RE: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae
Hi Horace, Would you consider gravitational charge to be the same thing as mass? If not, why not? How do you use the term virtual such that it applies to the real world? That is, how can an object exist without really existing? Super massive black holes are hypothesized to exist, but as of yet, there is no hard evidence that they do. How can your theory prove the existence of super massive black holes? Also, there is evidence to suggest that the length scales of astrophysics are wrong. If it turns out the perceived distances between galactic objects is wrong, and the Newton calculations for gravitational force are correct, would your theory still predict dark energy? I find several ideas in your theory to be heading in the right direction, such as the identification of gravitational charge as separate from electrostatic charge. However, it is unclear to me what dimensions gravitational charge has in your theory. It is also unclear what the force law is that mediates gravitational charge. For example, Coulomb's electrostatic force law and Newton's gravitational force law quantify the forces between electrostatic charge and mass, respectively. There are empirically derived constants that mediate the forces between the dimensions of charge and mass, respectively. In your theory, it is unclear whether gravitational charge is the same thing as mass, charge, or something completely different. I'll need to see your answers before taking this further. Dave -Original Message- From: Horace Heffner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 10:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Gravitational Penumbrae GRAVITATIONAL PENUMBRAE APRIL 6, 2007 BACKGROUND An exploration of the concepts of gravimagnetism were discussed in: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Gravimagnetism.pdf and: http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GR-and-QM.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/PlankG.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/GraviCalcs.pdf http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/EarthWobble.pdf An isomorphism between gravity and electromagnetism was developed. In this theory of gravimagnetism the graviton is defined as the analog of the virtual photon. The graviphoton is defined as the analog of the photon. Gravitational charge, the analog of positive and negative Coulombic charge, is defined as positive when it is a positive imaginary quantity (contains +i), and negative when it is a negative imaginary quantity (contains -i). Imaginary here means a quantity containing the imaginary number i, the square root of minus one. A gravitational field G or gravimagnetic field K are imaginary analogs to the electromagnetic fields E and B. An electrostatic attraction occurs when a virtual photon is exchanged between a positive and negative electrostatic charge. An electrostatic repulsion occurs when a virtual photon is exchanged between like electrostatic charges. Due to the effect of the i coefficient in gravitational fields, a gravitational repulsion occurs when a graviton is exchanged between a positive and negative gravitational charge. A gravitational attraction occurs when a graviton is exchanged between like gravitational charges. By the isomorphism, every conceivable electromagnetic quantity, relationship, and law has a precisely defined gravimagnetic equivalent. The theory of gravimagnetism leads to many fully quantified and verifiable implications, some of which differ from those of general relativity. For example: 1. Gravity diminishes with distance due to graviton red shift due to increased relative and receding velocity with distance (analogous to the regular Hubble shift.) This may in part account for dark energy. 2. Gravimagnetic fields can in part account for excess galactic forces and precession of the equinox, and errors in estimation of distant mass values. 3. Virtual photons carry no gravitational charge, thus black holes can exhibit electromagnetic effects beyond the event horizon. 4. A black hole above a threshold mass can emit matter carrying gravitational charge opposed to the charge of that black hole. The effect of the black hole's gravimagnetic and electromagnetic fields on such an emission would be to form it into polar jets. 5. Parts of space, especially near super massive black holes, may be filled with mass containing negative gravitational charge. This could account in part for dark energy and large apparent voids in space. 6. Newton's f=ma contains no imaginary portions, thus inertia is primarily an electromagnetic effect. 7. The gravimagnetic analog to Plank's constant, h_g = -h, unifies gravity and electromagnetism, and determines the momentum carried by graviphotons, etc. However, gravimagnetic theory also permanently dis-unifies gravity and electromagnetism in the sense that the forces exist in differing dimensions and have
RE: [Vo]: Gravity is a Push
Hi Terry, Ibison just published on the subject: http://earthtech.org/publications/ibison_PLA_emergent_gravity.pdf Personally, I could never trust any paper written in units where c is arbitrarily taken to be 1. What's the problem with doing science with a proper set of units? Is that another way of saying the theory doesn't work with proper physics? But equation 4 catches my eye immediately, too. How can the square of the E field be added to the square of the B field when they have different dimensions, regardless of the system of units? There are far simpler ways to unify gravity and electromagnetism that uses proper units and plain Newtonian type algebraic equations. Dave
[Vo]: MagneGas at home
Has anybody here tried this experiment, yet? http://jlnlabs.online.fr/bingofuel/html/aquagen.htm Dave
RE: [Vo]: UFO records released in France
Hi Robin, One case file described how investigators proved a man was lying about being abducted by aliens when blood tests failed to show he had recently experienced the weightlessness of space travel. Has it not occurred to these people that alien races that can travel between the stars probably have artificial gravity, hence no evidence of weightlessness is even to be expected? Good point. All the reported cases of UFO abductions I have read stated the aliens walked around the craft, not floated. Of course, this could be due to the lack of imagination of fake abductions, but if the abductions are real, then your point would be more reasonable than the conclusion of lying. Dave
[Vo]: UFO records released in France
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032202 132.html I wonder if we'll get any useful advanced technology clues from the French UFO files? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Water vortex footage
Hi Thomas, Some of the footage was shot down the street at our U of M. I'm wondering why those vortexes bend down and tore up the pot holes. That is not hard to imagine when considering the huge volume of water that was moving over the ground. I have seen similar features on a smaller scale at Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=qhl=enq=bridge+of+flowers+shelburne+falls+ma ssachusettslayer=ie=UTF8t=kom=1z=18ll=42.602248,-72.73829spn=0.001714 ,0.003616 I have always wondered how these features were made. Just watching that NOVA program gave me a lot of ideas for building more water vortex generators. I was particularly impressed with the implosion of the tiny bubbles, which caused a water hammer effect. It amazes me that air bubbles can be both suddenly created and suddenly collapsed like that. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Water vortex footage
Hi Thomas, I've considered going to that lab and talking to the professors. They clearly have the ability to generate powerful vortexes in water. Do you have some ideas for experiments that you'd like to try? It seems that a water version of the Windhex might be useful. I was thinking of building a water version for pulverizing old circuit boards to reclaim the precious metals. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Water vortex footage
Hi Esa, heres a not that expensive one to build (im yet to build it tho) http://www.scene.org/~esa/merlib/centripete/ also i just finished scanning a picture from a book on grander+schauberger, this is the hyperbolic cone for creating a vortex. http://www.scene.org/~esa/tratti2.jpg I already have a gravity feed vortex generator. It's good to see others working with this, too. I spent two straight years observing water vortices on a daily basis with this type of setup. I would be glad to discuss my observations with interested persons. What is the link to the Schauberger list? thank you so much for dropping the waterhammer-effect hint, i definitely have to hunt this down. even a brief mention on waterhammer/cavitation would be music to my ears. again, thanks muchly, id never have heard of this had it not been for your post on vortex-list. i believe others on viktorschaubergergroup-list also benefited from this. Yes, I too was surprised about the water hammer effect being linked to the water vortex in the NOVA demonstration. There is probably only about 60 seconds of water vortex video in the show, but it was the most enlightening video I have seen so far. It also helps to understand how the Windhex is working. The Windhex is nothing more than a vortex generator using a less dense fluid. Imagine how much more powerful a dense water hammer effect would be for processing materials. If the water hammer vortex can eat through stone with no problem, it will likely also pulverize steel and other hard metals if designed right. Instead of using the gravity feed vortex, I'm thinking of getting a high pressure water pump and building a closed loop water circulation system, just as in the NOVA show. However, instead of running water passed a smooth stone, I'll build an orifice with a spiral twist in it to help the vortex along. The high pressure going through the twisted orifice will give the vortex both a high linear velocity and high angular momentum, which are needed to make a strong vortex. After seeing the imploding bubbles and getting a feel for the water hammer effect, and also having a good understanding about how Tesla's turbine motor works, I can now envision the enormous forces that would be acting upon the surface of any material caught in the vortex. There would be a ripping apart and jackhammer effect occurring simultaneously at the molecular scale. Other than ripping things apart, who knows what other uses a high-pressure vortex might have? Dave
[Vo]: Water vortex footage
Has anybody here seen the NOVA Megaflood program? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/megaflood/ There is some interesting water vortex footage in here that will inspire a lot of interesting experiments. If you know what to look for, you can see how this ties to Keely, Schauberger, the Windhex machine, and numerous other implosion technologies. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Actually, John's assessment is correct and there were no ad hominem remarks
made by him. You still seem not to have toned down your smug attitude and
continue to incite negative responses.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Michel Jullian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:14 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Stop the ad hominem please.
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: No Vo vote
Your post made my point.
It added Re: which because it is after the {Vo} isn't grouped by subject.
Even worse sometimes a second re: gets added as in: [Vo]: Re: Re: Di-Ozone
or even [VO]:Re:[VO] .. Schauberger
But mainly subject deletion which is really bad.
If Mark S Bilk's fix works all the better, but for those who want to
create
a filter for vortex posts they can just use the To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Anyway I thought you might have toned down the condescending attitude but
it
seems not.
On 3/22/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only in your dreams John :)
Michel
- Original Message -
From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: vortex-l vortex-L@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:02 PM
Subject: [Vo]: No Vo vote
Bill: Let's get rid of this crazy Vo: adding macro. It does not
work!
- Jed
Agreed, let's make this a 'me too!' thread.
My understanding is that the person who lobbied to have it added has
left
anyway.
RE: [Vo]: Archive erasement request
Hi Michel, My request for erasure was to prevent the public embarrassment of a member I have been accused of, not for my own comfort as you seem to imagine. Does your smug behavior have no limit? How can you prevent something you have already done? Now that the moderator has given his clear and fair assessment, and reestablished his editorial policy for this list, the supporting evidence must remain. However, I agree with Terry that it seems fitting you should not. It is quite fair for some boards to choose to filter their content such that behavior like yours is absent. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Aether Theory
Hi Thomas, I've been following the work of Dale Pond who claims to have replicated the Dynasphere of John E W Keely, www.svpvril.com . He claims that the Dynasphere taps the Strong Force. Dale Pond is correct that Keely tapped the strong force. In particular, Keely tapped the unbinding of molecules by using resonance. Since every atomic binding has a distance between bonds, every molecule has a frequency, which when resonated, will cause the bond to break apart. For water, the resonance needed to break the bond is about 42.8 kHz (going from memory). I have been working with my own versions of mechanical resonators. Instead of relying on a closed spherical resonator, I'm trying to develop a sufficiently strong electromechanical resonator on the cheap. I have had some successes in that I can generate mechanical oscillations well over 50 kHz. The method is to send a pulsed DC signal into a large flat spiral coil with a copper diaphragm and very strong NIB magnet over it. The strong NIB magnet mainly provides mass and strong magnetic coupling with the flat spiral coil magnetic field. I have yet to hook up my 700 watt audio amplifier to it, which is rated to 50 kHz. When I'm sure everything is right, I'll fire it up to reproduce this experiment: http://www.keelynet.com/energy/docx.htm I have also been in contact with a UK physicist for the past three years who has succeeded in dissociating all kinds of materials. He now runs an energy company that dissociates hazardous wastes (chemical weapons, light radioactive waste, biohazard material, daily trash, etc), which not only converts dangerous materials into an inert fine white powder, but also releases more energy than was put into the dissociation process, which is ultimately converted to electricity. The white powder is then used for making useful building materials. He has businesses established throughout Europe, Africa and Asia. I have information from a different source that certain US demilitarization facilities have been closed down. It appears to be because they now have this safer and more efficient method for disposing of waste. Keely's technology is alive and well and already in commercial use, although they don't use hollow spheres and tuning forks. Everything is done through perfectly engineered resonance within plasmas. One of the unique predictions of the Aether Physics Model is that there is a quantum length to the Universe and that most atoms bind with a distance between them greater than the quantum distance. The greater the distance between bindings, the more stable the atom becomes. The binding distance maxes out around iron, cobalt, and nickel. Certain atomic isotopes, which also happen to be fusion materials, have a binding distance less than the quantum length. The only stable element with an average binding length less than the quantum length is lithium. Every isotope of lithium is potential fusion material. It is my untested belief that the reason lithium batteries are known to explode is not just because of body heat, but because lithium can be set to resonance very easily and generates a fusion reaction. Deuterium and tritium are two other highly fusionable materials with average binding distances less than the quantum length. It is possible to get water and other molecules to dissociate via resonance, which releases energy by undoing the Van der Waals force. However, it is possible to resonate certain atoms, which causes them to use the strong nuclear force to in turn resonate the Aether, which absorbs new dark matter into the visible Universe, which creates new visible matter (aka fusion). New matter is the same thing as free energy. The Van der Waals force is just an extension of the strong nuclear force, except that instead of being applied internally, it is applied externally. Permanent magnetism is another manifestation of the strong force. The strong force is very strong, indeed, as Keely found out when his apparatus exploded on several occasions. In the water dissociation experiment mentioned above, all the material in the dissociating water's path was also dematerialized. When science advances by trial and error, the odds are always in favor of the error. That is why I set aside my experiments early on and ended up developing the Aether Physics Model. It is better to engineer an experiment than stumble upon an unexpected result. Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions now vladimir b ginzburg
Hi Esa, hi so what do you lot think of vladimir b ginzburg? seems to be slightly touched in the head about vortices! Interesting comment to be made on a list called vortex-l. I have corresponded with him and have one of his books. Unlike my work, which is completely dimension based and derives straight from the empirical constants, Ginzburg tries to work within the SM and Relativity theories. He is actually quite scholarly and gives a properly referenced history of vortex structures in ancient and modern physics theories. He then goes on to show his own work with regard to modern physics. Far from being touched in the head, if anybody on this list is truly interested in vortices with regard to physics, they will want to read his book Prime Elements of Ordinary Matter, Dark Matter Dark Energy. Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, You just don't get it. Can you Aether theory even predict the single electron double slit experiment? Apparently, you still cannot understand a simple concept. The Aether Physics Model is about structure, not mechanics. If you can require a structural theory to explain mechanics, then I can require your violation of the second law of thermodynamics to also break the first law. It's that silly. What wild-eyed idea? One can only believe after all your talk that you believe thermal noise cannot charge a capacitor, lol? And I said anything remotely similar to this... where? I deleted the psychotic ramblings as it is apparent you are losing touch with reality, as I am sure others can clearly see. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Aether Theory
Hi Thomas, Does one of you have a website about the Aether? I have a web site on the Aether Physics Model at www.16pi2.com A white paper gives the foundations of the theory at: http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf Dave
[Vo]:
Hi Esa i did try to give ginzburg some stuff on walter schauberger (who took great pains to take viktor's realizations back into mathematics and physics and, well, science), lets see what happens. after all, walter schauberger did publish quite a bit on the hyperbolic open-path geometry that seemed to mesh in with everything else. should be interesting to see how the two walters coincide, walter russell and schauberge.r What exactly did you give to Vladimir? Until you mentioned Walter, I had not realized he added to his work. A quick Google search shows his web site is in German. My limited American language skills have hidden Walter's work from me. shame again that helicola.com is offline. I wonder what the problem is? Everything seemed fine last fall when we were emailing back and forth. Maybe he got a government contract? one idea comes to mind, maybe the server has just xpired. While researching on Walter I found another related Schauberger site to be offline. Schaubergers inventions http://geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Lab/1135/victor.htm What inventions related to Viktor and Walter Schauberger do you consider to be of particular interest and why? Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, Quote from www.16pi2.com the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, but can also describe quantum mechanics For the benefit of others who would like to see this quote in context, it actually reads, BREAKING NEWS: We have succeeded in developing the electron binding energy equation for the 1s orbitals. This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, but can also describe quantum mechanics and has the potential to far exceed the capability of the Standard Model. I believe I have mentioned the electron binding energy equation over a dozen times so far on this list. The electron binding energy equation is our first foray into stepping beyond quantum structure and expanding on quantum mechanics. The domain name www.16pi2.com is registered under your name. And whose name did you expect it would be registered under? I took a peak at your website to discover one needs to *buy* your book to study your Aether theory. Also I could not help but notice your obvious *Donations* request on your homepage. Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free? You might not be aware of this, but nearly every physics book has a price attached to it. This is not a conspiracy, it is an economic necessity. The same goes for donations. We are not the first IRS 501(c)3 registered non-profit science research organization to request donations on the Internet. As for the theory being available for free, I have posted a link to our 27 page white paper numerous times on this list, which gives a very good synopsis of what is in the book as far as understanding the scientific basis of the Aether Physics Model (and it is free). This white paper was also published in the September/October 2006 issue of Infinite Energy Magazine, which incidentally has a price tag. So it appears we agree that your APM cannot predict the double slit experiment. The APM doesn't explain why you are so obnoxious, but that is not within the scope of the theory, either. May I ask what your APM can do that Quantum Physics cannot? Apparently you can. The real question, based upon your professed dislike for Aether theories, is will you listen to the answer? I have spoken several times in this thread and other threads on this list about the APM predicting the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, predicting the 1s orbital electron binding energies, and predicting the distributed and reciprocal natures of charges. And this is just a short list. Certainly, a mathematically quantified Unified Force Theory, electron binding energy equation, and proper quantification of charge structures is worthy of scientific acknowledgement? And I said anything remotely similar to this... where? My claim is that energy is capturable form ambient temperature. The capacitor experiment demonstrates this. I'll ask you again, do you believe a capacitor connected to a resistor captures energy from ambient temperature? You are either dense, naïve, or both. I have merely been throwing back the same kind of mindless cynicism at your work as you threw at mine. You have gotten really worked up about this and put on quite a defensive display. Only if you give my work the proper analysis it deserves would I even consider giving you the same courtesy. Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, Thanks for posting that fine list of comments from 16pi2. Too bad you didn't take the time to actually read what these excellent topics are about. Although, I would be delighted to expand on any of them should anybody with interest request me to. As for answering your question about QM, I did that in my most recent post. Dave -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:01 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: MIB persuasions It seems only right to shed some light given Dave talks a lot about quantum aspects. Here are a few quotes from Dave's website -- --- This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, *BUT CAN ALSO DESCRIBE QUANTUM MECHANICS* This model provides new insights to quantum physical structures not presently solved by the Standard Model According to modern physics, the graviton is the quantum of the gravitational field. The language is different from the Aether Physics Model concerning the quantum of gravity However, unlike the Standard Model, the Aether unit is not only the quantum of the gravitational field; it is the quantum of all the fields. In fact, in the Aether Physics Model, the Aether unit is the only quantum that can produce a field of any kind since it also is the source of space-resonance. As an adjunct to Quantum Mechanics, this book is a foundational introduction to the mathematical Aether Physics Model. A single theory of angular momentum, which is encapsulated by quantum Aether units, explains the structure of quantum existence.. The quantum Universe has the quality of space-resonance, as opposed to space-time. The Aether unit is like an individual piece of real estate in the quantum Universe The Aether is a quantum rotating magnetic field, which maintains the onn half-spin, and is the source of the structure of quantum physical matter. Quantum measurements will show that all true quantum constants have a definite structure, imparted by the Aether. Quantum matter has only two dimensions of length, that is, it only has surface characteristic. Since almost all controllable physical processes occur through interactions of the electron and photon, the quantum measurements of the electron usually define the quantum measurement units. Think of Aether as being a quantum hole in which subatomic matter is able to reside. Onta get their physical geometry from these quantum holes, but the quantum holes also impart the spin nature to onta. The quantum holes have a toroidal structure in the shape of a double loxodrome, as seen in the image above. Aether is a dynamic fabric of space-resonance composed of independent, quantum units. The Aether Physics Model sees all stable quantum matter (onta) as primary angular momentum In one quantum moment, there are a given number of photon fronts arriving at an atom. The bi-directional spinning toroids component of the equation are equal to the quantum measurement unit of double cardioid. Header of your chapter 6: Redefining units in terms of distributed charge and quantum measurements. Aether unit, it moves one quantum distance (Compton wavelength) in the direction it is going. The speed of light is one quantum distance times the quantum frequency. In the Aether Physics Model, quantum constants offer a new analysis tool for examining quantum processes. We have discovered a new geometrically and mathematically correct foundation for physics, which precisely quantifies the quantum structure. The main header in your home page -- Quantum AetherDynamics Institute --- It's only right to request your knowledge of quantum physics. So I'll ask you yet one more time ... Can you do QM mathematics? Can you solve QM problems? Are you a specialist in the field of Quantum physics? On your sites home page, This is a significant breakthrough and demonstrates the Aether Physics Model not only describes quantum structure, ***BUT CAN ALSO DESCRIBE QUANTUM MECHANICS*** and has the potential to far exceed the capability of the Standard Model. Regards, Paul
[Vo]:
Hi Esa, Thanks for the excellent links. You seem to have spent a lot of time investigating Schauberger's work. Some of the technological applications being purveyed by the Schauberger family first appeared to me as charlatan in nature. The seemingly static vortex coils, for example, are described as energizing, living, and resonating. In the classical scientific sense of these terms, such claims are hogwash. However, in the Aether Physics Model, the unit of conductance figures prominently in both physical matter as well as non-material existence. Non-material existence has many manifestations, just as does physical existence. Space-time, magnetic field, and force are a few instances of non-material existence. Yet, mind, emotion, and sensory feeling are also manifestations of non-material existence. There is empirical evidence in the neurosciences linking emotions to the unit of conductance. In the Aether Physics Model, conductance is equal to angular momentum per strong charge. Unless you understand strong charge as explained in the APM, you won't immediately appreciate the importance of this equality. Suffice it to say, vortices are based upon angular momentum of a medium. A water vortex occurs when the medium has rotation and a steady, unidirectional force (gravity) is exerted perpendicular to the rotation. Within limits, you can increase the vorticity by increasing either the angular momentum or the force. In the Aether Physics Model, the reciprocal of conductance is not resistance (as in the Standard Model), but is magnetic flux. This prediction of the APM also has empirical roots. In measurements of the Hall effect, and in separate experiments relating conductance to resistance, it has been found that conductance does not vary linearly with resistance, but does vary linearly with magnetic flux. Another prominent unit in the Aether Physics Model is eddy current, which is equal to magnetic flux squared. While doing experiments with eddy currents, I was able to determine that the eddy currents occur at a quantum level, not a macro level. http://www.16pi2.com/eddy_currents.htm Eddy current is actually an Aether vortex, which is the same thing as the quantum Aether unit but with the permeability being squared and the geometrical constant being 64pi^3 instead of 16pi^2. So it makes sense that a macro copper object in the shape of a vortex could be a natural receptacle for generating resonance of magnetic flux (magnetic flux squared is eddy current, which is Aether vortex). Although this Aether vortex object they are selling would not appear energetic in terms of physical motion, it would be energetic at the quantum scale in terms of increasing the quality of conductance in other objects it comes in contact with, as well as the conductance of the surrounding Aether environment. And since emotions and all feelings are directly related to conductance, if not its actual manifestation as perceived by the mind, then their static Aether vortex generator could very well have a positive effect on plants, animals, and human emotions. It may turn out that Schauberger's work is far more related to the Aether Physics Model than I had originally believed. If there are any English speaking persons directly affiliated with PKS who would like to communicate with me on this, I would gladly work with them. Dave http://www.implosionresearch.com/water.html http://sulis-health.co.uk/sulis/water.shtml#jug
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, Err, did you expect we would be giving the book away for free? Yes, electronically. There are countless sites that freely and gladly allow people place their research. I use Peswiki.com. Err, funny you would say that... http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Aether_Physics_Model IMHO here's a significant difference between you and I -- From the beginning of my research I have placed the following statement at the top of my research web page: Note This project and research requires no funding or payments of any kind. No payment is requested nor has any ever been accepted for this project and research. This researcher has the necessary equipment and money to continue this project and research. You push your Aether theory, but when the poor scientist goes to your website they discover you are selling a book. Heaven's to mergatroids! Imagine such a diabolical scheme! I have been caught, go ahead and report this heinous crime to the authorities Oh Mighty Crusader of free books. Here is another difference between us, I'm smart enough to write a book and register it with the Library of Congress in order to protect my ideas without having to wait for Nature or Science to accept a theory about the Aether for peer review. Here is another difference; I was requested by a large number of scientists to write a book on the Aether Physics Model, which is why I have already sold well over 300 copies. And here is one more difference between us. My background includes several years as finance manager for 14 different corporations. I happen to know a thing or two about how to make an original $1000 investment perpetuate the production of the books so that I don't have to spend $40 of my own pocket money to send each copy of the hand printed book to whoever is interested. I would have lost what little I own by now if I had followed your advice. May I ask what your APM can do that Quantum Physics cannot? Apparently you can. The real question, based upon your professed dislike for Aether theories, is will you listen to the answer? I have spoken several times in this thread and other threads on this list about the APM predicting the relative strengths of the fundamental forces, predicting the 1s orbital electron binding energies, and predicting the distributed and reciprocal natures of charges. And this is just a short list. After asking you far too many times, and you avoiding the question, one has to presume you are not qualified at quantum physics. Let the record show, he asked the question again and ignored the answer again. I tried by asking you if your theory predicts what QM has successfully predicted. I'll even take another step forward by asking what a scientist could do with your model? Could one use your APM in a computer software simulation? Absolutely, that is what the Aether Physics Model was designed for. The APM is a discrete model of physics, which can provide not only a geometrically based computer simulation, but also a dimensionally based simulation. This is one of our goals for development once the theory gets off the ground with the right crowd and sufficient funding comes in. That may not interest the physics community as a whole, but it could catch my interest since I write software simulations. How ironic. You ignore the Aether, which is the very basis of the structure you need in order to discretely model quantum physics. You may not have noticed all those graphics in the papers. But those are computer generated images, based upon the Aether Physics Model. Those images represent a two-dimensional surface in a five-dimensional spatial-temporal coordinate system. The reason modern physics cannot properly model quantum structures is because they are stuck in the four-dimensional space-time coordinate systems. The wrong assumption is made that quantum existence must exist in the same apparent coordinates as macro existence. Yet if anybody had given it much thought, the reason why subatomic particles have half spin is because subatomic particles act as time diodes, cutting off part of our experience of reality. By time diodes I mean subatomic particles due to quantum frequency the same thing that electrical diodes do to AC current. Electrical diodes cause AC current to appear as pulsed DC. Subatomic particles have the same effect, but since we are made of subatomic particles (as is all our test equipment), we perceive the illusion of continuous linear time. As I have pointed out many times, the APM has started off only as a theory of quantum structure. Only recently have I made progress into quantum mechanics using a completely new approach, and which allows for the prediction of all the 1s orbital electron binding energies. With a little more research, this equation should easily predict all the electron binding energies. We have also made progress on a nuclear binding energy equation and hope to develop a similar
RE: [Vo]:
