurs roamed, subsequently relaxing to today's size. Old Earth was all continents minus oceans.

Oil is abiotic and unlimited

Global warming is a hoax

All of above JMHO

Hi
Don't know what JMHO means but I think that rodin is deluded!
__________________
I don't believe in freedom of Religion - I believe in freedom of thought. Think about it ...
If we don't remember the past, we can't fix the future.
I know the truth but I also know that I'm merely a shadow of something far greater.
The Universe is a conscious entity. Reality is and our own minds are just a tiny part of the whole but together, we can make more positive changes. Let's get together!


Last edited by tjohn; 24-07-2009 at 10:07 PM.
tjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2009, 11:44 AM   #29
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the mark View Post
Maybe we are wrong?.
Three dimension got us thru the pre-Blatavsky millenia. As recent as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion is this need to have higher dimensions.

What is this higher dimension? Where is it? How do we measure it, describe it, access it?

Or do we just have to take it on trust that beings 'come from higher dimensions'? It is as illogical as curved space-time. Hoaxes R Us @ work
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2009, 11:45 AM   #30
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjohn View Post
Don't know what JMHO means but I think that rodin is deluded!
In that case argue against the arguments as I develop them.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2009, 12:38 PM   #31
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hank_scorpio View Post
sorry but your wrong oil takes millions of years for the organic soup to be oil it does not regenerate
Evidence of hydrocarbon lakes on Titan
Scientists have found giant lakes on one of Saturn's moons

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14029488/
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-07-2009, 02:44 PM   #32
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

1. There is a strong force binding the electrostatically repulsive protons in the nucleus, and also adhering neutrons to the single proton in hydrogen, to form deuterium and tritium, the radioactive isotopes of hydrogen.

2. There is also some kind of strong force sufficient to overcome the incredible gravity of supermassive bodies known as quasars. The evidence for this is jets that emerge from these quasars, jets that should not be possible according to the conventional wisdom of a black hole having gravity that nothing can escape from.

3. These same quasars exhibit massive redshifts that are too big to be accounted for by the cosmological redshift theory. As a consequence the idea of expanding space had to be invented

4. There is ample evidence of many Hoaxes pulled by Hoaxes R Us, including Scientific. A look at 911 illustrates this, and readers may be interested as to how Hoaxes can be denied ad infinitum

5. There are gravitational anomalies that cannot be accounted for by Newtonian physics.

I look for a unifying principle that can account for all of the above observations simultaneously. It seems to me a likely candidate is inertial gravity. Let us suppose that moving mass generates a field just as moving charge generates magnetism. How would this field manifest?

Here is what a magnetic field 'looks' like



I suggest a spinning mass creates a similar field. The magnetic field's polarity is defined as North and South. These are not the same as +ve and -ve charges, and are instead a function of the way spinning charge interacts with what we call space.

Quote:
Current (I) through a wire produces a magnetic field (B) around the wire. The field is oriented according to the right hand grip rule. Current carrying wires generate magnetic field lines that form concentric circles around the wire. The direction of the magnetic field in these loops is determined by the right hand grip rule.
The right hand grip rule always fascinated me - why is the orthogonal movement of a wire in a magnetic field always in the same direction with respect to current flow? I do not think this has been explained, merely observed and taken to be true (which it is).

A similar odd force is apparent when one holds a spinning gyroscope and attempts to re-orient it. Always you will feel an orthogonal force resisting free movement of the gyroscope frame. I suggest you buy a toy gyroscope and try this if you have never experienced it, just to get a 'feel' for the power and sense of this force.

Once again inertial mass and inertial charge appear to show similar phenomena.

If we are to have a field generated by spinning mass, how would it appear? Well there are two possibilities, and one possible orientation of this field.

Since the mass is spinning, the strength of the field should depend on the angle from the axis. Co-incident with the spin axis we would expect an extreme condition in the field, while equatorially we might expect another extreme condition. Through the poles of a spinning body there is a unique line, running though the axis, along which the spinning mass experiences no centrifugal force. (We can draw analogy with the centre of the earth, where normal gravity would be zero. Though there is no gravity at the centre of the Earth, the pressure is immense.)

Professor Eric Laithwaite lectured on Gyroscopes @ The Royal Institution’s 1974-75 Christmas Lecture.

