TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)
@TheRealVerbz • 19,637 subscribers
Physics Author - Founder of Galilean Variance. CEO/Lead Engineer at SEG Magnetics. Advocate for alternative energy projects for preservation of humanity.
Shorts
Videos
1:57
Sensitive content
This media may contain sensitive content.
Since TikTok is going to be "banned", I've saved a bunch of my videos on the magnetic experiments, challenges to scientific models and John Searl related content. I started a Rumble and TikTok page because YouTube deleted my channels of 16 years. As well as Facebook deleting my page of 15 years. Here we go again. lol Here's a quick visual intro to Professor John Searl's work
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)794,484 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Universities teach many erroneous models. One example of a misleading teaching is the Newtonian model of the prism. A man named Johann Goethe corrected and complimented Newton's model about 100 years after Newton. It is not the same light passing through the prism and distributing. It is a brand-new light with each beam of color. The primary light hitting the prism is extinguished by the electrons making up the glass of the prism itself. Those same electrons re-emit a brand new light from each angle. That process happens at the rate of c. Serving the illusion that the original white light came it... separated and exited to continue on. Most people rely on outdated text books or the Pink Floyd album cover "Dark Side of the Moon" to get their information about light and color and prisms. The depictions of light "splitting" and "bending" through a prism based on their color is false. (See first comments for attached images and substantiation) I filmed these videos playing around with prisms, lasers, magnifying glasses, mirrors, slits, and colored filters. I've gained my own perspectives on light and color over the years from real world, hands-on experimentation and observation. Most people have never held a real glass prism their own hands and done the tests to see for themselves. 2 prisms for $10 Harmonics of Light and Sound: This guy said his units were confiscated by the FBI and he was threatened not to pursue manufacturing them. The unit is simply a light with a magnifying glass and colored filters to isolate the light. Like burning an ant with a focal point... but with a specific color. The lens can spin and create a stroboscopic effect in an isolated band. The inventor claimed it healed stuff. Dinshah Spectro-Chrome Machine - Tour and Explanation Magenta monochromatic ray of shadow - Pehr Sahlstrom: Color and Physics, Newton versus Goethe - Pehr Sahlstrom: Thomas Joseph Brown Color Theory: Clay Taylor Color Theory: Testing the "Rightness" of relativity. The impossibility of proving something through experiments. Laser and Mirror observation: It's never the same light. Re-emission Example: I put this interactive page together going back and forth with ChatGPT to code using Javascript. Here is a video playing with the slide controls to show 3 different sinewaves (3 different lights/emissions). The packets are ALWAYS in phase from medium to medium. The frequency shifts BECAUSE the velocity of light shifts. NOT a Doppler shift of "the same light" distorting within the same frame of reference. It's a brand new light at each point. The incoming light is a different frame of reference. All the light you ever see is the re-emitted light from the electrons making up yourself. Propagation and Re-Emission of Light: Dr. Edward Dowdye Slides - LOTS of math and context. E.H. Dowdye, Can Stars BEND LIGHT? General Relativity and Gravity with Dr. Edward Dowdye Challenges to Gravitational Lensing and More: 71 Part Video Series (Each vid is 1 min - 1 and a hafl min) The Rebirth of Classical Physics - Time, Light & Gravity Classical Physics vs Relativity - History, Examples and Alternatives: Illusions of Relativity: Space-Time vs Real-Time The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity - Article Packed with Info & Links Thought Experiment for Light and Absolute Time. (This scenario got me banned from talking on a Podcast.) "Too off the rails."