Hi Esa, the main thing of interest for those who wish to look at the Pöpel report is the report of negative friction - i.e. that the pipes, through which the water flowed, were shaped in such a way as to actually accelerate the flow of water, and to negate friction. Yes, that is interesting. * The spiralling copper pipe produced an undulating friction curve as the flow was increased. At some flows a negative friction was observed, as if water seemed to lose contact with the walls and fall freely through the pipe. How to interpret this remains to be seen. This is a particularly important observation for me. I have also noted an undulating resonance when winding helical and flat spiral secondary coils for high voltage experiments. To be safe, I would always wind the coil with a longer piece of wire than needed. Then I would measure the resonance of the coil to see where it was with regard to my target. I found that by cutting off a specific length of wire did not necessarily result in a corresponding increase in frequency. Sometimes the frequency of the coil would actually increase as wire was cut off. The increase and decrease of frequency would undulate even though the wire length was shortened linearly. It would not surprise me at all if there were a similar effect occurring in water flow. hope this helped Yes, I have found all your information helpful. Thank you. Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, I for example offer all my research, free of charge. I'm sure there is a good reason for it and it isn't because of your magnanimous personality. And it seems obvious all those usenet posts begging scientists to give David Thomson a Nobel Prize was merely you masquerading under a yahoo addresses. Who in their right mind would plea with the physicist community to give Dave Thomson a Nobel Prize?!?! People don't even post such ridiculous pleas for Ed Witten. IMHO, if true, and we all know it is, then that discloses a very sick side to your personality. http://groups.google.com/groups/search?q=David+Thomson+nobelqt_s=Search Just keep showing us the stuff you are made of Paul. You do a greater job of it than I could. Once you do enough reading about the person who wrote that, you'll find his name is Lee and he's either from Japan or The Philippines. He's one of several intelligent, open-minded seekers of the truth out there who have taken the time to read and understand the Aether Physics Model. You seem surprised that there are people who have read, understood, and support the Aether Physics Model. How else do you think I got invited to Imperial College in London to give a talk at the 2006 PIRT conference last fall? You may not have noticed all those graphics in the papers. But those are computer generated images, based upon the Aether Physics Model. Then the obvious question is were the images created using a graphics program or by writing custom software? I am referring to writing software written in a computer language such as C++, not a person using a graphics program. How about a real science program, like MathCAD 11? The difference between writing software and using a program is like comparing QM to basket weaving. Hmmm, okay. And I have just read the rest of your tirade. I have no comment and only hope others on the list have not stopped reading this thread. I think it is quite revealing. Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, What Freedomfuel doesn't want to accept is that my research is based on old classical physics! Furthermore, as just one of many examples, modern society is killing this planet from gas burning machines. Actually, they would be more interested in your research if you could prove it is compliant with every known theory in modern physics, first. And then, being in full compliance, you would also have to show your research expands upon the known knowledge, otherwise it is completely meaningless. Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, No, the thugs are concerned about the release of advanced technology. You're thinking of the science community, There is technically no such thing as advanced technology that is not defined as science that works. The imagined thugs are no more than scientists asking you to put up or shut up. Either you can demonstrate that your research adheres to all the known science laws, and then improves on them, or you cannot. You ought to be careful; you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an imaginary agenda. Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, No, my definition of thugs is people working for the cause to suppress technology considered dangerous in the hands of terrorists or rogue countries such as Iran or North Korea. You mean like machine guns, hand grenades, and nuclear bombs? It's a little late for that, don't you think? And what business do you have providing technology to rogue countries in the first place? If that breaks your laws of physics then so be it. What does it matter to you whether it breaks my laws of physics? It's the establishment you need to impress with your extensive knowledge, not me. If you claim to have new technology, you need to show the science behind it does not violate any known laws of physics and adds something new that we didn't know before. Certainly your new technology doesn't have anything to do with using a battery in a new way, upside-down for example. What do you think you could possibly have figured out that hundreds of thousands of top minds working directly for the military haven't already thought of? Unless you have found a new way to quantify physics, or added new laws, you haven't got any new technology. You ought to be careful; you are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist with an imaginary agenda. No, I go by the laws of probability. And the laws of probability prevents you from sounding like a conspiracy theorist because...? It didn't catch that. You're still sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Are you the guy with the Aether theory of everything? If so then when are you going to start on the list provided in another thread? Are you telling me what to do? Would you like me to tell you what to do? Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, No offense, but IMHO this conversation is silly and a waste of time. I generally prefer to converse with people at Vo that are primarily interested in research geared toward generating so-called free energy. Are you are working on such research? If it's fine with you, lets try and put an end to this conversation. Funny how focused and serious you become when it is your work being criticized isn't it? You seem not to think much about giving me a long list of other theories that I have to explain with my work, but such requirements don't apply to you. You think you are special, and above the system. For some reason (and you'll come up with another long list, I'm sure), the rules don't apply to you. I am researching technology that would move energy contained in ambient temperature as a source of usable power. This has already been proved as impossible: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics You are wasting your time and making a fool of yourself for questioning the establishment. Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and something new, nobody is going to take you seriously. You might as well spend the next three years in seclusion, if necessary, and not waste anybody else's time with your unwanted theories. No offense, but for the moment I have zero interest in an Aether theory. No offense, but at the moment I think your theory is a total waste of bandwidth, since even the wikiwizzes know that what you want to do is impossible. BTW, do you suppose your zero interest in the Aether Physics Model has anything to do with your long list of goals for me that will take years to flesh out? Are you actually admitting that you wouldn't even read my work if I did work out a complete comparison between the Aether Physics Model and all known physics theories? That rather puts your genuineness into proper perspective, doesn't it? People often confuse technology, theory, and interpretation of a theory. My primary focus is on designing a so-called free energy machine based on magnetic avalanche theory. It's my goal to design a machine that is self-running, provides appreciable continuous usable power, and requires an appreciably small amount of energy to start such a machine. That is a technological goal. Second focus is to explain the technology in terms of physics. Talk about a hypocrite! You have this wild-eyed concept of breaking known laws of physics and you haven't even worked out the math, yet. I have presented a fully quantified Aether (which means I have worked out the math), and also provided new testable physics laws and a fundamentally important electron binding energy equation. Yet, you tell me I have to solve all of the Universe before you will listen, and you want us to listen to your wild dreams? I see that as fuzzy logic. For you, it should be called hypocrisy and dreaming. There always has and will be individuals that make breakthroughs in technology, theories, etc. etc. Not if you can prevent it, right? No, I go by the laws of probability. And the laws of probability prevents you from sounding like a conspiracy theorist because...? It didn't catch that. You're still sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Allow me to clarify. I place high probability the U.S. government would try and prevent new technology that could easily lead to weapons of mass destruction. I place high probability there are highly intelligent people within the U.S. government. I place high probability such intelligent people are attempting to prevent such technology. Your clarification makes it absolutely evident that you imagine a conspiracy. Dave
RE: [Vo]: MIB persuasions
Hi Paul, Can you understand the difference between my research focused on capturing usable ambient temperature energy and your extensive Aether theory? Yes, my theory is based upon real math, your research is based upon dreams. That is not rhetoric, it is a fact. Seriously, can you comprehend the simple concept that your extensive Aether theory needs to at least predict present experiments and effects? Apparently you missed the part in high school physics where the relative strengths of the fundamental forces were empirically measured, but nobody could provide a quantified theory to unify those forces. There was this guy, his name was Albert Einstein, and he spent the last half of his life trying to figure out how these forces unified. I solved the problem in just three weeks by taking a closer look at the foundations of physics, itself. It turns out that the forces are easily unified if the right dimensions of charges are used. This is mathematically verified through the experimentally proven Casimir effect. I realize your personal bias against the Aether prevents you from studying my work, but it is properly quantified, referenced, and agrees with empirical data. On the other hand, your dream project has no physical manifestation, no quantification, and it has been proven by the science you have faith in to be impossible, over one hundred years ago. You need to learn the difference between theory and interpretation. You need to learn the difference between reality and dreams. It's a simple fact that a measuring instrument such as an oscilloscope has input capacitance and when thermal voltage noise is measured you are seeing voltage stored in a capacitor caused by such thermal noise? There's nothing to dispute or theorize about that, unless one has the mind of a child. It is a simple fact that the Aether Physics Model correctly unifies the forces, correctly quantifies a quantum unit of space-time, and correctly predicts all the 1s orbital binding energies for all atoms, unless one has no inclination to check it out [no need to stoop to your level of ad hominem remarks]. Unless you can fully explain every known physics law and something new, nobody is going to take you seriously. I make no such claims. :-) You claim to have researched a second law violation. Let me know anytime you want to challenge the simple fact that thermal noise can charge a capacitor Dave. You don't need to prove anything to me, I don't care about your work, remember? It is the establishment you need to prove to. Where is the paper accepted by Nature or Science that supports your wild-eyed ideas? When was your Nobel Prize reception party? BTW, do you suppose your zero interest in the Aether Physics Model has anything to do with your long list of goals for me that will take years to flesh out? Just trying to help you brother, as several other people here. Thanks, just trying to return the favor, bro. I hope you like my help as much as I like yours. This is silly because you need to have basic concepts explained to you. Allow me to explain. I will have no interest in your Aether theory until you can at least claim your theory accurately predicts the small list provided. Yes, it is a small list in comparison to what you would need to predict. You are being disingenuous, again. You have absolutely no intention of investigating the Aether Physics Model. If you were truly trying to help me, bro, you would recognize and properly comment on the Unified Force Theory (conspicuously missing from your list), and the Casimir effect as already presented. If you had even tried to read my paper, you would realize the difference between quantum structure and quantum mechanics. What I present is quantum structure, which is something modern physics can't do at all. The Aether Physics Model does not inherently dispute quantum mechanics. The only dispute is in the interpretations given by QM for quantum structure, such as wave/particle duality theory, probability functions as subatomic particles, and force particle theory. Telling me that I need to explain quantum mechanics because I have a theory for quantum structure is like saying you have to break the first law of thermodynamics if you plan to break the second law. It is completely senseless and shows a complete lack of understanding of my physics contribution as well as a poor understanding of QM. No, you are the one with the wide-eyed concept called an Aether theory in the year 2007. We are getting to the heart of the matter, at last. You were not interested in a scientific discussion from the beginning. This is all about your prejudice toward the Aether. You never wanted to read the paper, nor did you want to see Aether discussed here, so you tried to the dirty technique of playing mindless cynic in hopes of wearing me down. You have been grasping for any reason you could to derail the discussion, because you didn't want to
RE: [Vo]: Is Big brother watching?
Hi Harry, These days I am more concerned with Big Sister than Big Brother. Why is that? Dave
RE: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
Hi Steven, OTOH it's my understanding that time dilation has been confirmed. Extremely brief half-life's of certain sub atomic particles that are speeding close to C have been detected to decay within a slowed down time period reference from our perspective. At least, that's my understanding. Time dilation, as I have stated earlier, was quantified by Lorentz based upon the MMX. It doesn't surprise me then, that the effect has been observed in decaying muons. The discussion is about whether the dimension of mass is equal or equivalent to the unit of energy and whether this equivalence explains the physical world. Dave
RE: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
Hi Terry, IMHO, we will only succeed in tying ourselves into unsolvable knots similar to religious fanaticism if we insist there MUST exist an ABSOLUTE frame of reference. SR, would seem to suggest there ain't no such animal and never was - period. Ah, but that is the key. SR is not based upon physical observations, but assumptions. It's claim that there can be no absolute frame of reference is therefore just as much a religious fanaticism as any other unfounded assumption. OTOH, the Aether Physics Model specifically claims that each subatomic particle MUST exist in an ABSOLUTE frame of reference ONLY with the quantum of Aether unit in which it resides. To put it another way, matter does not move through space-time, but rather matter is encapsulated by space-time and space-time moves relative to space-time. Sounds kind of strange at first, until you realize that that is exactly how the rest of the fluid Universe works. A leaf on a calm day merely rests peacefully upon the surface of a river, yet the river flows and carries the leaf with it. The Gulf Stream is a body of water within the Atlantic Ocean, which moves relative to the Sargasso Sea and carries all sorts of particles within its fluid. Dust particles float aimlessly within the atmosphere, as it flows fluid-like around the planet relative to other regions of atmosphere. Is it any surprise that matter would also float within the sea of Aether, each subatomic particle encapsulated by its own quantum of space-time? Here we get both absolute frames of reference and relativity ala Lorentz. Can't ask for better than that. There's a little to please everyone, and it is all based upon empirical constants and data. The observation does not make any practical sense if extrapolated to include all the rest of the Earthly atoms that have not been interacted with, even though that might seem to be a natural conclusion to draw. Yet, that is exactly what SR claims. Each particle is its own observer. Although, I have often pointed this out as another error in SR theory. If 40 people watch a collision, does the collision then have 40 times the energy it otherwise would have had if there were only one observer? Obviously not. As you correctly deduce, the only observer of importance is the one involved in a collision with the moving particle. But even still, if a single aluminum nucleus were traveling at the speed of light, and its mass approached infinity, according to E=mc^2 the amount of energy in the collision would also be near infinite. This has not been observed. Such Zen koan-like observations invariably raise the legitimate question as to HOW is it that this extra mass can behave in such a fickle manner. After all - WHO REALLY POSSESSES THE EXTRA MASS IMHO, the extra mass really doesn't exist per-say, but rather the extra mass is simply being used as an expedient vehicle in order to make the SR equations make sense. But perhaps I have exceeded my area of expertise on the matter. ;-) The concept of extra mass is meaningless. Mass is merely a dimension. Mass is not a substance that can increase or decrease in value of itself. As an analogy, if we join two ten feet long pipes together, we get twenty feet of pipe, not twenty feet of length. The dimension of length did not increase, but the overall value of the pipes' length increased. This will be a sticking point for many people, but if you are interested in the subtleties of Zen Buddhism, you should have no difficulty grasping the difference between the dimension of length and the thing it measures. The same goes for mass. There is the dimension of mass, and when it is given a value, it becomes the measurement of inertia. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hi Paul, Let me see, Einstein explained the photoelectric effect, but none of the others items in your list rings a bell when I look over his papers. I have written a 27 page basic introduction to the theory, which I had to keep as short as possible but still present the theory. In that paper, I cover several of the observations listed below, and several others could be easily derived as they are logically implied. The theory I present is mathematically correct and is modeled in MathCAD. So you are saying, write the paper and they will read it. You haven't read it, apparently. I have presented a completely new foundation for physics, which explains many things not explained in the Standard Model, including a mathematically correct unification of the forces, an electron binding energy equation, a correction in the dimensions of charge used in units, as well as the discovery of a second type of charge. I have discovered the final force law for the strong force, which is identical in structure to Newton's and Coulomb's laws. I have quantified exactly how the physical Universe arose from non-material cause, exceeding the Big Bang theory in scope. Modern physicists get into the news for predicting the Higgs Boson, which has never been observed and never will be. Scientists get Nobel prizes for theories involving imaginary Pions and Gluons. Scientists are thrilled that their physics is confused as to whether quantum existence is a wave or a particle, and they are ecstatic to claim that quantum existence is nothing more than a probability function. Somebody comes along, uses the empirical data and constants to derive a discrete model of physics, which answers many of the questions sought by modern science, and instead of being welcomed, he is told to go back to his cave until he has solved every possible problem in physics. What kind of response is that? What justification do you have to tell me that I have to single handedly rewrite all of physics before my theories can be accepted, when I present many unique discoveries and no other scientist has ever been told to do similar? Dave Theories are great, but a theory usually receives death ears from the science community until such a theory can correctly predict all known effects and experiments such as -- * Single electron double slit experiment. * Single photon double slit experiment. * Delayed choice experiment. * Van der Waals' forces. * Zel'dovich radiation. * Cherenkov radiation. * Hawking radiation. * Quantum tunnelling. * Casimir effect. * Unruh effect. * Quantum Hall Effect. * Quantum Zeno effect. * Quantum confinement effect. * Aharonov-Bohm effect. * Compton effect. * Photoelectric effect. * Primakoff effect. * Scharnhorst effect. * Zeeman effect. * Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect. * Schottky effect. * Peltier-Seebeck effect. * Mössbauer effect. * Meissner effect. * Leidenfrost effect. * Kaye effect. * Josephson effect. * Ferroelectric effect. * Faraday effect. * Biefeld-Brown effect, also known as electrohydrodynamics (EHD). Furthermore, the theory must use an accurate and stable method of predicting such theories such as mathematics or computer software. Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hi Steven, When these smaller atomic nuclei are created wouldn't that also mean that the individual protons and neutrons within these lighter elements have to suddenly regain lost mass if their atomic number is less that Fe? This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody is listening. If we apply Einstein's E=mc^2 to fusion binding, and assume that the mass deficit was caused by mass being converted to energy, then it would have to follow that when the bonds break energy would have to be converted back to mass. Everybody makes a big deal about the incredible amount of energy released when matter is converted to energy. If the conservation law of energy holds true, it should take just as much energy to reform the mass during fission reactions. According to E=mc^2, if it applies to the fusion reaction as explained by the mass deficit equation, then a fission reaction should absorb an incredible amount of energy from the environment. Despite the obvious error of this assumption, it is the logical extension of E=mc^2. It is one thing to swipe at the foundation of modern physics, because even a poor theory is better than no theory at all. In order to effectively eradicate Relativity theories, we need to have something else to put in place. Naturally, I have a valid mathematical solution to this conundrum, as explained through the Aether Physics Model. WHAT KINDS OR WHAT RATIO OF LIGHTER ELEMENTS TEND TO BE GENERATED? Each radioactive element decays differently, and some decay in multiple ways. Here is a U235 decay chain for natural decay (no bombs): http://hepwww.rl.ac.uk/UKDMC/Radioactivity/U235_chain/U235_chain.html Here is a general description which also explains supercritical decay. http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical1.asp I will not personally discuss anything related to making weapons, being involved with theoretical physics and author of a new paradigm with many valid possibilities. All you need to know is that as nuclei unbind, then according to E=mc^2, the unbinding should absorb large quantities of energy from the environment, which it does not. Quite the opposite occurs. Energy release from both types of processes can only happen if new matter is created during either the fission process, fusion process, or both. And that is exactly what the Aether Physics Model suggests. What would be the physical evidence for newly created matter? Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors (LMFBR) were designed in the 1940s to produce more fuel than they consumed. The LMFBR at Argonne Labs in Idaho successfully operated a full life cycle and proved this technology. We also know that stars grow in mass over their lifetime. It is believed that stars accrete matter from nearby dust. But if that is the case, how is it that there is always just enough dust fed to a star over a period of billions of years such that it grows at a more or less steady rate? The mass of our Sun should be ten times what it is right now in 1 billion years. Where will all this extra mass come from, and why couldn't all the dust be sucked in right from the beginning when the star formed? Also, if stars grow by accreting matter, then why does our Sun expel more matter every day than it accretes? According to the Aether Physics Model, new matter is continually generated via the Casimir effect. The corona around the Sun is an example of the Casimir effect working on electrons. The fusion process within the Sun is the Casimir effect working on protons. The reason why the Sun can eject large clouds of protons and electrons every day is because it is producing them everyday. We also know the Universe is expanding, despite the fact that a black hole is observed at the center of each galaxy. Over billions of years, black holes eat up a lot of stars, so why is the Universe expanding? It should be shrinking according to E=mc^2. But if all stars are generating new matter, and there are many more stars generating matter than collapsing at the centers of galaxies, then the Universe should expand. The black hole implosion events prevent the expansion from getting out of hand. Nebulae are brilliant clouds of dust that produce their own light. The idea that dust in space reflects light is ludicrous as most dust is dark. Nebulae are also examples of the Casimir effect generating new matter, which provides the material for building new stars. Where does all this mass come from, particularly since so much destructive radioactive energy is being released as U235 destroys itself. What am I missing here? The problem is the physics we are taught by mainstream science, not you. An atomic bomb is not just releasing stored energy, it is also creating new matter at a very high rate, once again, due to the Casimir effect working through electrons and protons. A fission reaction will work itself out when the critical material needed is exhausted, but a fusion reaction can be made to work as
RE: [Vo]: Is Big brother watching?
Hi Paul, Come on, you're not that naïve, are you? Even before the NSA officially existed, they were directly involved with telephone circuits. Remember back in the sixties when it was a felony to open your telephone and modify it? That is because the circuits have a feature that allows the NSA to dial your number and hear everything going on near your telephone, even without making it ring or be lifted off the receiver. Cell phones today have the same feature, plus they can be triangulated to get your position whenever there is a battery in your phone. Didn't you ever wonder why phone companies want you to be able to afford a new phone for each member of your family? Future phones will be directly tracked by GPS. I had the luck one day to pick up my phone and catch it in scan mode. Every five seconds I would hear a different conversation from somewhere around the nation. I listened for hours, it was great. There are operators who do nothing but spot check conversations looking for vital intelligence information. Why do you think the government believes the Internet is the greatest thing going for interpersonal communications? There are huge computer mainframes at various intelligence centers, which record every single data transfer made over the telephones, fax machines, internet, wireless toys, HAM radios, commercial radios, CBs, television stations, GPS units, and even automobile computer systems. Haven't you wondered why all cars are computerized and you aren't allowed to remove the computer circuit? It has nothing to do with emissions control, although it makes a great cover story (thanks to the Greens). What about all those security flaws discovered in every version of Windows and other programs? Most of those weren't flaws, they were built in to allow spooks access to your information, but were discovered by hackers. Have you wondered why you haven't seen as many cops with radar detectors by the side of the road in the past few years? They don't need them. You are being tracked by satellite. They already know who you are before they pull you over. So the secret is don't do anything to give them a reason to pull you over. Every time you use your credit card, debit card, and handwritten check, the NSA has a copy of the transaction. Are you skeptical about all this? Ask yourself how the telephone conversations of all those people in 9/11 got recorded. Unless by a freak chance all these people were being watched by spooks with secret search warrants, the only explanation is that all the calls were being recorded anyway. Within weeks there were last calls from people using their cell phones on planes and people using their land lines between the towers and their homes. I can't believe you aren't aware of all this. Does it really surprise you that NSA is involved in VISTA? They have been involved from the beginning since Windows 95, only now they are getting an upgrade and you are paying for it. How else are they going to pay for these black projects? Dave -Original Message- From: Paul Lowrance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 12:19 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Is Big brother watching? People are talking about NSA working with Microsoft. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/browse_frm/thread/59ce b37bb8bf6ea0/63b615317e57df5b?#63b615317e57df5b Regards, Paul Lowrance
RE: [Vo]: Is Big brother watching?
Hi Jed, Remember back in the sixties when it was a felony to open your telephone and modify it? That is preposterous. The 1933 FCC rules forbade attachment to the telephone network of any device not furnished by the telephone company. They said nothing about opening up telephones. Millions of people opened up telephones in the 1960s, including me. I'm not questioning whether you or anybody else opened your telephones. The Bell telephones we had when I was a kid had a label on the bottom that said it was a felony to open a telephone. Maybe someone on this list still has a 1960s Bell telephone with its label still attached? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Mass versus Energy
Hi Stephen, Finally, uranium itself may seem to be a puzzle: Where did it come from? What reaction formed it? The universe started with hydrogen; how did atoms like uranium climb the energy hill? The answer, as I understand it, is supernova explosions: The supernova explosion theory is a favorite among steady-state physicists. The problem with the theory is the distribution of uranium on the Earth. If uranium is produced in supernova explosions, why does it only occur in certain types of soil and rocks? The same goes for gold, lead, and other heavy metals. Also, if the Earth were formed from supernova dust, the heaviest elements should be at the core of the Earth, not on its surface. Present understanding of the Earth's core suggests it is solid iron, a relatively light metal. Dave
RE: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR.
Hi Harry, Thanks for posting the derivation. This is one of those cases where E=mc^2 appears to be true, because the math predicts a value that is useful. As I pointed out, however, E=mc^2 is not always true, such as in the case of nuclear binding and unbinding. Nuclear fission, regardless of what isotope is involved, results in the unbinding of nuclei and hence should absorb energy and convert it to matter. This is not the case. As for the ballistic example in Max Born's book, this is also derived in the Aether Physics Model, but in a different form. Unlike the example in the book, where energy, mass, light waves, or radiation are physically defined, I present a theory where the photon is quantum and precisely defined, as is all matter. In the Aether Physics Model, all physical existence traces back to three non-material things; Gforce, dark matter, and singularity. From these three non-material things, I can mathematically construct the entire physical Universe. The structural theory even correctly predicts the binding energies of all 1s orbital electrons, and will likely predict all the electron and nuclear binding energies when the theory is finished. This is something that E=mc^2 cannot do. In the mass/energy paradigm, mass, energy, photons, and light are spoken of only in a general sense. There are no definitions for how these units relate to physical objects, which is the subject of physics. In fact, we are explicitly told that mass is not the same thing as matter. As such, there is no meaning to the equivalence of mass and energy. Yes, it is true that there are isolated cases where one can use E=mc^2 to gain a useful result. These cases will always involve photons, since photons are the only thing capable of traveling at the speed of light. The equation cannot be used for dense matter, such as atomic nuclei. Another case where E=mc^2 fails is the observation of energetic nuclei from stellar blasts, or cosmic rays. Cosmic rays can be entire aluminum nuclei, stripped of all electrons, and still travel at or near the speed of light. According to E=mc^2, as an object approaches the speed of light, its mass approached infinity. No such thing happens with cosmic rays. Another false prediction of SR is that it doesn't matter which object is moving what velocity, since it is believed there is no fixed reference frame. Yet, when cosmic rays come streaming through the Earth, the Earth's mass does not approach infinity, either. In fact, there is no reference frame that exhibits infinite mass increase. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: E=mc^2 without SR. I scanned and uploaded a derivation of E = mc^2 which does not use the mathematical formalism of Special Relativity. Four pages from Max Born's book _Einstein's Theory of Relativity_ (about 1M): http://web.ncf.ca/eo200/derivation.html Harry
RE: [Vo]: Is Big brother watching?
Hi Paul, Any thoughts on Linux or Mac? The government's business is to know what its citizens are doing. You realize there are computer science divisions of the NSA and CIA, right? Do you really think they are sitting back and letting new technology defeat them? I only know a tiny bit about programming, having given up after VB3. There were too many changes and too much new documentation to read through. But I did learn that a lot of the key code is directly compiled in binary and encrypted. I don't know how much of Linux falls in this category, particularly since it is supposed to be open source. Yet, there are several commercial packagers of Linux these days. What did they add, and who are they? MAC is proprietary. What would Steve Jobs say if the CIA cornered him and claimed it was a matter of national security? I don't know, but I imagine that since he remained in business he has friends somewhere. This much, obviously, is speculation and pure conspiracy theory. However, the fact that Windows has had so many security flaws is a matter of public record. Perhaps you remember when Windows first started using VB Script that it was possible to literally write a few lines and completely wipe out someone's computer with an email message. The reasoning for allowing this was something like, well let them try it and see what we do to them in court. It was as though they believed the world was filled with docile sheep and no wolves. Knowing a little about VB programming, I would never use the technology or open any emails with attachments or scripts. But boy, they sure did have some major virus attacks, and often by kids with too much time on their hands. Now XP Pro has this gawd awful automatic update feature. In the middle of the night they are loading new software into my computer to fix security flaws. Okay, if it were a few megabytes two or three times a year, maybe. But when I checked my loaded software list in the Control Panel, there are several gigabytes of fixes being installed three times per week, sometimes. I had to shut it off because it literally filled 5 gigabytes of my only free space in just one month after completely reformatting the drive. I had to delete needed programs for the time being just so I could defragment the drive. Windows XP Pro was supposed to be top of the line, rock solid software. In my mind, especially because of my dad's career in the top echelons of the military, I feel like my computer is being searched constantly. There certainly have been many instances where my computers were sending huge amounts of data over the Internet for long periods of time. Of course, knowing that I'm a person of interest, I just stay out of trouble and don't care if they want to see what's on my hard drive. It's just the inconvenience resulting in lost system resources that bothers me. I've been keen to the government's intelligence interests for a long time. I'm always looking for their slipups, like the last phone calls that quickly emerged after 9/11. One time I caught an FBI agent tailing me as I was heading to a Wal-Mart store. When I got to the store, he parked on the side of the building and left his vehicle to follow me in. I double backed through the vending machine entrance and spent five minutes peering through the dark windows in his car just to piss him off and let him know I saw him. When he caught on and came back to his car, I just smiled at him, he smiled back, and I walked away. I knew he was FBI because I saw him in front of the local Federal building looking into my car at the Radio Shack electronic lab sitting on my front seat. This was just a day or two after the first truck bombing of the WTC. For all my whining, I really don't mind the snoops. I think they are doing a great job at protecting our country and not abusing the rights of our citizens (for the most part). Aside from getting sloppy with their snoop work, they have done nothing to interfere with any of my freedoms in spite of my colorful past. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Harry, Is y = xa^2 not an equation? Yes, it is the equation of a straight line with slope a^2. Of course, it is an equation. All the variables are truly variables and have the same dimension of one. Do you really think that E=mc^2 is the equation of a straight line with slope c^2? Are you implying that because y=xa^2 is an equation that p=ac^2 is an equation where p is pressure, a is acceleration, and c is the speed of light? When you arbitrarily change variables to constants and assign specific dimensions to other variables, you end up with completely different expressions. In the case where y and x are given specific dimensions, those dimensions have specific implied values, depending upon the system of units used. For example, in the MKS system of units: joule = kilogram * (meter/second)^2 You cannot then arbitrarily change the unit values for meters per second to a different value and still have an equality. Once you assign a constant to one of the variables, which is not consistent with the system of units being used, the other variables cannot maintain their dimensions within the equation. You end up with: y = xc^2 You cannot reference y as energy or x as mass. Since c was arbitrarily chosen, x and y are now also arbitrary. You would need a system of units where v^2 = c^2, such as in the Aether Physics Model's quantum measurements units, in order have a dimensional equation involving c^2. True, there are many situations that will work as though x is mass and y is energy, but it is not a mathematical certainty. Therefore, it is possible for many applications of E=mc^2 to appear to be valid, but there are also applications for where it is not. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Stephen, I don't know what your religion is. All I know is that when the discussion veers away from the math and data, it bases upon our faith in our own personal opinion. Such a discussion is indistinguishable from a religious discussion. If we stay with the science then we should have no difficulty in communication. If it gets to a point where we are cornered, we can ask for more time to investigate our argument before admitting the need to change our view. But someplace along the line the science should lead us unequivocally to the same conclusion. Are these terms fair enough? Dave -Original Message- From: Stephen A. Lawrence [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty David Thomson wrote: Hi Stephen, [ ... ] You called me a crank in two different posts, now. Sigh... OK, you're right, at the very least I insinuated it pretty strongly... I shouldn't have done that. I'm sorry I called you a crank, and if you don't assert that my religion must be SR if I don't immediately grasp your arguments, I promise I won't do it again.
