Está en la página 1de 70

Searl vs.


This note could also be appropriately titled:

Academia vs. Quackademia
Science vs. Psyence

Education vs. Indoctrination

Occams Razor vs. Nonsense

One of Professor John Searl's diagrams in print over 10 years ago

compared to latest "discoveries" by CERN and the so called "Higgs Field".

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.

So theyre saying that nothing becomes something. No mass creates

mass. Right off the bat, theres already major problems that violate
common sense as well as their own conservation laws.
That ball on the top of the hill really should be red. To symbolize the nose
of Bozon the Clown.

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.

Hey the concept of no mass generating mass is stranger than uniquely

magnetized positive mass rotating to accumulate and condense negative
mass (electrons). That can be visualized and makes sense logically.
Rather than virtual particles popping into existence because of a curvature
of space resulting from no mass. (which contradicts their own logic since
their own model requires mass to curve space in the first place)
In their model, the massless particle bends space into a hill FIRST and
THEN a massive particle is generated as a result. Does that make Any
sense? You dont need a PhD to know thats absurd. Any PhD who
believes that and tries to justify that with erroneous equations must have
Permanent Head Damage.

And where is the spin in the Higgs Model? Its static.

I think the rings in their grid are supposed to be B fields
(which are oriented incorrectly 90 degrees).
I think the lines in their grid are supposed to be E fields.
They do not propagate out into space forever in straight lines or flat planes.

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:

Animated Gif Static:

Animated Gif Dynamic:

"All direction is curved, and all motion is spiral." -- Walter Russell

Where is the spin in Einstein's curvature of space model? Its static.

They just show a straight well in a non-existent "fabric of space". To show
a spin in Einys curvature model equates to Frame Dragging.
(which, in reality, is a lag in a rotating magnetic field)

Both the concept of Space curvature and empty space is a joke.

Casimir Effect proves that. Watch from 36:20 to 36:33
Make sure to watch that entire link which elaborates on the signifiance of
magnetic waves and how they generate a BEC while in orbit around the

Quick question... Why is the curvature of space always shown at

Antarctica? Why never at the North Pole, or 90 degrees to the Equator?
How would they account for the multiple planes of Pluto's eccentric orbit
with their graphs?
It's all using straight lined graphs and talking about curvatures of space
and fabrics of time and dark matter and empty space and black holes and
Things That Do Not Exist!!!
Rotating superconductors exist. Plasma exists. Magnets Exist. Waveforms
Exist. Casimir Force exists, Coherence exists. Which reaps the physical
manifestations of the mathematical interpretations they want to achieve.
Is there a dense object in the center of the SEG?
No.. It's Hollow! But there's mass in a ring AROUND what they would
consider the "dense ball". O_o
Where is the mass to generate the magnetic fields for their space
curvature? A "massless particle?" Lol That sure makes sense.. O_o

If positive mass generates a well, then why would zero mass generate a
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?!
Wait... let's look at that model for space curvature again...

Why is it flat away from Earth and the Sun?

So why not just have arbitrary hills everywhere else if no mass makes
hills? O_o

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?

Look at the Cartesian coordinate graph.

Did they forget elementary algebra? Draw a plus sign. +

The intersection is (0,0) Above the horizontal line is Positive...
Below the horizontal line is Negative... A Massless particle would be ON
THE ZERO LINE at (0,0). Not in any quadrant nor on any part of the X or Y
axis other than (0,0). Hey CERN... that means the ball below the horizontal

Shall we go back to 1st Day of Pre-Algebra?

Taking a step back.... do you folks Really believe a particle can be more
massless than another non-existent massless particle?
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.

Open Letter to Professor Michio Kaku:

"You Could Be Sued for Millions and Ridiculed for Centuries"
May 15, 2009
Dear Dr. Kaku:
This open letter relates to your disparagement of energy-producing
devices which at this juncture in time are demonstrably critical to our
nation's survival. And I write this letter as a Ph.D. experimental
nuclear physicist with qualifications that I believe allow me to speak
to the subject in question, namely production of energy using
nonconventional means.
I ask that you read this letter carefully and ask that you not dismiss it
out of hand in the manner of many of our country's physicists.
Recently, on the popular late-night radio program, "Coast to Coast
AM," which reportedly has a listening audience of millions, you
indicated that investors call you up daily and ask whether certain
inventions will work. Characterizing those devices as "perpetual
motion machines" you said they were impossible to make. But that
can be proven to be a false statement. Such devices can exist if
negative mass electrons can be introduced into electronic circuits and
possibly certain machines.
They can also exist if other forms of negative energy can be created,
and apparently they can. Finally, it appears to be the case that gauge
transformations could allow such devices to work. This would not
involve a violation of one of the most important laws of physics,
namely energy conservation, either, Dr. Kaku. I believe you assume
that such devices do violate the laws of physics, which is also an
assumption that appears to be made by others.
Dr. Kaku: You appear to believe that the universe has 11 dimensions,
many of which are supposed to be hidden. Why would that be true
while creation of energy using negative mass electrons or using
gauge transformations would be impossible? Could you be wrong,
sir? Undoubtedly you think you are not wrong, but could you be
wrong, sir?

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.
(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.
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.

The TPU units shown in the videos apparently use gauge

transformations. Those would be the same kind of gauge
transformations that, for decades, you theorists have been telling us
allow for electromagnetic energy non-conservation, but then say
don't have any practical applications. And we know that theoretical
physicists are never wrong, don't we? So the device cannot work,
can it? So why then does it work?
Could it be that gauge transformations do have practical
applications? Could it thus be that theoretical physicists could be
wrong about the impracticality of using gauge transformations to
make energy? I think so.
Do not gauge transformations lead to electromagnetic energy nonconservation? And is it not true that in your analysis of free energy
devices you assume that electromagnetic energy is conserved? That
is a grave inconsistency, sir. And arguing that gauge transformations
lead to no change in the electric and magnetic fields is not at all
convincing as the question relates to energy, not electric and
magnetic fields.
Would you say that gauge waves cannot exist? And if you do allow
that they can exist, would they not carry energy, possibly in both
positive and negative forms?
Where then am I wrong, Dr. Kaku? Or could I be right -- along with
many other Ph.D. physicists and engineers who are regularly
dismissed as crackpots?
You have said that you greatly respect the work of Nikola Tesla, and
surely you have studied his inventions and his life. If so, then you
might be aware that Nikola Tesla was planning to transmit power all
over the world in a way that you would surely say is impossible. But
you must know that Nikola Tesla was a very careful experimenter
who tested every idea before employing it. What then is the answer
to the implied dilemma?
So, Nikola Tesla was just a wild man, right? A nut. While Michio
Kaku and his 11 dimensions make wonderful sense. Or could you
and others be wrong about what Nikola Tesla was doing? Could it

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.
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:

What is in between Casimir plates?

Is there matter so dense that it pulls the plates together?

No, there's nothing between the plates.
The plates are PUSHED together from the outside.
According to Einstein's model of gravity, (which he said isn't a force) The
Casimir effect would generate infinite curvature of space which requires
infinite mass at which point the entire universe instantly falls in the well and
is destroyed... Fail!
Casimir Force doesn't destroy the universe, nor does it generate infinite
mass or ANY curvature of space, nor is there dark matter in between the
plates pulling them together.
It's not that you generate a massless particle which then bends space
which generates massive particles... Lol
You spin massive particles with uniquely imprinted waveforms to generate
helical magnetic flux lines. And in rotation the "electrons" converge and
Only way to generate those flux lines I know of is through rotating uniquely
imprinted waveforms. In Searl's system, that generates cooper pairs.
(bosons) There is no Higgs Boson... Because a massless particle can't
make a hill out of space first of all. Misconception. It's an accumulation of
negative energy.
The tip to the Higgs Field Diagram shows a Compounded Spherical and
Rounded Cone. Like how they think a black hole forms a well with a
closed tip.

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?

The magnetic field lines converge tangentially. As an open frustum. Like

the Iris of a camera. Is there a ball of invisible dark matter at the center of
an iris getting more compact? Thats how absurd the model is.

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

Someone needs to wake up the people at CERN! Siesta is over.

Time to circumcise the sombrero homes.

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.



The Only evidence for Space Curvature is a 1919 Solar Eclipse

Observation where stars where seen behind the Sun. So they
ASSUMED space must have curved to allow to see behind the Sun.
But the same observation is explained by coronal discharge, Plasma
Cosmology and actual things you can duplicate in a lab

Ron Hatch Relativity in the Light of GPS:

Heres another thing thats absurd about CERNs model.

