Quote from: Kator01 on 2026.08.28, 22:51:06
https://www.theinteldrop.org/2025/01/26/was-the-universe-solved-and-super-classified/

That's awesome, thanks for sharing!

Stefan Marinov's writings seem to overlap a lot with gravity (and impedance of free space) as well, being a function of atomic electron orbital distance+ratios.
https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/underground/BBSes/KEELYNET/ENERGY/altsci1.asc
(note: paper is a LARP written by Stefan but the scientific content and principles described seem valid and consistent)

Quote(2) Permeability and permittivity are directly proportional. to distance of
       electrons from nuclei, thus allowing external magnetic and electric
       fields to more easily distort excited orbitals and store energy in the
       atom.  But according to Maxwell's Wave Equation speed of light is
       determined by one over squareroot of permeability times permittivity in
       ANY spatial region.  So excitation must affect speed of light just as
       relativistic gravity speeds light.  This EM refract method.

QuoteNow an excited atom.  Its electrons are farther from nuclei, under less
electric force, and incoming quanta of same E=hv  quantum energy or frequency
now cause greater transitions than in unexcited atoms.  So person in an
excited field perceive incoming waves as higher frequency, and several waves,
boosted in bandwidth or information content as well.

QuoteThis reduces the problem to finding the one magnetic or
electrical property intrinsic to all mass, because gravity acts on all mass.
Diamagnetism is that universally intrinsic property, but even that is related
to distance of electrons from nuclei by formula for magnetic moment M=IA, or
moment equals current times loop area.  This does not tell whether proximity to
or distance from nuclei is antigravity, but directly suggests that
correspondence exists.

Hello,

please FYI


https://www.theinteldrop.org/2025/01/26/was-the-universe-solved-and-super-classified/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Dornberger


Mike(ger)

Cheers guys 

I'm looking and Mulling things over. Still not sure yet.

I've had some pretty bad things happen in the past, our original hosting company was in US and they went bust, couldn't get hold of anyone, they disappeared over night, couldn't log in to domain name or hosting, luckily they sold their customers to another company and eventually managed to transfer out.
I then split the domain and hosting to different US companies, then some strange things started happening, i think it was hostgator, i couldnt reach the website from the UK, having done a trace route i was being blocked from accessing the website to even managed it, Hostgator couldnt resolve the problem as the website was working but just not for me or parts of Europe, so ended up moving to UK hosting, luckily the UK hosting company was able to transfer everything as i still could not reach the website.

I dont see a problem with shared hosting, that is what we've always had.

I've used spaceship.com which is likely the lowest price and has extremely good AI help for setup.

I would also highly recommend cloudflare.com as it is huge, always improving and also has some of the best prices around.

This core topology has a D/G radio which determines the relative reluctances of various flux paths (circumferential / radial).

  Top view of the insect-6 (spider-8) core.

The diagram below depicts a core with small D/G ratio, which makes the reluctance of the D gap lower than of the G gap. 
This causes the flux to preferentially distribute itself circumferentially rather than radially (it's undesirable).

  Circumferential flux distribution.

A larger high-permeability center post (not depicted below) makes the D gap larger and the increased D/G ratio causes the flux to preferentially follow the radial direction (desirable).
Energizing idle windings to create a repelling flux that compels the flux to follow the radial direction is an option, too.

  Radial flux distribution.

Mags,

well, yes i tried it, sort of, see here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lyji8WhICk

I put 2 pieces of ferrite on the top gizmo and tried to see if we have a rotating magnetic field there which we seem to have.

Frequency as said was low, around 5Hz, but the problem seems to be that the center post ferrite and the leg's ferrite are way different and thus inhibiting any further progress.

Itsu

very nice build Itsu!

have you tried it yet?

mags

Despite this topology is designated as "spider core" which implies something with 8 legs, i went for a hexapod configuration meaning i used 6 legs (unfortunately i did not have the correct center post ferrite):



There probably are good reasons for either using 6 or 8 legs, all with their own pro's and cons, but for me the 6 legs was at the limit of what could be made by me.

So the picture showing in the above post #15 here shows the center post of this hexapod configuration for which we now are looking to be made out of the correct ferrite like the mentioned CMD5005 ferrite.

Itsu

something that has been bother me with this is that the math only shows 1/2 of the input coming back to assist and I did not see why that would be, well I finally figured that out and it is so silly that it is embarrassing that I missed it.

There are 3 systems lets say,, there is the upper input section, the slip and then the lower return section.  The upper and lower share a physical connection on one side and a force connection on the other and it is that force only  connection where the slip is.

Now if the input goes in on the upper and it spins the upper and then the upper goes across the slip and spins the lower and then the lower comes back to assist the upper,, the simple thing is that the slip boundary has the upper traveling at say 100 RPM and with the 2:1 return gearing the lower is traveling at 50 RPM, so the same force but at half the rate means half the return work,,, and that is why there is only 1/2 of the input returned to assist.

Working with my Heres agent on this.

Understood. I'll stop treating ion wind, stray EMF, and basic electrostatic controls as the central research question. We can preserve the evidence, but we do not need to relitigate it every time.

What Buhler appears to mean
The phrase is third-order perturbation, not a "third perturbation" or a third photon.

In plain English:

Second-order perturbation produces the familiar Coulomb interaction. Two charges exchange momentum through the quantized electromagnetic field. In the virtual-photon picture, one charge emits and the other absorbs. Momentum balances inside that pair.

Buhler extends the calculation to third order. This introduces three interaction factors, twelve terms in his calculation, and charge products that can look like q₁²q₂ and q₁q₂², rather than only the symmetric q₁q₂ Coulomb term.

Some third-order terms appear asymmetric in the two-charge subsystem. In his diagrammatic interpretation, some terms look emission-only or absorption-only instead of a neat emit-and-absorb pair.

The apparatus is not the complete momentum system. Buhler's hypothesis is that the apparatus exchanges momentum with the quantized electromagnetic field or vacuum sector. The material receives recoil, while the field carries the equal and opposite momentum.

The "scalar virtual photon" is not ordinary light. It is an internal mathematical field mode used in the QED calculation. Buhler himself says it should be thought of more like the electric field attached to charge than a real photon flying out of the apparatus.

The unfinished part is turning the third-order energy correction into a complete, gauge-independent force law that predicts the observed dependence on charge, distance, geometry and material. That is the useful theory problem. We do not need to solve all of QED before performing useful optimisation, but we do need to keep the algebraic hypothesis separate from its physical interpretation.

The practical optimisation insight
The T-blade geometry is not simply trying to create the highest possible field.

Aurigema explicitly describes the engineering quantity as approximately:

(see attachment)
The important interaction is field squared, surface area, direction, and charge distribution.

That creates a non-obvious tradeoff:

A very narrow tip produces an intense field.
But its force-facing area becomes extremely small.
A broader opposing surface has a lower field over much more area.
Therefore, the sharpest possible blade is not automatically the best blade.
The optimum should balance field concentration against effective surface area and breakdown margin.
The electret observations add another major lever: trapped charge distribution. The best dielectric may not have the highest permittivity. It may be the material that accepts and retains the largest useful asymmetric charge distribution without leakage, breakdown, deformation, or vacuum outgassing.

Work completed
I created two working research documents:

research/third-order-hypothesis-primer.md
research/geometry-materials-program.md
The first explains:

second-order versus third-order perturbation;
what virtual and scalar photons mean here;
Buhler's proposed momentum accounting;
the relationship between the QED hypothesis, pressure geometry and trapped charge;
the exact theoretical questions still needing answers.
The second defines an optimisation programme covering:

blade-tip area and width;
blade count and pitch;
blade height;
plate area;
electrode gap;
stage count and spacing;
dielectric thickness;
charge retention;
conductor surface condition;
electret materials;
voltage and stored-charge scaling;
finite-element simulation;
controlled geometry and material comparisons;
normalised performance metrics.