How the Fly Neutralises Gravity

Anomaly of the Fly’s Wings
I guess you will wonder what the fly has got to do with Ed’s ability to lift and move 30 ton blocks single handed. It has a lot to do with it so I will explain.
I include the bumble bee in this discussion as it has much reduced wing area relative to its body weight. Although it is not a fly as it has 4 wings, but it isn't supposed to be able to fly or hover because of a relatively small wing area.
The anomaly is this: According to the laws of evolution, a creature will evolve qualities by natural selection to out compete competitors and predators. The reward is survival. Flying insects evolved 4 wings for whatever reason. But for an unexplained reason, the fly family then tossed away the advantage of 4 wings in favour of 2. The second pair of wings the halteres were then downgraded to act as stabilizers (according to scientists). My question is this: Why would nature cause a pair of wings to degenerate into a pair of stabilizers unless there is an evolutionary advantage in doing so? In the case of the bumble bee, why would it evolve seemingly less effective smaller wings if they do not improve survival and effectiveness in foraging?
I removed the halteres from a crane fly. It was perfectly able to maintain stable flight and to navigate to where it wanted to go except at a much slower speed. I concluded that halteres were not essential for stable flight or directional control. I furthermore concluded that they had a much more profound function. I concluded that they are using antigravity by the generation of vibrational energy. If this is the case then 2 wings will drive propulsion while the other 2 wings will counteract.
In spite of only having 2 wings to propel it, the modern house fly can take off in any direction it pleases including backwards in order to escape an aggressor (You try catching a fly face on! It will easily escape your clutch). Since I first discovered this in my late teens I have now come to the conclusion that the fly is neutralising gravity by resonating the molecules of its body via its thorax. Ed said what he is doing is like magnetism.
You can interpret the resonance of the molecules in an object as aligning the molecules so that gravity passes through it. In this way the fly neutralises gravity – gravity simply does not see the fly’s body
I came to this conclusion after looking at the methods of transport used for transporting the giant building stones in megalithic buildings. I came to the conclusion that what the ancient megalithic builders did was not to apply anti-gravity but to vibrationally align the molecules of an object so that gravity passes through it.
Please think seriously about this. It is a big departure from previous thinking and just might rekindle new thinking
Please have a look at my web site where I discuss this and also explain Dark Matter and Dark Energy

Comments

  • Cool idea, I've also spent some time thinking about this but I suspect a pretty simple experiment can verify your model. Put a dead fly in a chamber with speakers to vibrate the air at wing beat frequency. I suspect the result will not confirm your theory. But I haven't tried.
  • I have conducted a few hundred experiments with specific sound frequencies and have not had a result. I am sure that the problem is to get the right vibrational frequency. You can't use just any random frequency. Also maybe it is a combination of specific frequencies. I am not the first to interpret the writings which point to the generation of vibrational frequencies to neutralise the rock masses. I believe that the giant Baalbeck building blocks were moved by neutralising gravity. If you neutralise the gravity of a very heavy 1000 ton object then if it is floating, even a child could move it!! So we are not talking about anti-gravity. What we are NOW talking about is NEUTRALISING GRAVITY. In other words, if you can align the molecules of an object with gravity you will get gravity passing through it like it is invisible. So it will not appear to have weight anymore. That is what Ed was trying to tell us!! So then like ancient history with very little power, you could lift a very heavy spacecraft (it might take a week or 2 but so what) into space and conserve most of the power to get to far flung planets. It adds up.
  • following on from the post: Just to say that the experiments I have done have been on crystal balls and granite - not finished yet. basically, wrap a coil - or get a big redundant speaker coil around a crystal ball or lump of granite and send a sound vibration through it. I am limited to 20 Hz to 20k Hz. That may be my problem. Maybe we should be in the 0-20 Hz range or the high ultrasound range but I haven't got the money to buy that kit. I can recommend quite a few experiments e.g. high ultra sound to generate cold light from crystals (ancient tech.)
  • I think that this is interesting work that you are doing. That said, I think it would help to wrap some more theory around what you are doing. You have this hypothesis, that an insect wing somehow interacts with gravity, along with or rather than just air, as a means of locomotion. Then you go on to mention that it must have to do with frequency. But why? There is not really any good reason for you to think this. You mention anecdotes of Ed's work but all of this adds up to no better than guesses in my opinion.