To me it looks like the math works either way if you turn the diagram
upside down. (Or look at it in the inverse)
How do you know that the so called fabric of space isnt really being bent
by massless particles into a hill from the other side of the meniscus?
The model for positive matter again shows Earth in a closed well.

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
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.)
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.)
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?

At least have 2 stationary balls for the 2D diagram. Or accurately show a

dynamic orbit motion of at least 1 ball (cylinder) orbiting around the cone
(frustum) of the circumcised sombrero. (that means you need fermions/
electrons to spin around in a ring at high frequencies)
Funny CERNs own facility is an open Ring yet they cant recognize a
cross section of their own model. and conclude a closed well.
Must be all that dark matter in the center of the 17 mile facility. Or their
skulls for that matter. Lol
Here's a small list of costs for CERN..... JUST FOR THE YEAR 2008....
$21.5 Million for Extra Computing demands
$146.5 Million for Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Operations
$79.2 Million for the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator
$158 Million for Tevatron Operations at Fermilab for Collider and other
neutrino physics programs
$62 Million for US CERN Scientists
Single year 2008 Expenditure TOTAL from the US Dept of Energy in its
ongoing investment in CERN & related activity = $467 Million Dollars
Numbers drawn from page 69 of CERNs 2008 budget form.

..... meanwhile.... Professor John Searl's claims require 3 million dollars, 18

months full time work and a team of less than a dozen personnel.
If my taxes go to pay for Cern's crap... is there a way I can opt out please?
Just put that money toward Professor John Searl instead please.
Occam's Razor... It'll cut the cost.

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...

Higgs Field? More like THE SEARL EFFECT

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".
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
LOTS more to discuss and share and show in context. Lots.

This next image is the one that

did it for me finally.

The Poincare Conjecture

Apples fall on your head. But Halos surround your head.

Same mass equivalent can be present in the form of negative energy
(gravitational mass), but will manifest in the form of a ring. Not a dense ball
like positive mass. (Inertial mass)
Things to think about that will screw up your day.
Positive Mass with a Positive Charge (Proton)/ Positive Inertia
Positive Mass with a Negative Charge (Anti-Proton)/ Negative Inertia
Positive Mass with a Neutral Charge (Neutron)
Negative Mass with a Positive Charge (Positron)/ Positive Gravity
Negative Mass with a Negative Charge (Electron)/ Negative Gravity
Negative Mass with a Neutral Charge (Photon)
Positive Mass compact to spheres. Negative Mass condense into a torus.
"Electrons" Have a negative charge. But are they really positive mass?
You can change the sign of mass, but it won't change the charge.

The same math for a positive mass with a negative charge is

transitory to a negative mass with a positive charge.
Thought of something with the orbital electron theory to explain it in
terms of this comparison photo.
Mass equivalence from multiple spheres to 1 torus.
If there are 2 alleged electrons orbiting in the inner shell, to me, that
means the negative mass equivalent of 2 electron balls but in the
form of 1 ring. So the mass of 2 ball electrons is there, but equally
distributed in a torus instead of 2 spheres. The torus becomes twice
as energy dense.
If there are 8 electrons in a shell... that means the negative mass
equivalent of 8 ball electrons is evenly distributed in a ring. More
energy dense, but still 1 ring.
1 ring per "shell".
As for the double slit experiment. That would be a 90 degree version
of what you see in the Walter Russell image.
Russell's image is showing an aerial view. Parallel to the meniscus of
water compared to the double slit experiment which is perpendicular
to the meniscus.

But if you were to see it head on, it would look like ripples in a pond.
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
Or the inverse is a smaller ring expands to become a less energy
dense larger ring.

I need help to make my a version of the periodic chart showing

"electron orbitals" as concentric circles of varying thickness. (almost
like layers of saturns rings)
More electrons per shell = a thicker more energy dense torus per
concentric ring. Instead of using multiple balls per shell on an
imaginary ring of equal thickness per shell... you have to use the
same mass equivalent but distributed in actual torus.
I think this helps explain the 1/2 spin BS in quantum theory.
You can't have a solid ball with 1/2 spin.
Doesn't work. a ball can spin 1 way OR the other.
But a torus can fold in on itself like a smoke ring. On 1 side of the
torus will be folding in CW "1/2 of the spin" and the other side will be
folding in CCW. The other half?
A ball cannot have spin. Absurd.