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)44,361 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Lenz Law "Eddy Current" Experiments 2 of 3 - Ring Magnets and a Spinning Copper Rod (YouTube deleted this experiment as well, labeling it as "medical misinformation.") Around 2010, I wrote a Facebook note titled "Frictionless Flywheel". (Facebook deleted my page of 15 years). In that write-up, I speculated and predicted that... ... if a magnet falls in slow motion down a copper tube... then what would happen if you did the inverse? Drop a magnet ring around a copper rod? It's the same relative motion between the magnet and the copper. So the magnet would tilt at an angle while slightly rotating as it falls in slow motion around the copper. But then I said... "Let's take it one step further... I predict that if you have magnet rings around a copper rod... and then you spin the rod... that the magnet rings would stabilize around the rod from eddy currents." I said, there will be a magnetic bearing effect where the magnet ring will levitate and spin. Because it's following in the wake of the eddy currents produced by the rotating copper. So the magnet should catch up to speed of the copper and match it like the moon to the Earth. Essentially remaining fixed relative to the copper rod... but since the copper is spinning at a high RPM, then the magnet should spin at a high RPM; albeit, with a slight lag. So, abiding by the scientific method, I make an observation of the magnet falling in slow motion. I thought critically about. I get a new idea. Once the new idea passes muster, I allow my self to make a prediction for a scenario that hasn't been tried yet. Worked it out in my mind to see if it was viable. But then I needed to test it. I didn't have the ability to spin a copper rod at a high enough RPM that I theorized would be needed. So I communicated with my friend Josh Toms We had been talking about different experiments for quite a while. Josh is a real experimenter and a good man. He tests things before he speaks on them and when he speaks, it's with an informed opinion. He sent me a copper sphere about 2 inches in diameter and taught me some cool stuff about eddy currents I hadn't seen when sending each other clips of experiments we were working on. I explained the concept of the "frictionless flywheel" and my prediction that the magnets would levitate and stabilize around the copper rod if it was fast enough. So Josh built a platform using an angle grinder as a motor to spin a copper rod. He put very strong NdFeB magnets around the 1 inch diameter copper rod. IT WORKED! Josh brought this platform to the Tesla Technology Conference in Albuquerque, NM in 2010 where we met up. I filmed the demonstration of the platform you see in this video. There was a young boy who was fascinated by some of the magnet demonstrations I and others were giving at the conference. So I was explaining the process of what was happening to the inquisitive kid. Again.. what you notice here is that the eddy currents act as a force field to prevent friction between the magnets and copper. There is a stable gap and "magnetic cushion" that forms after a certain RPM. (Dependent upon the mass/gauss of the magnet in relation to the diamagnetic quality/mass of the copper or material in motion.) And what is super interesting to me is that once again... you can violently shake the entire platform and it WILL NOT disturb the magnets. The will not touch that copper after a certain RPM. You could make violent 90˚ turns and from the perspective of the magnets... it's just moving in slow motion relative to the copper. Just like how the magnet falls in slow motion relative to the copper down the tube. But this is just at a higher velocity relative to a stationary observer viewing the rotating system. But it doesn't matter if it's a centripetally rotating system at a constant velocity or linear acceleration in a particular direction... those eddy currents act as a force field to protect whatever is relative to the magnets and/or copper in those moments. So the claim and prediction that a frictionless flywheel effect and magnetic bearing would take place between a ring magnet and spinning copper rod DEMONSTRATED to be true. Now "PROVING" this scenario means to derive mathematical equations to justify an explanation of how the end results arise. Spinning magnets on a copper rod doesn't prove anything. In science... proof is math. Experiments can never prove anything. Experiments never provide equations or numbers or variables. Experiments provide evidence. You collect the evidence FIRST... AFTER doing real-world, hands-on experimentation. Anything else is just armchair research and talk. You write the proofs on paper to describe how you think things happen. And your proofs must abide by the constraints of the model you use. Sure... you can use a mathematical artifice like Lorentz invariance (relativity) to prove the end results arise because of: dark matter accumulating between the magnet and copper. Or that it must be space-time curvature bending... Or that it must be because of the aether rippling and vortexing... Or because of the dynamic casimir effect or zero point energy. Or anti-gravity. NOPE! None of those things are needed in the explanations I offer for any experiments and real-world data collected. I use the framework of what I call GALILEAN VARIANCE. Good ol' classical physics in 3D Euclidean space. No 4th dimension. No space-time. No aether. No nonsense. Only Newtonian Mechanics and elementary math.... but with a twist! ... and under.. "a new light". I have a completely different interpretation as to what gravity is and the mechanism of how it arises. Issac Newton never claimed to have a theory for the CAUSE of gravity. Newton's brilliant work and optics describes