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Stephen, I've heard people claim he did but I have never seen an article or quote in which Einstein actually asserted that there must be an aether. http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf http://www.aetherometry.com/einstein_aether_and_relativity.html According to the analyses I have read their result did _not_ show an aether drift. It was a null result, to within the precision of the experiment. So I have read in textbooks, and so I've been told by physicists who've actually worked through an error analysis of the experiment. There is not a greater display of hypocrisy than by a physicist who tells you MMX fell within the margin of error, and then brags that an SR correction is needed for the GPS system. The SR correction when compared to the ionospheric noise correction of the GPS system has a magnitude less than 1000th. The MMX result showed an Aether drift of 1/20th of what was expected for a *rigid* Aether. The fact that the Aether drift was 1/20th means it exists and that what it proved is that the Aether is not rigid, but fluid. Not a positive result -- if it could be demonstrated conclusively that the MMX gave a positive result it would falsify SR. This is not true. Only if the Aether were rigid and it showed a positive result would it falsify SR. A fluid Aether is fully consistent with SR as the Lorentz transformations were developed to explain a fluid Aether and also provided a bases for some of SR theory. The relative time aspects of SR are not only correct when Einstein ignored the Aether, but are also correct when we acknowledge a fluid Aether. Surely, you didn't expect the laws of physics to change just by ignoring certain facts of nature? I consider people who refuse to learn the mathematics of a theory yet claim the theory is self-contradictory cranks, So if you don't learn the mathematics of the Aether Physics Model and claim it is wrong that makes you a what? and I consider people who pretend to the existence of evidence which doesn't exist to be cranks. And people who base their physics on a non-equation (E=mc^2) would then be what? As for the existence of Aether, the evidence is incontrovertible. Magnetic fields, electric fields, gravitational fields, particle spin, Solitons, phonons, frame dragging, and space-time are just a few proofs for the existence of Aether. What do you call someone who constantly works with Aether, and yet denies its existence? People who simply question theories, and decide that they don't think those theories necessarily describe reality, are not cranks. No, they would be cynics. So how about you try working through the mathematics of the contradictions you think you've found in relativity, and post the results here? What good does that do? You completely ignore any math that questions the validity of SR. Remember that thing about religion you don't like? What do you call someone who believes in something so much that they will resort to irrational means to avoid discussing it if it proves them wrong? I'm not disagreeing with the Lorentzian aspect of SR, as it was developed around the concept of a fluid Aether. But the mass/energy equivalence aspect of SR, which Einstein presented in his famous paper, has no basis in mathematics. It falsifies easily. There is a better way to understand quantum physics than the mass/energy paradigm. It is the Aether/angular momentum paradigm. When we learn to see nature as it really is, rather than a bunch of abstract and counterintuitive numbers, then we can make significant progress in quantum physics. For now, Einstein's mass/energy equivalence principle is what is preventing science from fully uncovering the nature of reality. But enough of complaining about what does not work. I have discovered the correct model of quantum structure. How about looking at it and trying to understand it. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Steven, First, as an aside, I don't think Einstein originated the idea of the interchangeability of mass and energy. Are you going to give me a history lesson, or are we going to discuss the physics? Einstein clearly supported the mass/energy equivalence principle and is widely credited with its existence, regardless of whether he plagiarized it or not. There is no mass/energy equivalence principle. Period. There is no valid math to support such a theory. Once you have radiation pressure and the relativistic Doppler shift, the change in mass for a radiating body follows pretty easily, which is why Inertia is such a short paper. He makes one additional assumption, which is that the total energy of an object in a particular frame is some constant plus its kinetic energy. Given that, using the previously derived transformation rules for energy of a photon (term not yet coined in 1905, of course!), he shows with simple arithmetic that if energy is to be conserved, the mass of a radiating body must decrease. And therein lies the source of the deception. What the body radiates is not energy, but photons. Photons are not energy, they are the quantum of light. The concept that energy packets is the same thing as a photon is an incorrect assumption. Energy is merely the amount of work something does. Energy is not a thing. Photons are a thing. Unfortunately, Einstein never quantifies exactly what a photon is, he only quantifies the amount of work that it does. By using loose language, one can be bamboozled into believing that a quantum amount of work is the same thing as a photon, but this is false. In the Aether Physics Model, I properly quantify the photon as a true quantum of electromagnetic radiation. There is only one size of photon in the Aether Physics Model, as opposed to the infinite number of wave packet sizes in Einstein's theory. Einstein could not have quantified the photon as a wave packet, because a wave packet is not truly quantum. Each frequency has its own wave packet size (amount of work it does), which means that if the photon is a wave packet, then there are an infinite number of different photons, which defies the concept of quantum. To summarize, the heavy lifting was done in Electro, where the fact that light carries energy and momentum was established. Once that is given, conservation of momentum leads almost inevitably to the conclusion that radiation must _also_ carry away some mass, which is really all the E=mc^2 formula says. No, photons carry away mass, not radiation. Radiation is a unit, like velocity and energy. It is not a thing of itself. Regardless of the confusion created by Einstein's presentation, the logic does not hold with nuclear binding and unbinding processes, as I clearly pointed out earlier. If mass is lost during binding (fusion), then mass must be gained during unbinding (fission). And if mass is gained during fission, then the environment must give up energy (heat) to the unbinding of the nucleus. According to Einstein's presentation of mass/energy equivalence, a nuclear bomb should freeze the environment, not heat it. Anyhow I had a few comments on your response. If you are going to change one side of an equation, you have to change the other side, too, in order to maintain the equality. Do you disagree? I think I disagree, but I don't understand what you're getting at here. Setting c to 1 _does_ change both sides of the equation, after all, as it changes the units in which energy is measured. Then you are at odds with the scientific establishment. According to standard practice, c is changed to one on only the right side of the equation. So if you agree that c has to be changed on both sides, then you agree with me and refute the standard explanation. Setting c to 1 that way doesn't help with the dimensions, of course, and it's still not really valid to actually drop out the coefficients of c. However, in more formal treatments, such as, e.g., in Misner, Thorne and Wheeler's Gravitation, time and space are recorded using the same dimensions, applying the c conversion factor at the point of measurement. I have Gravitation, too. Just because one million people make the same mistake doesn't change the fact that it is a mistake. I have agreed that there are instances where you can break the rules of math and still come up with a useful answer. The problem is that once the rules are broken, and the theory accepted as true, then there are many other answers that can never be solved. My work is an attempt to correct the very foundations of physics and eradicate the errors, thus allowing for a truly consistent physics, which works all the time. This is not invalid, but it does occasionally lead to confusion. Among other things it makes dimensional analysis almost useless for checking results. This is a good example of what I am talking about. Just because Einstein's version of SR has some usefulness
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Steven, The calculations were _not_ irrelevant. By ignoring them you also ignore the answer to your objection that fission and fusion both release energy. It is irrelevant since you are not computing the fusion for making the uranium and comparing it to the fission for turning it into something else. Uranium doesn't magically appear in the Universe. The disputer here is not whether energy is released from fusion and fission. The empirical evidence shows it clearly does. The dispute is whether or not E=mc^2 is explaining the physics of these processes. Since you cannot produce an equation for the fission and fusion of uranium using E=mc^2, it is irrelevant to this discussion. You snipped the calculations that went with this. Why? They are irrelevant. We are discussing E=mc^2. Unless you want to present a fission and fusion equation for the same element, there is nothing to compare to see if E=mc^2 is working or not. This is not observed in any atomic reaction. In all cases of fission, more energy is released than absorbed. Fission of nuclei HEAVIER THAN IRON. All fission. There is no fission reaction that releases less energy than is absorbed. Lighter nuclei DO NOT NATURALLY FISSION because it's an _endothermic_ reaction in that case. So what? We are discussing the processes of fission and fusion, not what atoms easily fuse and fizz. We are trying to either prove or disprove that E=mc^2 accurately reflects reality. None of your case is relevant to this discussion. You are trying to change the subject, I am trying to keep the focus. How is it that both fusion and fission reaction result in a net energy release Fusion followed by fission of the same nucleus do _NOT_ both release energy. Now we are getting somewhere. How do you explain the fact that a fused nucleus has less mass than the constituent nucleons, but the fizzed nucleon still releases energy instead of absorbs it? Work with a single isotope, which you know will fizz, such as uranium 235. What is the total mass deficit, and what is the total energy absorbed when the nucleus breaks up? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Michel, Harry is right of course. Have you never studied high school level nuclear physics David? Look up the atomic masses! You are confused about your own gender, let alone can you follow a physics discussion. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Harry, If E=mc^2 is true, and mass is converted to energy during nuclear binding, nuclear fission reactions should create a vast cold implosion, not a vast hot explosion. It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Another irrational argument. I know what fusion and fission are. Perhaps you don't realize that fission is a physics process, regardless of what element it refers to, and the same with fusion? I did not claim otherwise. Can you not read your own writing? You said, It depends on where they are on the periodic table. Either you tried to befuddle the conversation by changing the subject, or you didn't realize the difference between a physics process and objects to which the physics processes occur. SR may be intuitively displeasing, but source of the displeasure is in you and not in the mathematics of SR. Now you are going to try to turn away from science and turn to psychological profiling? Why can't you stick with the science? It is very clear that E=mc^2 is not an equation and that all theories that use this equation must have no foundation. Stephen boldly stated he wanted a rational mathematical proof that SR was wrong. I gave him one, and he gave up on rational discussion and science and started name-calling. Now you are turning to psychological profiling. Isn't that how it always goes when discussing Special Relativity? The theory cannot be defended except by character assassination of the people who question it. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Stephen, Why do these discussions always have to end like this? Excuse me. For the record, you accused me of having SR as my religion, after which I observed that cranks always seem to say that in relativity discussions, which is true. Go back and check the post. On March 5, after writing many snide remarks to me in your reply and providing arguments unrelated to the discussion at hand, you responded: Now I have just presented you with rock solid fatal flaws in Einstein's mass/energy equivalence theory. There was no equation to begin with, and even when the so-called E=mc^2 equation is used to explain mass deficit, it predicts the opposite of what we are told. Not as far as I can see -- you asserted it does, but your assertion is senseless, as far as I can see. Without pointing out any error in my mathematical analysis of E=mc^2 you told me that my assertion was senseless. Doesn't that count as name calling? It certainly isn't rational or logical. I didn't say You are a crank. I said cranks (are you one?) always seem to resort to claiming people who believe in relativity have it as their religion. Actually, it went like this: And if you choose to believe in SR, then the discussion has degraded from one of science to one of religion and I will not violate your right to freedom of religion. That's how the cranks always end it -- SR is your religion, you must be just taking it all on faith because nobody could understand it. I clearly said nothing of the sort about SR being your religion. I said that the discussion was degraded to a religious discussion once you gave up on the mathematical analysis I presented on E=mc^2. Science involves math and data, religion relies on defending unquantified personal beliefs, such as ignoring the science and degrading my scientifically presented argument as a senseless assertion. That is hardly resorting to name calling on my part, rather it's a defense against an ad hominem attack from you, and any time spent checking the science newsgroups (e.g., sci.physics.relativity) will confirm that what I said about cranks is true! Now that is a senseless assertion! Once again, you resort to name calling because you can't defend E=mc^2 as an equation. Without E=mc^2 being an equation, everything based upon the treatment of E=mc^2 as an equation is built upon nothing. Will you never give up on your ad hominem attacks and denying you are doing it? And then, rather than expand, rephrase, or defend your mathematical arguments, YOU said _I_ was irrational and brainwashed, and said it was the end of the discussion. And, indeed, that response from you ended any discussion with _you_ as far as I'm concerned. Actually, you ended the discussion when you said, That's how the cranks always end it -- SR is your religion... I merely agreed with you that if you have gotten to the point of name-calling and ignoring the science, then the discussion had indeed ended. By the way, an ad hominem attack is against the person rather than the arguments. That is what you did. I attacked your _arguments_, and you attacked _me_. You are so full of yourself. Go back and read everything carefully. Apologize for calling me irrational and brainwashed, and we can continue the discussion, if you like. Your whole message was full of snide remarks and evading the topic on hand. Then you call me names and deny you did it, even though it is clearly in writing, and further you accuse me of saying things that are not in writing. But it's YOUR decision to end it -- YOU said End of discussion and called _me_ irrational ... not the other way around. If you read what was actually written, you would see that you have, indeed, been irrational. That is not a personal opinion, but a statement of fact. And, unless I'm sadly mistaken, by resorting to insults directed at me and my person, not my arguments, you are in violation of the rules of this email group. You called me a crank in two different posts, now. Where does that put you? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Stephen, I have some issues with some of the things you say about relativity here. Einstein published more than one paper in 1905. The one which is generally considered to be the seminal paper on SR was On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies and it covers a great deal more than the mass/energy equivalence -- in fact, it's a complete derivation of special relativity, couched in terms of Euclidean space with the Lorentz transforms written algebraically. There, you said it yourself, they are Lorentz transformations, not Einstein transformations. Lorentz developed a set of equations to explain Aether drift in a fluid Aether according to the non-null Michelson-Morley data. Albert Einstein plagiarized Lorentz's work by writing a paper utilizing the transformation equations and not giving proper credit. Nevertheless, if you want to claim the Lorentz transformations part of Special Relativity theory, then that is a demon you have to deal with personally. I'm not going to go there as I do not question the validity of Lorentz's work, nor do I attribute Lorentz's work to Einstein. The only original contribution of Albert Einstein to Special Relativity theory is his equivalence of mass and energy, hence the celebrated equation, E=mc^2. In order to equate energy with mass, the rules of algebra had to be modified specially for Albert Einstein. I suppose this is why it is called Special Relativity theory. Einstein's equation is not an equation at all, it is a formula. Thus E and m are just empty variables, which could just as easily be x and y. There are two completely unrelated processes of logic used to befuddle physics students into believing E=mc^2 is an equation. First, it is pointed out that dimensionally E=mv^2 is a true equation, which it is for any one system of units. Then an unrelated bit of logic is applied saying that the maximum velocity of any object is the speed of light. So v in the dimensional equation is arbitrarily assigned the value of c, which breaks the rules of equality governing the dimensional equation (one side of the equation cannot be changed, without changing the other). But nobody seems to care about this sloppiness. To further muddy the waters, E is shown equal to m if c is arbitrarily assigned the value of 1. Once again, only one side of the equation is being changed, which violates the equality of the equation. The fact is, for any equation all variables must be in the same units. You cannot arbitrarily decide to multiply feet times kilograms without converting one of the units to the other system. Also, if E is equal to mc^2, then the following logic is true: E=mc^2 mc^2=mc^2 for c=1; m=m There is no equivalence of mass and energy, except if you make special provisions for breaking the rules of algebra. Since E=mc^2 is not a true equality, then every equation and theory based upon using E=mc^2 as an equality is falsified. Einstein's house of cards falls because the foundation was false. It may turn out that useful numbers were squeezed out of Einstein's work, but it was just a fancy card trick. Its usefulness is limited to a very few special situations, which explains why SR and QM cannot predict the same outcomes. Further, with regard to SR, if we use the equation as it is given, then the energy of a photon should be zero, because it has zero mass (unless you try to fix the problem by inventing a new kind of thought mass). Another big problem with the equivalence of mass and energy is that one is said to convert to the other in the case of nuclear mass deficit. The missing mass is said to have been converted to energy. But the equation shows that as mass decreases, the energy should also decrease. It is impossible that the same equation that equates mass and energy could predict that mass could be converted into energy, or that energy could be converted into mass. You can't have it both ways. Now I have just presented you with rock solid fatal flaws in Einstein's mass/energy equivalence theory. There was no equation to begin with, and even when the so-called E=mc^2 equation is used to explain mass deficit, it predicts the opposite of what we are told. No amount of logic in the later applications of Special Relativity can fix the fact that the foundation is non-existent. Now either you will completely ignore what I have said and start spewing all kinds of evidence in favor of SR, or you will do something that few others do and admit that I'm right. I suspect you will do the former. And if you choose to believe in SR, then the discussion has degraded from one of science to one of religion and I will not violate your right to freedom of religion. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Stephen, When you say Aether Physics model, do you mean aether as in luminiferous aether, the hypothetical medium in which electromagnetic waves propagate? When I say Aether Physics Model, I mean a fluid-dynamic-quantum Aether, just as it is explained in the paper. If so, how you do you account for the results of the Michelson-Morley and Sagnac experiments in your model? The theory I present induces upon the empirical data only, there is no guesswork, postulates, or other hypothetical foundation. As such, the theory I produce fully agrees with the MMX experiment as it was conducted as well as the Sagnac experiment. In fact, it also agrees with General Relativity theory. These two brought down the classical aether theories, along with the ballistic theory. (Or do you deny that MMX actually got a null result?) First off, Michelson, Morley, and Miller all deny they got a null result. The so-called null result is a result with a magnitude much smaller than was expected for a rigid Aether. The Aether Physics Model reveals a fluid Aether. Dayton Miller spent over twenty years of his life repeating the measurements and continually observed results, dependent upon the density of the material around him. The Aether Physics Model shows that subatomic particles exist with a quantum of Aether. The denser the matter, the less Aether-drift will occur in that region. Michelson and Morley first conducted their experiments in a basement, Dayton Miller later conducted his experiment on top of Mt. Wilson. Also, the question can be thrown back at you. If the Aether did not exist, how did Maxwell, Fresnel, and Bernoulli get positive results before Special Relativity came along? Are you aware that Einstein wrote a paper about the Aether when he was 16, which is substantially supportive of my work? Are you aware that after Einstein developed GR he again stated there had to be some kind of Aether? Who exactly says the Aether does not exist and has evidence to support the non-existence of Aether? The evidence for Aether's existence is abundant. Magnetic, electric, and gravitational fields are direct manifestations of the Aether. Electrostatic charge comes from Aether, not matter. Solitons and phonons are direct evidence for the existence of Aether. BECs are direct evidence for the existence of Aether. Frame dragging is direct evidence for the existence of Aether. The curvature of space-time is direct evidence for the existence of Aether. Aether, especially as I have quantified it, is a verified fact. The only thing holding it back is the willingness of modern science to accept it. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi John, For instance how electricity works is a theory, how magnets work is a theory, how gravity works is a theory. But that something we call electricity exists is not a theory, that magnetism exists is not a theory, that gravity exists is not a theory. There is a difference between recognizing the existence of a force and theorizing what it is and how it works. Exactly! That is exactly what the Aether Physics Model provides, a full quantification of quantum structure, as opposed to quantum mechanics. It is almost impossible to explain this to any modern physicist, however, because they have never been told that quantum structure exists. In fact, wave-particle duality and probability theory told them quantum structure does not exist. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi John, You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim ought to be possible. Not quite sure what I'm meant to be guilty of, this is the first I have heard of your theory. But what good is a theory? I agree, especially when you don't read it. What experimental evidence is it based on and how does it help us develop this tech? (don't answer too soon I'm going to take a quick look over your pdf's. (evil format btw) This theory is developed entirely from the known physical constants and data. It is induced, not deduced. This theory describes quantum structure, as opposed to quantum mechanics. Have you ever worked on a car as a teenager, particularly before engines were fitted with computers? You didn't have to be the engineer who designed the motor to understand how it worked and how to modify it. By being able to see the motor, take it apart, and reassemble it, one could gain an intuitive understanding of the mechanics. This made auto mechanics accessible to a greater audience. The Aether Physics Model is still in a very low state of evolution, but its practical results are already apparent. The fact that I can calculate all the 1s orbital electron energies from first principles is better than what quantum mechanics can do. Also, I can account for every known physical characteristic of quantum physics, including the fine structure constant, the subatomic particle g-factors, the nature of spin, the imaginary number, and other dimensional and dimensionless constants. Further, this model provides a quantifiable basis for exploring the relationship between mind and matter via the unit of conductance. So far, I have been invited to London and Memphis to present this model before an audience of qualified scientists. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi John, Ok, that didn't take long. I am after skimming (very lightly) the 3 links unsure what experiments your theory is based on. I am also not sure it said anything about how to make a simple device to output free energy or create (so-called) antigravity. Does it explain the vast majority, or at least a number of the FE and AG devices to numerous to list? Is your aether largely entrained by matter? Assuming it is how can it be motivated to flow through matter? If it is what effects will occur, will spins be aligned? Will fields (magnetic, electric, spins/torsion) of the matter be carried on the aether. If the aether is compressed what will happen? (many experiments indicate antigravity results) And how could the aether be compressed? Is acceleration/deceleration relative to the aether the source of inertia? Can matters coupling to the aether be changed? I seriously don't think you have answered any of these questions. It seems all you do is explain the mundane. Sorry, John, I have been through this a hundred times already and am not interested in your particular attitude. First off, I quantified exactly what it is you already believe, and now you plan to play me into explaining everything to you in detail. Many of your questions above were answered in the paper, A New Foundation for Physics. The paper was written because people had asked me for a synopsis of the theory. Twenty seven pages was the shortest I could write a basic synopsis. If the synopsis does not interest you, then too bad. Just go on ignoring my work. I have a book that goes into much more detail, but I don't want to next be accused of trying to sell books. This theory is far more developed than you can pick up by speed-reading a twenty seven page paper, which is itself just an introductory paper. It would be just as unfair for me to judge modern physics based upon a speed-read of a high school general science book. I'm already into the design and construction phase of various related experiments and being invited to speak before qualified scientists. I make myself available to seriously interested persons, but I don't do the poodle jumping through the flaming hoop act anymore. If you are not seriously interested in studying the Aether Physics Model, then it is you who can remain with the mundane and insane physics you so despise. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Stephen, (It just sets my teeth on edge when someone opens a discussion of this sort with a blanket assertion that SR is internally inconsistent, which, thankfully, you didn't do.) The Aether Physics Model stands on its own. It is not necessary for me to trash SR by pointing out its major flaws, which I can easily do. I find that people heavily invested in SR are unwilling to admit the simple and obvious flaws when I point them out. On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General Relativity. It derives the GR simplified field equation in terms of charges from first principles. Einstein's version of GR presents in terms of mass, and is a tortured process. But tortured or not, the concept that space-time interacts with matter is valid in both physics models. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi Stephen, On the other hand, the Aether Physics Model solidly backs General Relativity. Say what?? SR is a subset of GR -- it is exactly equal to general relativity in the absence of mass (flat background space). Say what?? GR was derived completely independent of SR. The link to SR was added later. The original SR paper aimed to show the equivalence of mass and energy. GR shows that space-time influences and is influenced by matter. You can't have matter without mass, so a massless interpretation of GR is complete nonsense. I can't imagine how you believe you can have GR without SR. I don't see how you believe they have anything in common. It derives the GR simplified field equation in terms of charges from first principles. Do you mean the linearized theory? Didn't follow this. The simplified GR field equation is: G = 8pi T where G is the space-time curvature tensor and T is the mass/energy tensor. The Aether Physics Model equivalent is: e^2 = 8pi (a * e.emax^2) where e^2 is spherical electrostatic charge (from the Aether) and e.emax^2 is toroidal electromagnetic charge (from matter). Einstein's version of GR presents in terms of mass, and is a tortured process. But tortured or not, the concept that space- time interacts with matter is valid in both physics models. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi John, I have a list of Yes/No questions at the bottom if you could please take 1 minute to answer them. We agree that there is a fluid aether which is matter entrained and apparently on some other points too, I have the experimental side, you have the model covered so let's make an effort as we might both come out of it better off. I will listen to any experiment that has been performed, and examine the data. BTW I am aware also of the beta atmosphere theory, did you find it had significant agreement with your model? I don't believe I am aware of the Beta Atmosphere theory. Where can I read about it? Well if your work doesn't simply explain the mundane but give real experimental 'how to' with regard to Antigravity and Free Energy then I am very interested, does it? Yes, I explain briefly in my book how lithium, tritium, deuterium, and a specific list of other isotopes can be used to produce free energy by causing resonance within these particular atoms. I also show the precise working of the Casimir effect and how it can be tapped to produce unlimited energy (just as the Universe already does). Both of the above processes are actually identical, except the first applies to the physics of the proton and the second applies to the physics of the electron. I am seriously interested but I'm going to have a hard time getting anything practical out of your paper it would seem, it appears to be written to convince academics but I'll give it another shot, still I'd love the crib notes version or simply the answers to the questions I asked, here is a list of yes/no questions that shouldn't take to long, ones you have already answered are omitted: The theory I am presenting is not a philosophy, channeled material, or something I deciphered off a crashed UFO. This is real physics, based upon real (simple algebra) math. It is a fact of science that if you want to understand it, you have to learn it. There is nothing difficult about the Aether Physics Model. All you need to do is take it one step at a time. If you want, I could provide a simple course of the theory based upon A New Foundation for Physics, as a series of lectures. You could ask relevant questions about the material with each posting. Does it explain the vast majority, or at least a number of the FE and AG devices to numerous to list? Y/N Yes, it explains all the devices. Every one of them has to do with resonance and the Casimir effect. This is easy to see when you understand the basics of the theory. Can the aether be motivated to flow through matter by: Being entrained by moving magnetic field? Y/N Being entrained by moving electric fields? Y/N Yes to both. I actually have a project lined up to do this with magnetic fields. It can also be done with gravitational fields, and in fact, nature does it all the time. All three force fields (electrostatic, electromagnetic, and gravitational) share the same quantum unit. This is why antigravity effects can be produced through electrostatic or electromagnetic processes. Does anything special happen if aether flows at 90 dgrees to other aether flows? Y/N Aether would normally flow as a vortex (hence my interest in this list). I have not considered the situation of 90* Aether flows, per se. If it is made to move through matter will spins be aligned? Y/N It depends on how the Aether is manipulated. But yes, spins are entirely dependent upon the Aether. The Aether is the source of all subatomic spin. The spin aligned Aether is no different from the electric or magnetic field. Magnetic fields (spin aligned Aether) will tend to align the spins of matter, and matter will tend to align the spins of Aether. Matter, being bound by the strong force (which is the same as the electromagnetic force) and encapsulated by Aether, is in a tug of war with empty spin aligned Aether units in the immediate environment. I could go into much more detail on this. Will fields (magnetic, electric, spins/torsion) of the matter be carried on the aether? Y/N That is the only place they exist. Each subatomic particle is encapsulated by an Aether unit. The Aether unit is what gives the subatomic particle its electrostatic charge. The angular momentum of the dark matter, which is encapsulated by Aether and thus becomes visible matter, interacts with the conductance of the Aether and produces strong charge (electromagnetic charge). All charge transactions take place in the Aether, there is no other way to do it. Can the aether be compressed? Y/N The Aether can be compressed and decompressed (stretched) by a factor of two either way. When matter causes compression by a factor of two, the surrounding Aether fabric is stretched by a factor of two. At exactly two, the Aether encapsulated by the matter rips apart from the immediate Aether fabric and implodes. The implosion causes the encapsulated angular momentum to release as dark matter (neutrinos) and the charges