Here is a later review of what happened, showing the remarkable 'heavy gyroscope' experiment

http://www.gyroscopes.org/heretic.asp
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 02:44 AM   #33
woodelf
Senior Member
 
woodelf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: california
Posts: 155
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

all this science stuff is fine, exploring the physical universe is fine. is it actually going to help you on your evolution path yourself? when the math balances out right you know its a correct piece of data, but, most everyones info is a confused mix of watered down and fouled up truth. like, someone saying the spiritual worlds are in a different field is a contradictory und unknowing statement, spirit(soul)worlds exist in a different STATE. the term 'field' refers to something of science.
i just had to throw that in, thank you...
woodelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 11:29 AM   #34
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by woodelf View Post
all this science stuff is fine, exploring the physical universe is fine. is it actually going to help you on your evolution path yourself? when the math balances out right you know its a correct piece of data, but, most everyones info is a confused mix of watered down and fouled up truth. like, someone saying the spiritual worlds are in a different field is a contradictory und unknowing statement, spirit(soul)worlds exist in a different STATE. the term 'field' refers to something of science.
i just had to throw that in, thank you...
There are Fields and States. I can live with that. Just as long as we don't have to add dimensions to reality.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-07-2009, 01:08 PM   #35
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Now then, a little intermission.

I know from observation and experience that on forums there are cointelpro agents, and that these people operate of behalf of the entity identified on this thread as The Invisible Empire.

Needless to say I would have gradually added those I thought I had identified to my ignore list in the thread linked below. However this degree of openness seems to be beyond the pale hence the familiar 'thread closed'

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=75179

In time this may have helped expose and disrupt the operation.

Of course, telling the truth in an age of universal deceit is a revolutionary act

I observed the fraud of the Republican nomination in US where votes were deeply rigged to marginalise Ron Paul and realised that this would not be possible but for the fact that ballots are secret.

Secret anything is bad, bad news people. Get everything out in the open. Lies hate light and the truth will indeed set you free.

Last edited by rodin; 29-07-2009 at 01:11 PM.
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2009, 06:20 PM   #36
pegcityevolve
Senior Member
 
pegcityevolve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 923
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

I thought the 4th dimension was the astral plane/field? And time was an illusion? I thought there were 5 or 11 dimensions, or infinite.

But it's all a hoax?
pegcityevolve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-07-2009, 09:38 PM   #37
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pegcityevolve View Post
I thought the 4th dimension was the astral plane/field? And time was an illusion? I thought there were 5 or 11 dimensions, or infinite.

But it's all a hoax?
Yes

3 dimensions define space and all that sails in her

Time may be considered a 4th since everything moves through time

If time+space moves thru another dimension there may be a 5th. No evidence for. As for 'rolled up dimensions' pass the joint
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2009, 09:34 AM   #38
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

Now where was I - oh yes. Inertial mass.

When time and funds allow I plan on conducting my own experiments with gyroscopes. However, a great way to get a mental picture of the problem is to watch these videos







rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2009, 01:26 PM   #39
jamesc
Senior Member
 
jamesc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,572
Likes: 36 (17 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pegcityevolve View Post
I thought the 4th dimension was the astral plane/field? And time was an illusion? I thought there were 5 or 11 dimensions, or infinite.

But it's all a hoax?
This is were we enter the Occult and the writings of Occultism and practising Occultists .There are lower astral planes and upper astral planes acording to those Occultists who have experienced them and received communications or direct communication with entities that inhabit their upper or lower astral planes.The writings of Crowley on the sub divisions and planes of the astral planes is invaluable.Like every thing in this or the next vibrations or planes it has to be experienced to fully understand its true meanings. From the ethric plane that lies just beyond our earth vibration it gradually gets less dense so to speak untill it reaches formlessness or pure spirit and exists of pure being.So in a way physical science will never truly understand because it sees only outcomes or realities in can measure by its physical science and
apparatus.One has to experience and visit these planes to fully understand its true significance and connections to the subconscious dimensions of the subdivisions of the astral planes.
jamesc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2009, 03:16 PM   #40
rodin
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: location location
Posts: 16,981
Likes: 3 (3 Posts)
Default

Superluminal redshifts blow apart the Big Bang hoax. More likely explanation is inertial gravity.

If you have observed the above videos you will see something pretty weird is going on. In particular the toy gyro on the lightweight plastic tower. As the gyro precesses about the tower the centre of mass of the system (by convention) lies approximately in the centre of the gyroscope, since the tower is so lightweight. Nevertheless the tower itself is not displaced during the rotation. The system behaves as though the centre of mass has been shifted to the tower from the gyroscope.