the behavior of matter and energy within a gravitational field. But he never claimed to know what causes gravity. "I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not form any hypotheses." - Newton However... I do claim to have an explanation for the cause and mechanism of gravity. And it means a total abandonment of relativity and half of QED. Gravity IS a force! (and an emission) Eddy currents are not gravity. Magnetism is not gravity. And the kicker... gravity is not electric either. It's an illusion. Gravity is not an illusion. But the illusion is that people think gravity is electric. It's not. I have a completely different take. And boy has it gotten me in a lot of trouble and banned from speaking time and time again. But... if the information is valid... then trying to suppress it is like trying to hold an inflated basketball under water. Your arms are gonna get tired eventually and things are gonna come up to the surface with spring-loaded force. Equal to the amount people tried holding it back. The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)45,879 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Is Relativity "right"? What do you mean by "right?" Here is an example of Evidence versus Proof when trying to show tests for or against a given model... Point a LASER or flashlight at a mirror. Pointing a light at a mirror, does not give you any math or proofs. But when you point a LASER at a mirror… You can interpret that scenario under Lorentz transformations. And that will mathematically "prove" it is the same light ricocheting off the surface of the mirror and continuing on within the same frame of reference. But that same scenario under Galilean transformations will mathematically "prove" it is a primary light hitting the mirror… And the electrons making up the surface of the mirror, will absorb that incoming primary and re-emit a brand new secondary light as an equal and opposite reaction. And that happens at the rate of c, serving the illusion that it's the same light bouncing back. And every point of interference and re-emission is a new frame of reference. You can point a light at a mirror 10,000 times… That experiment will not prove either scenario. Pointing a LASER at a mirror does not prove it is the same beam or a different beam. That "proof" is in the mathematical interpretation of the scenario. Does the mathematical justification make a given theory "right" though? If the math under Lorentz transformations makes Relativity "right"... then the math under Galilean transformations makes Dr. Dowdye's Extinction Shift Principle "right". For the same evidence and scenario. So, what does it really mean to be "right"? The entire world can conduct 10,000 experiments over and over… All it will do is provide EVIDENCE. And the entire world is interpreting that evidence under one specific mathematical framework of Lorentz transformations using relativistic procedures. But, indeed, there are other experiments to show unreconcilable discrepancies of relativity; as well as, other mathematical approaches to yield the same predictions and solutions as relativity using Galilean transformations. Back to the simplicity and elegance of Classical Physics again. But now under "a new light" thanks to Dr. Edward Dowdye's reformulations in 1991. When you hear a horn pass by you and change pitch... Doppler Shift and Relativity assumes The Same Sound constantly distorts within the same frame of reference. But Dr. Dowdye's Extinction Shift Principle views the same scenario as a brand new sound being produced at a constant and a stationary observer is hearing a brand new sound at at constant from constantly changing frame of reference. Lorentz transformations/ Relativity assumes The Same primary light propagates out from a source... gets interfered with and distorts... and then continues on as a distorted primary within the same frame of reference. But Galilean transformations as reformulated by Dr. Dowdye/ Effectivity assumes a brand new light and brand new sound is produced at a constant and when the path of that packet EM Radiation is interfered with... the electrons making up that blockage will absorb the primary, which diminishes to zero and becomes extinguished. Extinct. Those same electrons will re-emit a brand new secondary which simultaneously crescendos in proportion as an equal and opposite reaction. That process happens at a constant at the rate of c as well. And every point of re-emission is a new frame of reference with that new secondary light traveling relative to the electrons making up the blockage/ interference itself. Discourses & Mathematical Illustrations Pertaining to the Extinction Shift Principle Under the Electrodynamics of Galilean Transformations: Introduction to the Extinction Shift Principle: A Pure Classical Replacement for Relativity (Peer Reviewed Paper) Propagation and Re-Emission of Light: The Rebirth of Classic Physics: Time, Light & Gravity Videos for more context from my video titled Illusions of Relativity: Space-Time vs Real-Time Wave-Fronts and Wave-Ends: Reflection or Re-Emission?: The Velocity of Light IS Dependent Upon the Velocity of the Light Source: Evidence versus Proof: What is the point of Science?: AS IF ≠ Literal: Which is the Simpler Solution?: Alternative to the Perihelion of Mercury: In this Twitter/X thread, I'll introduce the brilliant work of Dr. Edward Dowdye. Credible Challenges to General & Special Relativity, Doppler Shift Theory and more. Retired NASA Engineer, University Professor of Mathematics and internationally recognized expert in atomic physics, optics, LASERs and satellites. If Einstein were alive today, he would concede to Dr. Dowdye's mathematical proofs under Galilean Transformations and re-interpreting all past experimental evidence attributed to Relativity.
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)24,484 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren
Thought experiment for people regarding the concept of Absolute Time. Absolute means NO EXCEPTIONS. We are NOT looking back in time when we see galaxies and stars. We are NOT looking back in time 1.25 seconds when we see the moon. We're Not looking back in time 3 minutes when we see Mars. We're Not looking back in time 8.33 minutes when we see the Sun. If an astronaut lit a matchstick on Mars, the distant observer would see predator heat waves at the top of the matchstick in real-time while the matchstick started to blacken towards the astronaut's fingers. But there would be no orange light from that chemical reaction or flame seen. If the matchstick burnt out before the packet of orange light from that particular chemical reaction made it to Earth… then the distant observer would just see a disembodied orange flash of light with a lag. But the Earth-bound observer would never actually see the flame associated with the orange wavelength it put out. The wavelength of color emitted by the flame is not a recording of reality. If the orange light is 650 Thz, that means there are 650 trillion individual and separate bursts of orange light pulsating in 1 second. NOT that "the same light" is "waving" 650 trillion times a second and that light is a recording of reality. There are 650 trillion brand-new lights flashing in 1 second. Each Hertz is a brand-new emission and packet unto itself. Time does not re-emit 650 trillion times a second, nor is a photon a particle or a packet of reality acting like the frame of a reel of footage. The orange light that already left the flame will continue to propagate out until it meets the electrons making up the distant observer. But remember, it is never the same light within that packet. And the electrons making up the observer will absorb all of those different lights within that packet and re-emit brand-new lights that produce the product of illumination. A photon is a massless packet of energy, spherically expanding at the rate of c from the source it comes from. Illumination is the result of that energy being absorbed and RE-emitted by any other electrons that did not output that primary packet. But time is not associated with the same light. It's never the same light and time does not re-emit between packets. Time is not relative. Do NOT allow your mind Carte Blanche to think along the lines of relative time. DROP IT for this thought experiment. We are thinking along the lines of ABSOLUTE TIME/ Galilean VARIANCE. What does absolute time mean? It means time is constant in ALL frames of reference. Any frequency shifts between atomic clocks IS a literal change in the speed of light. But relativity forbids the speed of light from Ever changing, so relativity (Lorentz INVARIANCE) invented the concept of the 4th dimension and space-time. Because Relativity doesn't allow light speed to shift.. they interpret the same frequency shift between atomic clocks as being conclusive, irrefutable evidence that time and reality itself shifts. Rather than say it's just that ONE clock being affected by Earth's gravity and the oscillation of that ONE cesium clock is being altered compared to other clocks. People don't realize that in relativity... time dilation is SYMMETRICAL! Not even most relativists know their own theory. If Clock A and Clock B are synchronized and together... and then they accelerate apart... Einstein said Clock A would see Clock B as being slower itself. And Clock B would view Clock A as slower than ITself. NOT that only one observer would see back in time and the other would see forward or not at all. No... BOTH observers are supposed to see each other BACK in time relative to each other according to Einstein and the consequence of the math. It doesn't make ANY sense!! But relativists toss that part of time dilation under their 4th dimensional rug. The rug is woven from threads of gold that only the smart people can see apparently. So... here's a thought experiment/ Gedankenexperiment for absolute time. NO paradoxes... no nonsense or confusion. What do you see in a club? You see disco lights changing and a color wheel effect. You see everyone in REAL-TIME. Not just because they are so close to the lights. Light is not a recording of reality. Light is simply color. Illuminating reality in a certain color. Just because you can't see something yet or the color hasn't reached you doesn't mean it isn't happening in real-time. Zoom out and look at the people in the club through binoculars a mile away. You are still looking at them in real-time. The colors are shifting with a delay in the club. Now look at the club through a telescope from the surface of the moon. You're still looking at the people in real-time. But now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 1.25 seconds because it takes light 1.25 seconds to travel from the Earth to the moon. Now look at the club through an even bigger telescope from the surface of Mars. You're still looking at the people in real-time, but now there is a lag of the colors shifting by 3 minutes because it takes light 3 minutes to travel from Earth to Mars. fr you are a third hypothetical observer zoomed out and watching the person from Mars AND seeing the club on Earth... you're still seeing everything happening in real-time as well. But you see the colored wavepackets traveling with a delay to the observer on Mars. And the disco color wheel effect is just lagging before it affects the observer from Mars and the observer on the Moon. It doesn't matter how far you zoom out! There is only now to observe. But there WILL be a lag and delay for a given color/wavepacket to reach distant observers. But all points in space are already illuminated by other starlight. So if you're too far away... you'll just see the club in real-time but without any disco lights. Just see them in white light because that's the source already illuminating the scene. This is where it gets the most difficult because people think light itself is a recording of reality that replays a scene from where it came from. But another punch in the gut of