    What is your understanding of gravity? Without one.. how can you attempt to manipulate it? How can you reason that manipulating it somehow has to do with frequency modulation (or whatever)?
  • I have conducted a few hundred experiments with specific sound frequencies and have not had a result. I am sure that the problem is to get the right vibrational frequency. You can't use just any random frequency. Also maybe it is a combination of specific frequencies. I am not the first to interpret the writings which point to the generation of vibrational frequencies to neutralise the rock masses. I believe that the giant Baalbeck building blocks were moved by neutralising gravity. If you neutralise the gravity of a very heavy 1000 ton object then if it is floating, even a child could move it!! So we are not talking about anti-gravity. What we are NOW talking about is NEUTRALISING GRAVITY. In other words, if you can align the molecules of an object with gravity you will get gravity passing through it like it is invisible. So it will not appear to have weight anymore. That is what Ed was trying to tell us!! So then like ancient history with very little power, you could lift a very heavy spacecraft (it might take a week or 2 but so what) into space and conserve most of the power to get to far flung planets. It adds up.

    You are on the right track...
    "Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets. They are so small that they can pass through anything.. In fact they can pass through metal easier than through the air. They are in constant motion, they are running one kind of magnets against the other kind, and if guided in the right channels they possess perpetual power. "
  • @galacticdoug I like this effort but I don't like how unreasonable it is. My concern is that your hypothesis doesn't make sense and you don't have a model of gravity that you're even dealing with. Shouldn't you have an idea of what you're testing against? Otherwise you're just taking vague shots in the dark. Intuition is great but you must wrap it up in some reason.

    Example: How does your gravity work that a beating wing might neutralize it?

    That said, I don't mean to be a jerk, I think this is cool and I've thought a lot about it myself. I have some idea of my own on this topic and propulsion in general.
  • Pardon the interjection fellas, but a topic like this shouldn't be discussed without the mention of Russian entomologist, Viktor Grebennikov, and his discovery of the Cavernous Structures Effect (CSE):


    He's been discussed here many times before (search box: Grebennikov), but here is an article that sums up his research related to antigravitics and insect flight: http://www.keelynet.com/greb/greb.htm

    Jason Verbelli makes has thought provoking ideas on the subject here:


    @galacticdoug
    A house fly can beat its wings 200 times/sec - Is there any feasiblity that this rate could resonate somewhere in the realm of the Earth's natural frequency...or gravity? Is there any real substantial evidence that any type of resonance can be tied to some sort of diminished gravity or weight?
  • Is there any feasibility relative to what model of gravity? This is what I mean by taking shots in the dark. It is not reasonable.
  • @ssd510

    If it works does it really matter what model of gravity? T.T. Brown took a few shots in dark and achieved success in experimental antigravitics. However for me it would be relative to Leedskalnin's model of gravity:

    Gravitation must be caused by the matter in the middle of the earth, and more concentrated than Uranium. When Uranium atoms burst they release the North and South pole individual magnets that held the atom together, then the magnets scatter all around, they can only pass from the middle to the outside. When the North and South pole magnets are running alongside each other and in the same direction, they have no attraction for the other kind. They only attract if they are running one kind against the other kind. When the magnets are running out of the middle of the earth, as soon as they meet an object they attract it, on account of the fact that in any object there is both kinds of magnets in it. It can be seen by rubbing hard rubber or glass until they get hot., then they will attract sand, iron filings, salt, and other things. To see how it functions, move a salt crystal a little, if it happens to get on a different magnet pole, then it will jump away. Another way is to rub hard rubber until it gets hot, then it will be a temporary magnet. The difference between the rubber magnet and the steel magnet is both North and South poles are in the same side of the rubber and the magnet poles are small and there are many of them close together, but the surplus magnets in the circulating magnet that was put in it. Attract the iron filings with the rubber magnet, then approach with the steel magnet, Change the poles, then you will see some of the filings jump away. This means the steel magnet changed the magnet poles in the iron filings, and so they jumped away.

