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
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)?
"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. "
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.
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:
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?
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.
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.
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!
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?
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 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.