relativity is that in order to see REFLECTED light... that would require a TWO-WAY transit. Which means the light would have to be sent out... record the scene of a distant event and then RETURN in order to REplay the event. Which means it would take 6 minutes to see the club from Mars by that logic and 2.5 seconds to see the club from the moon by that logic. The difference in tick rates between clocks has NOTHING to do with time dilation. Wait.. what?! How can that be? Because a clock itself doesn't represent all of time and reality. The difference between clocks is a "Transverse relative time shift." If the only light in the universe was from the lighter… the only way a distant observer would be able to see the astronaut on Mars is if the astronaut held down the button of the lighter for longer than 3 minutes. It takes 3 minutes for the packet of light to travel from Mars to Earth. The distant observer would never be able to see Mars, unless the light stretched from Mars all the way to Earth, and illuminated the path between Mars and Earth. And that would take 3 minutes for the boundary and first part of that wave packet to reach Earth. But if the distant observer wanted to observe Mars in real-time… then that packet of light would have to be on for longer than 3 minutes. So if the astronaut on Mars flicked the lighter at 12:00, the distant observer on Earth wouldn't see anything until 12:03. If the light was on for 3 minutes and 10 seconds, and the distant observer is 3 light minutes away... the distant observer would be able to see Mars in real-time for 10 seconds starting at 12:03. In the 20 second video clip of the rotating planet with shifting colors... just imagine you're a couple light minutes or light seconds away. You're still seeing the planet spin in real-time. But there is simply a delay of switching colors. You are Not looking back in time. It's just a color wheel effect from a great distance away. That's it!! There are many major flaws which tarnish people's critical thinking on this thought experiment. 1. Light does NOT ricochet or bounce. Electrons absorb, emit and re-emit ALL electromagnetic radiation. The electrons, making up the glass of a mirror will absorb the incoming light and re-emit a brand-new light as an equal and opposite reaction. NOT that "the same light" bounced off the mirror and continued on within the same frame of reference.  2. Light is NOT a recording of reality. 3. It is NOT the same light being observed from a source. It's never the same light. Each Hertz is a new light. Think of half of a sine wave as being its own emission. On an oscilloscope, a stimulus generates a peak which initiates an equal and opposite trough. Or vice versa. That repeating process is not "the same light." If you cut and paste that sine wave to another sine wave, the boundary between the waves will always be in phase. (thus refraction) 4. The speed of light is NOT the same in ALL frames of reference, no matter what. 5. Light is NOT made of particles and waves that flip back-and-forth. 6. Time is NOT connected to the speed of light. Time remains constant regardless if you accelerate towards or away from a clock. The clocks themselves will indeed be off! But that's an affect on the electrons making up the atomic clock affecting the oscillation of the isotope which is ASSUMED to ALWAYS be the same. So ANY difference in oscillation is treated as a literal distortion in space-time. 7. Space and time are not linked at all. That is a mathematical artifice under Lorentz invariance. Time is relative under Lorentz invariance. But time is absolute under Galilean VARIANCE. When people hear or see the word GALILEAN... their brains switch to auto pilot to "aether theory" and "classical physics." What people don't realize is that aether theory used Galilean INVARIANCE. Rather than space-time being used as an excuse to explain the difference in frequencies between atomic clocks... it was originally aether being used as an excuse to keep the speed of light the same. But None of those things are valid! We are thinking under the framework of Galilean VARIANCE! Completely new revolutionary model returning to Isaac Newton and Classical physics but without the corpuscular theory (particle) theory for light... without a particle-wave duality... without an aether... without a 4th dimension. Just good ol elementary math within 3D Euclidean space. Everything happening in real-time, right now. This reformulation of Galilean transformations was offered by Dr. Edward Dowdye in 1991 called The Extinction Shift Principle. Effectivity as opposed to Relativity. If light required a two-way transit, in order to travel out… Record an event, and travel back to replay the recording…  then it would take 6 minutes to see the astronaut on Mars instead of 3.  Remember… They say the SAME light is a recording, and must travel there and travel back in order to REplay. Relativity says time is relative: t' ≠ t time is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and t = tₒ / √1 - v²/c² but Galilean Variance says time is not relative: t' = t (Time IS the same from all frames of reference) and τ_tr = τₒ / √1 - v²/c² Relativity says c' = c (The velocity of light is the same from all frames of reference) but Galilean variance says c' ≠ c (The velocity of light is NOT the same from all frames of reference) and that c' = c ± v (The velocity of light in one frame of reference is dependent upon the velocity of the light source relative to an observer in another frame of reference. Whether that light source is approaching or receding away from that observer) Relativity says E = mc² (Energy and mass are universally equivalent and literally interchangeable under All conditions.) but Galilean variance says E = Δmc² = mₒc² (Energy changes in a system are the result from changes in mass. mₒ represents the original mass. Mass and energy do not literally interchange. There is an equivalence, not an interchange.) The Rebirth of Classical Physics: Time, Light & Gravity Star light and illumination: Flicking a Lighter on Mars visual example:
TheRealVerbz (Jason Verbelli)16,608 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr
Keine weiteren Inhalte verfügbar