--- On Mon, 6/15/09, Chris Zell <chrisrz...@yahoo.com> wrote: > From: Chris Zell <chrisrz...@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Vo]:On Topic > To: vortex-l@eskimo.com > Date: Monday, June 15, 2009, 7:15 PM > OK, I'm interested in the > anomalies you mentioned, particularly the conditioning of > space. > The whole no ether thing never made sense to me > because the characteristic impedance of space is about 328 > ohms and is a real factor in antenna design. > > No Ether? What's impeding the RF?
My question as well. If empty space is just that, what determines G, e0, u0, Z0, and all those other nice little things that cause 'empty' space to factor in as far less than empty when trying to radiate energy into it. What is 'carrying' a magnetic field? If space can curve, as the current interpretation of General Relativity says it does, what is curving? > Did Laithwaite really make a spinning device that > weighed less while being lifted in a 30 degree spiral? > Sounds very Schaubergerish to me. As far as I know, no he didn't. He does suggest some interesting experiments, and a thought provoking similarity between electromagnetism and the actions of spinning flywheels. He suggested that the rotation of a flywheel may have a sort or relation to what we call inductance. That is, a resistor obeys Ohm's law just fine; add an inductor and use AC, things get strange, until you extend the theory a bit more. He suggests that straight line motion and acceleration is 'resistive', where rotational motion is 'inductive.' If you build a large, fast flywheel, and play around with it in many different ways, you start to get confused by it. The conventional math works for the most part, but there is a feeling of something more to it than just that. Laithwaite was condemned for chasing it. --Kyle