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi John, The answer is easier obtained by taking two glasses, one full and one empty, and then taking half of each. If a glass is already empty, taking half of it doesn't fill it. It only makes sense to take half of a full glass. Dave _ From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 1:40 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty I'm a 'we have the perfect amount of water and just an abundance of glass' person myself. Actually I think the answer to the riddle is simple, were you filling the glass or emptying it? On 3/2/07, thomas malloy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Lowrance wrote From what I'm seeing Vo dominated by Glass half empty people? I've always found Glass half full people to have much farther foresight. It's amazing how skeptics and debunkers cannot see the obvious. It's highly unlikely a person will accomplish something they disbelieve. IMHO, it's better to take into consideration the whole truth, warts and all. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
RE: [Vo]: Half full or half empty
Hi John, You're just as guilty as those you accuse. I have presented a fully quantified alternative physics theory, which predicts exactly what you claim ought to be possible. http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf You believe matter can be created? http://www.16pi2.com/files/APM-Construction-of-Universe.pdf You want mathematical proof that the Aether Physics Model is correct? http://www.16pi2.com/files/Electron_binding_energy_equation.pdf What more do you need? Do you expect me to single handedly answer every question anybody could ask about physics? Do you expect me to design and build every possible free energy device and make it available through Wal-mart? There is only so much a person can do, especially when they are dirt poor. I don't get involved with the discussions because the cynics don't care and those seeking the truth don't listen. Dave _ From: John Berry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:38 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Half full or half empty The difference is that I believe (to put in mildly) that it is possible to have a simple electrical device (actually an aetheric electrical device) that generates any desired level of energy, most here don't. (so why are they here?) The energy being probably created (there is simply no reason to believe that energy can't be created, nor would it be true to say that apparent energy production has ever been observed, nor would it be true to assert that energy creation is illogical or unsupported my the equations, the opposite it true - doubters, I invite you to challenge me on that) or possibly liberated from some near infinite storehouse of energy. There is ample evidence of course and all the 'needles' are pointing in the same direction creating a coherent picture as to how this works. Most of the rest of Vortex seems more interested in arm chair stuff regarding various forms of nuclear energy, and math to prove what can't be done. (only to ignore math that proves it can be done) IMO there are only 2 things that are of any use in this area, #1 is researching as many devices as possible (difference there is you and many others may assume many are 'defective' without reason) to get an understanding of what is going on. Let the correlations, the anomalies and clues paint a picture, resist projecting an image of how they work and just let the data speak to you. 2# Experiment, though IMO to be likely to experiment successfully (unless you just have the knack as some do) you should take what you have learned from #1. Also unless you have some idea, some understanding of how it works (not theory but observation of phenomena and inescapable conclusions) and some interest in learning more you aren't creating a new branch of physics, just a curious device. The problem is there is much that most ignore due to limits they assume exist and if these more spooky things did exist they assume couldn't be understood or engineered. I believe in a fluid aether (actually of the 3 possibilities: SR, static aether and dynamic aether only the last one is logical or sensible, SR is impossible and a static aether little better) which is the key to Antigravity and Free Energy. The interesting thing about that is I was strongly opposed on both counts (any link between FE AG and the existence of a fluid aether) but the evidence when you really honestly look is overwhelming and inescapable. We don't need to be looking more selectively, we need to be looking from a greater distance to get the overall picture. Just look at all the evidence, only you may not see the connections you expected, I didn't. You can't get to new land by using old maps, you can't use old physics based on impossibilities to do what it considers impossible. What I'm saying isn't crazy at all, simply follow the evidence and remember it doesn't have to make sense to you, it just has to make sense. Realize that the limits man has placed have always been in error, indeed the beliefs of every age are shown to be wrong so put less weight in the limits of your thinking and the current consensus and more on the evidence. (and go find interesting evidence) Why people think their preconcieved notions of what is and isn't possible trumps the evidence I'll never know. /rant On 3/2/07, Michel Jullian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent reasoning John :) Talking about glasses, what we need _now_ IMHO is good glasses allowing us to see through the haystack of defective designs/proposals, so we can concentrate on the few needles that may hide in there. It's a question of not wasting scarce time, energy, money and other resources, not a question of believing or not (no sensible person can doubt that alternatives to huge tokamaks are possible for abundant clean energy). Michel - Original Message - From: John Berry [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi Wesley, There are good arguments that some of the dating is wrong for most deposits and fossils. I don't dispute the dating process may be flawed, but what does that have to do with the quantity and variety of fauna and flora? Either the fossils exist or they don't. And it is equally obvious that regardless of the actual dates, a rich biosystem did not occur at the same time as an Ice Age. The stability in that case would only be an illisionary product of massivily distorted dating. Could you provide a more detailed explanation of your reasoning? How do dating errors (not Michel's type of dating errors) cause the illusion of massive amounts of biomatter and diverse species? It is always safer to assume a system is unstable and act accordingly that to assume it's stable and die having discovered your error. More flawed reasoning. Are you telling me that if we don't understand how something works, we are charged with fixing it until we do understand? That is how problems arise, not how they are solved. This is exactly what the GW debate comes down to. There are people who distort their interpretation of the data to prove something is broken, and then seek to fix it. It is the process of fixing things that don't need fixing that actually breaks them. Nature knows what it is doing. The planet Earth does not need the arrogance of our feeble intelligence to fix the climate cycle. Even if we do succeed in altering the climate, such as seeding the oceans with iron, what happens when iron prices go through the roof and the seeding program is cancelled? The resulting huge whale population then starves to death for lack of food. Either that or the Japanese build up a huge market for whale products and drives them into extinction. There were people who played with pure sodium, and when it spontaneously caught fire, they threw water on it, which caused a major explosion. The climate change problem is serious enough without shortsighted humans trying to intervene. Even if we were successful in the short run, it is highly improbable we could keep up our efforts into the long run. The best way to survive global climate change is to adapt, which is the method preferred by all successful species. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi John, Building a nanomachine or a space elevator is hardly near the scale of changing the Earths climate. In case you are not aware, volcanism and seismicity have been increasing steadily in the past 6 years. There are many volcanoes that have not erupted for over 10,000 years, which are just now erupting again. In the past year, there have been three M6 earthquakes in the Gulf of Mexico, an M7+ quake in Mozambique, and the Ethiopian rift zone spread by dozens of feet right before the eyes of scientists, just to name a few major Earth change events. You have little appreciation for the magnitude of momentum Earth changes carry. The climate is just one factor of many, which are interrelated, and it all traces back to the Sun. However, there is a new wildcard in play. Our solar system just entered an Interstellar cloud about nine years ago and we wont be leaving it for 10,000 to 50,000 years. Contrary to the myths purveyed by Al Gore and the IPCC, the climate is not just a matter of CO2 balance. People who buy into this great deception are incredibly naïve and ignorant. The current global warming debate appears to be some kind of intentional misinformation campaign to divert peoples attention from the real underlying mechanics presently in motion. There is nothing we can do to stop the present cycle of change, but we can prepare for the damage that will occur. Not everybody will survive, that is a given. Wasting our money and resources trying to bail out a sinking ship with a teaspoon is not the solution. We should be staffing the life rafts and gathering our provisions. To keep the ship from rolling over we might increase survivability by blowing the hull. We could take a lesson from Noah, who was one of the few who understood the severity of the problem, last time. There is no point in arguing when everyone is so certain his or her own knowledge is complete. I have presented a lot of very interesting information on the Terracycles site for anyone who is interested. I have learned loads more in the five years since. Im spending my time doing what I can to prepare, not only for myself, but for future generations. If you want to waste your time trying to reduce CO2 emissions, when they should be increased, that is up to you. BTW, why do you think our society has developed into a huge fossil fuel consuming civilization when liquid metal fast breeder reactors have been around since the 1940s? Why do you think all those energy saving and free energy inventions have been suppressed over the past 100 years? Why do you think the UFO phenomenon is always debunked, even when there is obvious photographic and physical evidence of its existence? People (or beings) far more influential than us have been aware of the coming Earth changes for a long time. We are mere cows on a huge farm concerned about who poops where while our overlords are looking at our market value. Just take a deep breath and reflect on the greater picture. We cant change the fact that the Earth is changing, but we can keep the human species alive if we put our minds to it. Dave Make an elevator to geosynchronous (I assume?) orbit. Make nano machines Both of those may even be near future. For the somewhat more distant future there are thoughts such a traveling to distant stars and beyond. Dyson spheres. Tippler time travel by rotating a stack of neutron stars and other stellar engineering. And of course terraforming other planets. So obviously it IS possible, it is within man's grasp to either correct the current greenhouse gas problem and or stop any adverse global weather condition. How easy or difficult depends on how such a goal is achieved, how subtle and sophisticated or ingenious the techniques used are, for instance I believe in cloud busting and other such environmental engineering by the subtle energies of nature that I suspect many in here would reject, needless to say it could be achieved more easily this way than by a brute force method but either way it plainly IS possible. On 2/17/07, David Thomson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi John, Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish. Obviously it cannot be stopped. It has already happened a dozen times in the past 120,000 years. What makes you think we are special and climate change was not going to happen to us? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi Michel, I know Michel thought I was kidding her... ... Dave Even worse than I thought. Dave when the MIW come don't forget mentioning you talked with a female Vo :))) Michel What are you trying to say, that you are as crazy as I am? I doubt it! My life is so bizarre even I have to question my own sanity. ;-) Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Kyle, Classical spacetime is not recognized as a medium, just some mathematics and tensors. And that means what? Do you really think the Universe is made out of dimensionless math equations? It will probably be eventually recognized that there is a physical something to the vacuum, but what it is, I don't know, and I doubt anyone else knows for sure either. You are wrong about that, too. I have fully quantified exactly what the physical something of the vacuum is. I have written a white paper on it and delivered it before the PIRT 2006 conference in London last fall. I have also written a book on the topic (Secrets of the Aether) and last weekend presented the theory before a group of scientists in Memphis, Tennessee. If you want to know what the vacuum is, just ask or read the paper. http://www.16pi2.com/files/NewFoundationPhysics.pdf Whether or not you can push against it, well, I am not saying you cannot. I am saying you can, and I am not alone. General Relativity also says you can. I am just saying it looks as if the lifter isn't pushing against anything but a normal dielectric medium of air or a liquid. I don't deny it looks that way to you. The physics of ion thrust are valid, but they are inapplicable to the lifter. Have you built a thruster device? http://www.fw.hu/bmiklos2000/unipolar.htm I really have little else to say on this subject, I've done the experiments and found that, to my knowledge and experience, the Lifters do not produce anomalous, unconventional thrust. I have about a dozen other projects to work on which may be promising, but if I continue to waste time with things that I know don't work, I am not going to get anywhere. I posted my findings, and that is all. It is one thing to get a negative result, it is another thing to assume you have fully understood the result. I can't blame you for wanting to do other projects, however. There is not enough thrust in the lifters or thrusters for me to continue with them at this time, either. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, ... My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. ... Multiply it by root 2 in fact. To maintain the same thrust, every time you halve the pressure you must double the current, as per the thrust formula I*d/mu where ion mobility mu is doubled (inversely proportional to air density). In order to double the current you must indeed increase voltage, but not by a factor two, only root 2 as the I(V) law is quadratic for a corona discharge. Thanks, I wasn't aware of this reasoning. So the question stands for Kyle, was the vacuum experiment properly conducted? Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily interpret as being ion wind? Why can't the force term refer to the force between the ions on the lifter and the electrostatic dipoles in the space surrounding it? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, The only problem with ion wind theory is that there isn't enough thrust in the ions to cause a lifter to lift. What's more, you can reverse the polarity of the wire and broad conductor and the lift is the same. If electrons were being emitted as ion wind in one case, they would not be in the other case. Since there are no positively charged electrons and any protons would have 1836 times the mass of the electron and give different results, the ion wind theory is bust. Just because a mathematical formula gives a number doesn't mean that number can be applied to a non-existent phenomenon. Dave Also, for you Michel, why does the ion mobility equation necessarily interpret as being ion wind? ... Dave Because ion [induced] wind yields exactly the above thrust formula if you do the maths, here is an elegant derivation by R.S. Sigmond (if the 16 kB gif image makes it to the list) Michel
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, Good try Dave, but you need to learn a bit more about corona discharges. Was it necessary to make this dig? If you're interested in a straightforward derivation of some of the characteristics (thickness, voltage drop) of the plasma sheath, here is one I wrote some time ago I would have been interested, but I think I would like to stay as far away from you and your condescending attitude as possible. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, But the air propelled downwards by the ion has a mass (hidden in the ion mobility parameter), that's what's matters, just like the mass of a helicopter's propeller is irrelevant. If one can speak of thrust for a helicopter, one can speak of thrust for a lifter. Several people have constructed lifters (and the related thruster) to block airflow, which clearly demonstrates that airflow has nothing to do with the lift. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Kyle, My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. But to what end? If there is no medium to push against, even if you have 100MV across the thing, it won't fly around. Space-time is a medium. Haven't you ever heard of General Relativity theory? Matter exerts a force on space-time. I may be misreading you, are you agreeing that the lifter is just a reaction fan that needs a medium (gas, liquid) to push against? Or are you of the opinion that it is reactionless? Nothing is reactionless. I am of the informed opinion that space-time has a quantum structure, complete with electrostatic dipoles. Matter can directly interact with space-time. However, lifters are not very efficient. I'm working on a different method, which creates space-time bubbles around a vehicle. The vehicle can then move free from gravity. It is much like a soap bubble, which separates a region of air from another region of air and yet moves within it. With the space-time bubble there is no path for the gravitational field of the Earth to interact with the mass of the encapsulated vehicle. This allows the vehicle to merely float in space, whether on the surface of the planet or in the vacuum of empty space. The power system for this method is based upon Tesla's Wardencliffe technology. I already have the miniature Wardencliffe system built and the special coils for creating the bubble and driving the vehicle are half constructed. With any luck, I'll get the wireless power transmission system operational tomorrow, but the weather isn't looking so good. It might have to wait until Monday. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