  • If you shake a big box full of nuts and bolts and you get a 747 jet plane does it matter how it happened? You're correct, it doesn't matter. But the chances of that happening are very low. It only makes sense to use reason in this way.

    I read the quote but it doesn't, in my simple mind, resolve to anything I can work with. The levitating stones of the ancients, their simple methods, I don't see them. Still on the hunt.
  • ssd510 said:

    If you shake a big box full of nuts and bolts and you get a 747 jet plane does it matter how it happened? You're correct, it doesn't matter. But the chances of that happening are very low. It only makes sense to use reason in this way.

    Well said, ssd510! "the chances of that happening are very low", indeed. Just like life coming out of random fluctuations of small round balls - something that could never happen.

    It's all magnetism, folks. The rules that govern magnetism do not have to be overly complicated in order to generate a dazzling array of life forms. Think Mandelbrot.

    Keep hunting, ssd510!
  • edited December 2016
    @ssd510
    My point was more along the lines that sometimes trial and error are the only means to an end. There are numerous examples of winged flight right outside our windows, but only one example of something truly defying gravity. Wouldn't reverse engineering a downed "UFO" be easier than building one from scratch, especially considering our level of understanding of gravity?

    @Barau_R_Tour
    Ed too demonstrates an understanding of a natural fractaling. When discussing the sphere shape magnet he says, "The real magnet is the substance that is circulating in the metal. Each particle in the substance is an individual magnet by itself, and both North and South Pole individual magnets".

    Here are few simple things that can be gleaned about Ed's understanding gravity from that quote:

    When Uranium atoms burst they release the North and South pole individual magnets that held the atom together, then the magnets scatter all around, they can only pass from the middle to the outside.
    Gravity is a result of the breaking down of incredibly dense matter in the center of the earth; gravity is like rays unlike normal circulating magnetism.

    When the North and South pole magnets are running alongside each other and in the same direction, they have no attraction for the other kind. They only attract if they are running one kind against the other kind.
    When magnets run in the same direction they are the same polarity, opposite in polarity when they run against each other.

    It can be seen by rubbing hard rubber or glass until they get hot, then they will attract sand, iron filings, salt, and other things. This is Ed's experiment to demonstrate his theory of gravity, which may be similar to a modern understanding of static electricity.

  • I think that the UFO thing is difficult to answer as we have no idea what a UFO is, hence the U. But my answer is, not necessarily. How much can one learn about petroleum (the power source, analogous perhaps to gravity) or the road (analogous perhaps to space) by decomposing a car. Relatively little compared to how complex petroleum science and road design can be.

    I understand Ed is full of anecdotes and he claims that understanding these fundamental properties is simple. I have no reason to doubt that Ed was onto something. But I suspect the study of his work will not lead us to any resolve as it hasn't over the course of decades.


    My point is, we as reasonable beings, don't need to rely on the another's ability to reason. We don't need to comb the net and books for answers that don't exist. We don't need to read between the lines of Eds work. We have our own minds and that, I suspect, is enough. Thats why I like this forum, there are many interesting and unique ideas being exchanged and reasoned through.
  • ssd510 said:


    My point is, we as reasonable beings, don't need to rely on the another's ability to reason. We don't need to comb the net and books for answers that don't exist. We don't need to read between the lines of Eds work. We have our own minds and that, I suspect, is enough. Thats why I like this forum, there are many interesting and unique ideas being exchanged and reasoned through.

    This is excactly total bullshit. Do not talk about "we". Talk only about "you". And always verify claims you witness yourself. Do not trust anyone except yourself. You do not have the privilege of opposing if you haven't done all the experiments!
Sign In or Register to comment.