How can this be? Let us look at the equations for momentum

From Wikipedia (Momentum)

Quote:
The amount of momentum that an object has depends on two physical quantities: the mass and the velocity of the moving object in the frame of reference. In physics, the usual symbol for momentum is a uppercase[8] bold P (bold because it is a vector, uppercase to avoid confusion with pressure); so this can be written

P = mv
Momentum = Mass x Velocity

For a spinning (as opposed to turning a corner) object

Angular Momentum varies as Mass x Rate of Spin (for any given object in a fixed orientation)

(The equation is further complicated by the radial distribution of mass - consider the ice skater spinning with arms outstretched or folded - spin rate changes, angular momentum does not but for simplicity, since we are dealing with gyroscopes, nucleons and astronomical bodies with fixed 'shape' we can use the simple relationship as an excellent approximation)

If no external force acts then momentum is conserved (Isaac Newton).

(True. Newton was always right far as I can see including his Shell Theorem of gravity, which he spent years considering before publishing. Gravity geeks know what this is )

In fact a rotation counter-intuitively produces a force operating along the axis of rotation. This obeys a right-hand rule, just like that used to define the mechanical movement produced by a moving charge in a magnetic field.



Now, according to Newton, to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Therefore, in the animation above there must be an equal negative force being applied along the opposite pole of the axis. T

In other words a spinning object produces a force field aligned with and centred on the axis.

This axial force should produce motion along the axis. But it apparently does not.

Now the odd thing is that even although this axial force is real, there appears to be no net reduction in weight of a spinning object, since a spinning gyro weighs the same as a static one when placed on a balance (at least on average - fluctuations have been observed)

A black hole/quasar is a spinning object, and something is certainly happening at the axis



Now remember - the object you are observing is supermassive superdense and should be trapping everything inside its gravity well according to 'standard' (HRU) physics. But we see clearly that matter/energy/plasma whatever is shooting out from the core.

Let me now return to the problem of the axial force that produces no weight loss. How can this be that a force directed upwards does this? (Vice verse, a force directed downwards produces no weight gain)

Are you with me so far?

I propose that what is actually happening is we are producing an inertial gravity field, analogous to the magnetic field produced by a spinning charge.

I propose that in order to conserve energy the axial force must in fact be a closed loop force field, just as we have in the bar magnet. Now no energy is escaping the system. Instead we have an inertial gravity field, which, although it acts in one direction along the rotation axis, produces no large increase or decrease in gravity, since the system is closed. In effect, while we have a force along the axis, this is balanced by a force field that returns to the opposite pole through space, and NO NET FORCE DISPLACEMENT IS OBSERVED by standard measurement techniques.

However LOCALLY there is force displacement, ie locally there is antigravity and enhanced gravity - it is just that the SUM of all these forces balances out. Hence no appreciable weight loss is observed ON AVERAGE with a spinning object weighed on a balance.

Consider now a large isolated object spinning in space. The lines of force will close around this object except at the poles themselves, where a linear force of infinitesmal cross section can extend to infinity.

The gyroscope is a very tame device yet it can produce exxtraordinary effects. Consider now the possibility of objects with a density many, many orders of magnitude greater than the gyro (gazillions). The angular momentum here will be of biblical proportions compared to the size of the object. Intuitively the effects are sure to be ultraprofound.

Where would such conditions exist?

The answer is in quasars, black holes, whatever you want to label these gravity wells where electrons do not escape neutrons and matter is packed in such a density that the Earth would rattle about inside a Smarties tube, and in the nuclei of atoms.

I propose that a closed loop inertial gravity field is a candidate for the strong forces binding nuclei against their electrostatic repulsion. Indeed it is this field that may force electrons out of the neutron in the first place - the decay of neutron > proton + electron is accompanied by a mysterious LOSS IN WEIGHT - attributed to a mystery particle called a neutrino/antineutrino. This decay, by the way, is by no means instantaneous.

Quote:
Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 885.7±0.8 s (about 15 minutes), decaying by emission of a negative electron and antineutrino to become a proton:[4]
I doubt the existence of antiparticles altogether including the much vaunted 'antimatter'

I also propose that the Inertial gravity field surrounding quasars is responsible for the superluminal redshifts observed, and that in fact this field is responsible for the high redshifts currently called 'cosmological' I call them 'cosmoillogical' unless we take account of the inertial gravity field.

I also propose that for this i cannot ever get a Nobel Prize, since TPTB know all this shit already, and have placed their agents in the way of you knowing also.

I also propose that application of this field may lead to machines able to locally act against the gravity of a large body like Earth. The logical shape for such a device would be circular - orb or disc shaped.

Interesting, no?

More later as we develop the Unified Theory of Everything
rodin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:36 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.