I don't see what need there is to take the carbon out of the air. We spent 150 years of hard work getting all that sequestered carbon back into the biosphere. Don't these people realize the climate of the Earth was most stable during the time of the dinosaurs? Our planet went for hundreds of millions of years with no ice ages and there was 1000 times more biomatter in the biosystem than there is today with 1000s more species. If people want to take the carbon back out, all they need to do is send another comet into Earth's atmosphere. If I had my way, we would double carbon production in hopes of putting a permanent end to the present Ice Age. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Michel, Beware of the MIB Dave, unless the MIW get hold of you first? :) I have no clue what you are talking about. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi Nick, E, Dave, that may be true but getting from where we are now to that paradise involves going through a probably horrendous series of probably violent climate instabilities. Billions of people would die, millions of species would be wiped out. There is no two ways about it, you are absolutely correct. That is why our efforts should be spent on survival, not slowing down the process. Prove that it will be a gentle transition and people may listen. No chance! There is not going to be a gentle transition. Our options right now are to go through a complete climate reversal (ice advance), or a complete terraforming of the Earth. Our sights should be set on future generations. It is very selfish of us to think only of our own unfortunate situation and not help prevent future generations from sliding back into a primitive state. Sheer cold logic says that you cannot prove this so please stop muddying the waters. Your position, like that dangerous lunatic Singer, is rather like that of the punk versus Dirty Harry who felt lucky and fatally got on the wrong side of a Magnum... No Nick, I'm probably the most safe and sane thinker on this debate. Instead of looking only at the present time, I'm looking ahead at multiple generations of humans. If we don't start focusing heavily on survival, future generations simply will not survive. Climate change is inevitable, and it would occur whether humans tried bringing the carbon back into the biosphere, or not. I have researched climate change for the past decade and started a web site on my observations at www.terracycles.com. My climate research came to a halt when I discovered a completely new physics paradigm, which could greatly advance the human species and our level of technology. I know Michel thought I was kidding her about building a wireless power transmission system. She probably also did not recognize the vehicle in the space-time bubble as the flying triangle vehicle reported by so many people and seen by myself from only 100 feet away. I have spent my whole life doing independent research in many areas of knowledge. Trust me, the best way to deal with climate change is to go through it head first and return the Earth back to its stable condition. Yes, it will be very painful, but it is inevitable. We tend to look back on civilization 5000 years ago and say, what primitive people they were, glad I'm living in modern technology. And these same people say, Wow, those primitive slaves really had it in them to carry huge stone blocks with ropes and logs to build those pyramids. Even though it is obvious from the weathering on the Sphinx that it existed previous to the last global climate change event, we are still in denial that humanity was once advanced to our present level, if not more advanced. It is likely that civilization has advanced several times in the past 100,000 years, and has been wiped out each time. My desire is to see an end to this cycle so that humans can have a chance to evolve into a truly intelligent species. Far from muddying the waters, I'm trying to clear them up so we can see what is really going on. I'm also looking ahead and acting on behalf of all those unborn survivors who will only hear stories about the great civilization that fell due to climate change. Some may wonder why our forbearers did not think as much about our own safety, but here we are with the potential to help future generations. Whining about the coming disasters and shutting down our economy out of fear is not going to help our children. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Russ George challenges Branson on ABC
Hi John, Obviously it can be stopped, saying otherwise is foolish. Obviously it cannot be stopped. It has already happened a dozen times in the past 120,000 years. What makes you think we are special and climate change was not going to happen to us? Dave
RE: [Vo]: Lifters
Hi Kyle, 1. They do not work in hard vacuum. This has been tested many times, Blazelabs has tested this, I have tested it, others have as well. It is pretty well determined that they do not function in hard vacuum. In very soft vacuums they do work, as there is still air to push around, of course. Around 1 - 0.1 torr, there is nothing but glow discharge. At harder vacuums, as the residual gas is taken away and the voltage across the electrodes again climbs to several kV, no thrust reappears. What was the highest potential used in the vacuum experiments? As I see it, there is a balance between the charges of the lifter and the dipole structure of the surrounding medium. It is my belief that if you are going to increase the vacuum, then you also need to increase the potential. This is not because of ion wind, but because the air molecules become dipoles with much mass, which provide a more viscous dipole medium for the charges on the lifter to operate against. My guess is that the potential needs to be increased proportional to the vacuum. So if you double the vacuum, you need to double the potential. As I understand it, the hard vacuum experiments did not include an increase in potential. So naturally, if the medium is less dense the lifter has less to pull against and needs more potential. Dave
[Vo]: Water Vortex Video
I had said I would make a video of my water vortex generator and have been putting it off. This morning I remembered I had made a video record for my self. It has plenty of good footage in it to show that the vortex is strictly a downward flow in the center, as evidenced by the air bubbles being dragged down. I hope you like Creedence. If you don't, just turn down the volume. There is no narrative as this was intended for my own personal enjoyment. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8468890437369216439 Dave
RE: [Vo]: Water Vortex Video
Hi Jones, Looks like you were going for an artistic/ecosystem approach. I built this a couple years ago and intended to be looking at it constantly. There are no mountain streams here in the middle of Illinois, so it was necessary to observe an engineered vortex in my house. Have you considered using just the tapered cone for energy experimentation? My primary interest was to see if there was anything to Viktor Schauberger's observations. I can say that I noticed some rather strange, subtle phenomena. The vortex in the original setup (as seen in the video) is strictly driven by gravity flow water, rather than pressure provided by a pump. Also, the water was treated with fish and circulated to organicize it. The rocks helped to condition the water, as well. It didn't take long for algae to develop on the rocks, however algae never became a problem in the tanks. This was good, as it indicated the water was healthy. To my surprise, it seemed as though the water could react to emotions. When there was a certain balance between the angular momentum of the water and the gravitational pull, I could look at the water and change its height by thinking different emotions. I also noticed that the vortex was firmer and stayed near the top of the funnel during vernal and autumnal equinox, but fell to the bottom in the middle of the summer and winter. I'm still trying to figure out what physiological change in the water would cause this, although I'm fairly certain that it has to do with the conductance of the water and the alignment of the Earth's angular momentum with regard to the Sun. These effects were consistent over a two year period of constant operation. This summer I will dismantle the whole set and build a structure solely for scientific testing (minus the fish). I will experiment by applying changing magnetic and electric fields to the water in various ways. I will also install remote sensing thermometers, a flow meter, and buy a water test kit. For a water supply, I have rigged a rain barrel to capture untreated water. It will still be slightly polluted from dust and volcanoes, but it will be the same water that falls anywhere else. Observing the water vortex daily for two years has given me the intuitive understanding of vortices I had hoped to obtain. I can now see how to engineer vortices in other media, such as air molecules and various fields. I have already begun collecting the materials to build a magnetic field vortex generator. I'm hoping that subtle vorticular rotating magnetic fields can be used to condition DNA molecules in living organisms, thus causing the body to rebuild itself in a younger and healthier condition. I am now convinced that water is a living entity of a different order of existence. It may not have the organs and tissues of plants and animals, but it does possess the ability to interact with its environment beyond mere chemical and inertial actions. In a book I wrote, Secrets of the Aether, I provide the mathematical foundation for a new system of physics, based upon the same empirical data as Quantum Mechanics. In this theory, I provide a rational basis as to why magnetic flux is the reciprocal of conductance, and not resistance. I also provide pre-existing evidence demonstrating that conductance is a unit, which is directly related to emotions and feelings. All matter throughout the Universe, and even the fabric of space-time possesses the quality of conductance. I can now provide a scientific basis for explaining much of the so-called psychic phenomena, which is really the art of being able to recognize and manipulate conductance. I'm aware of the tornado in a can and other experiments regarding vortices. However, I am not interested in high energy (read destructive) uses of physics. My primary interest is in finding harmony and balance with nature, not using it to feed my personal greed or cause destruction on other aspects of existence. I have found a sure, scientific path that allows me to systematically explore the subtleties of physical and non-material existence, thus providing me the ultimate pleasure to be found in this Universe. You might say that my video explored the artistic/ecosystem approach. As flattering as that is, I would add that it is also a fun, compassionate, and human approach. Thank you for watching it and giving your comments. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Global warming skepticism alive and well (was Re: [Vo]: Fw: [BOBPARKS-...])
Hi Michel, What you're missing is that if solar output variations contribute significantly to global warming, then humans should redouble efforts to reduce GHG emissions. You shoot yourselves in the foot :) What you are missing is that spending money on reducing unimportant GHG emissions could be spent on technology for surviving natural climate change. The IPCC is shooting themselves in the head. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Fw: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday February 2, 2007
Hi John, Ok, I'll bite, where is the evidence that all planets are heating up in the last few years, and by how much? According to NASA, Mars is experiencing http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html global warming Neptune's largest moon, Triton, is also experiencing http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml global warming: There are thousands of http://www.google.com/search?q=%22global+warming%22+triton references on the Internet about Triton's global warming Global http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html warming on Pluto. Jupiter, is also undergoing http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm ?POE=TECISVA global warming. Saturn shows signs of climate change: http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/20061109-022035-4126r/ * And if this is happening isn't it more reason not to make the problem with worse with greenhouse gases? Actually, it is quite likely that GHG could solve the problem of global climate change. During the reign of the dinosaurs, there was 1000 times more biomass on the surface of the planet. All the carbon from that time period is now sequestered as fossil fuels. By bringing the carbon back to the surface of the planet, it will eventually be absorbed by plants and animals, thus converting the lifeless sequestered carbon under the ground back into abundant life on the surface of the planet. Life forms efficiently manage the water vapor. But more important, if we can get a high enough concentration of GHGs in the upper atmosphere, we could prevent the sudden climate swing that will instantly freeze the planet. See my web site at www.terracycles.com http://www.terracycles.com/ . If the climate could remain stable for hundreds of millions of years at a time (until a comet or galactic event wipes us out) that would be a lot better than the mere few hundred years we get in between glacial cycles. Anybody who believes the Earth had stabilized and was going to remain forever warm is seriously deluded. We are, and have been for the past 63 million years, in the middle of a glaciation cycles. This *is* an ice age we live in. This fact is well known. It is amazing that the IPCC scientists could be in denial about this and be worried about changing the climate to a warmer one.
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Hi Terry, The image came through. It looks nearly identical to the water vortex I have. I have found that the vortex is caused by the angular momentum of the medium (water in my case) with regard to a unidirectional force (gravity in this case) acting upon it. As the medium spins orthogonal to the gravity, the pressure of the faster moving molecules keeps them suspended in motion, while the molecules at the center have a lower pressure and are attracted to the Earth. If one is to create vortices in any other medium, the mechanics would be the same. To create an Aether vortex is actually quite easy since the Aether already quantifies as a rotating magnetic field. All that is necessary is to contain the rotating magnetic field and apply a unidirectional force through the center of rotation. The unidirectional force could be caused by permanent magnets or electrostatic electrodes placed above and below the vortex. If my assumptions are correct, the vorticity can be expressed as a unit equal to kg^2 * m^3 / sec^3. This would mean that vorticity is equal to momentum times energy. In the Aether Physics Model, this is written as vort = h * forc vort = momt * enrg Increasing either the angular momentum or the unidirectional force increases the vorticity. I still have a lot of work to do with the math, but I am making headway. Right now I'm building a wireless power transmitter, which is a scaled model of Tesla's Wardencliffe system, so my time is limited. Dave -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:53 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics On 1/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I knew of rexresearch, as I purchased nearly 3 feet stacked high of their infolios ~20 years ago. :-) What I still don't know is what vortex image you are referring to. Let's see if I can attach it to a Vortex-l post. Terry
RE: [Vo]: Energy *Violations* using *standard* physics
Hi Paul, Here's an interesting 4-dimensional vortex of an atom. The flat plane slicing through the center would be the 3-dimensions; i.e., where the two vortexes meet. http://www.unarius.org/plasma/vortex.gif This is a very nice image. Are all the dimensions length dimensions? What is the mathematical and physical basis for the spirals coming out of the poles? I am aware there is a twist in the magnetic field at the poles, as can be readily seen when placing a magnet near a CRT screen. But it does not seem to exhibit the number of turns in the drawing. Dave
RE: [Vo]: Re:[VO]: Vo Counter-Spin?
Hi Richard, I have a water vortex in my living space as one of my room decorations. It is part of an aquarium/terrarium/rock garden setup. I've had it operating for over two years and watch it daily. I have never witnessed upward flow in this water vortex. In fact, you just forced me to do what I have refrained from doing for two years. I dropped food coloring into the vortex to watch its behavior. There are two dramatic features, the food coloring produces a well-defined channel around the vortex, and although the food coloring is highly localized in the center, it suddenly disperses evenly throughout the entire water volume. I'll setup my digital camera and make a video clip of it tomorrow. Dave