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.

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.

Since it's a torus, it's representative of negative mass. Which normally

behaves the opposite of positive mass. (spheres)
The negative mass (electrons/ ring) move in epicycles in the SAME
direction as the positive mass (orbiting rollers) in the SEG.
The coherent grid in green shows randomness converted to order. Like the
incoherence of energy all around us in ambient energy form.
But in this system, it's in a controlled imbalanced state. Which means the
energy is conserved, represented by the 34 at a constant. Regardless
which way you add the numbers, always the same. Regardless which way
you move the energy, it's always one. Always a Bose-Einstein condensate.
As opposed to the other state which is resistive and subject to Fermi-Dirac.
The waveform as imprinted on the rollers and stator interact to form
another wave which acts as a gear and impels the rollers around the
stator. As a cascading energy conversion takes place.
Making random into order. Dropping the temperature and generating an
electric current as an open system.
Apparently, random electricity is heat and inertia while organized electricity
is cold and gravity.
Understanding the SEG - Reality of Costs/ "Blueprints" - Mock Up vs
Prototype - Coherence vs Chaos - History of John Searl - Current Status of
Project & Context:
Searl Playlist:
Searl Sites:
3rd Party sites:

Pdf of Lecture on John Searl:
Professor John Searl Album (Facebook):
Professor John Searl Photobucket Album:
There are many people trying to COPY Professor John Searls work.
If PhD holding professionals are spending millions of dollars to investigate
Searls claims. With success achieving anomalous results Then
theres obviously justification for funding THE ACTUAL INVENTOR
So many people would love to talk to Nikola Tesla or would get him full
funding if he were alive today. Well John Searl is here and NOW. And
others are spending lots of time, money and effort to reap just a fraction of
what the Searl Effect Generator is capable of.

Paul Murad & Morningstar Energy Box Audio Interview:
Murad Technical Data (which cost about $500,000):

Russian Validations (which cost a couple million dollars)
Picture of Russian Prototype:

Short video of Russian Prototype with translation:

"Russian physicist/ scientist Sergei Godin & Vladimier Roschin have
observed that when the rotor turned clockwise it's weight reduced, and
when spun the other way it gained weight. Such effects can only be
obtained when a device affects the gravitation and inertia of the body.
Experiments continue."
Dr. Tom Valone Speaks on Electrogravitics:
Welton Meyers Account:
Arthur Manelas' Magnets:
"The first technology that Arthur demonstrated on my visit was a magnet
that had been poled in a specific way. When you observed the magnetic
field rather than the usual long sweeping waves between north and south,
this had small micro domains. It looked like for a lack of a better
explanation Egyptian hieroglyphics." -- Mark Dansie
Dr. Paul Brown Attempted Magnetization 1986:
SEG Background:
Ultra Efficient LED (for context)

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.
"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."
"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."
"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."

Boeing and Podkletnov:

NASA and Podkletnov (Look into Dr. Ning Li)

Propagation of Gravity based on Lorentz 1 min. 50 second audio:
Gravity as 2nd Order Function
Dr. Eugene Podkletnov Interview:

Please Watch this for Context:

Where else can we find these little Higgs Field shapes in nature?

More of Natures Coherent Order:

A microscopic image of the underside of the Elytra (wing casing)

Compare the natural array on the underside of a scarabs Elytra

to a man-made nanostructure on a revolutionary solar panel

Underside of Elytra of Scarab Beetle - Hydrophilus Triangularus:

'The property is exhibited primarily by cuprates, brittle ceramic

materials composed of two-dimensional sheets of copper and oxygen
separated by more complicated layers of atoms. When cuprates are
cooled below a certain temperature, electrons in the copper-oxygen
sheets suddenly overcome their mutual repulsion and pair up. With
their powers combined, they behave like a different type of particle
altogether, a boson, which has the unique ability to join with other
bosons into a coherent swarm that moves as one. This bosonic
swarm perfectly conducts electricity. A current flowing through a loop
of cuprate wire will persist forever or as long as the liquid-nitrogen
fridge stays on.'

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?

Electrons Not the Cause of Charged Grains:

Electrons are Not Enough: Cuprates Defy Convention

Science that Stumped Einy:

A Counterintuitive Phenomenon: