Tuks Unsorted KieknWatTWordt Stuff - Linked In Discussion Dark Energy

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Dark-Energy-3091009.S.278275950?view=&gid=3091009&type=member&item=278275950

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

The whole concept of dark matter, dark energy and even strong and weak nuclear forces as well as gravity are all results of a basic misunderstanding of the Universe around us.

We know from the famous dual slit experiment that ALL matter IS some kind of localized electromagnetic wave and therefore there can be NO OTHER fundamental forces whatsoever but the electromagnetic fields, which propagate trough a medium which we used to call aether.

Even Einstein himself realised perfectly well that the aether exists. "space without aether is unthinkable":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH9vAIdMqng

Michael Boyd

Physicist/Engineer

Here is some pictures of dark energy on the nano-scale:

http://www.calfree.com/OnQuantumDarkEnergy.htm

This pit is a 10um x 10um square that is ~51nm deep on a disk that is spinning at a constant linear velocity of 500 inches per second. The pit produced a repulsive force that we can quantify using the measured read back voltage shown [0.38 Volts] and the fact that I calibrated my data using a 10um x10um square calibration pit measured for its force strength using a magnetic force microscope {MFM} where 1 Volt is equivalent to 1 nanoNewton {1nN=1x10^-9 Newtons} of force. So 0.38 Volts was equivalent to 0.38nN force. The force fields force direction is repulsive as verified using a piezoelectric force center too as shown here:

http://www.calfree.com/FiguresGravityRectifierPZTvGMRpit&bump.pdf

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

@Michael: very interesting stuff to ponder about. When you consider the temperature you are working with, which I assume to be room temperature, you can deduce that the object under test emits infrared light within the long-wavelength infrared range with wavelengths of about 8–15 µm, comparable to the size of your pit.

The pdf is talking about AFM not MFM, btw. But either way, the object under test vibrates at frequencies which emit infrared radation with wavelengths within the same order of magnitude as the size of your pit. Contrary to popular belief, this kind of radiation is not the result of single electrons changing their orbit around an atom nucleus, which is actually a ridiculous idea considering the size of an electron in relation to the wavelengths of the radiation being emitted. So, the atoms inside the material are resonating and are in harmony with one another.

Another aspect of current main stream science is the denial of the existence of longitudinal dielectric waves, which play a most important role at the nano scale and which essentially explain why we get interference patterns with the famous dual slit experiment, while main stream science comes no further than to detect "photons" and "electrons" and apply some statistics in order to predict where these phenomena might turn up, while in reality they are the result of heterodyning of both electromagnetic and longitudinal dielectric waves.

So, what you get at your pit is that the ensemble of electromagnetic and longitudinal dielectric waves which are present at the surface of your object under test as a result of all the atoms within the material resonating in harmony with one another gets a little crack, a disturbance, whereby you get (partial) reflection of (infrared) waves, etc. resulting in a local ensemble of waves with different characteristics then in the area further away from the pit.

And of course, your sensor also has a temperature and also consists of atoms which fundamentally are some kind of localized electromagnetic waves and all these waves interact with one another and therefore the end result is very hard to predict just like that.

What is also interesting to consider is Paul Stowe's aether theory, which gives a foundation for the unification of physics, whereby gravity = grad E: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StoweFoundationUnificationPhysics

So, what you measure as being "anti gravity" is essentially a resulting gradient in the electric field caused by the ensemble of waves present at the surface of your object under test at the location of your pit.

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Oops, the gravity = grad E is stated here:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/StowePersonalEMail

Michael Boyd

Physicist/Engineer

@Arend, Why does everyone always think EM and Gravitation are the same phenomena??I first noticed the gravitomagnetic induction signals being produced in my read back signals I recorded when I flew my GMR sensor over the surface of a glass disk that had YAG laser bumps on it. I couldn't figure out why these magnetic induction read back signals would be produced by a piece of glass with bumps on it when it didn't have any ferromagnetic media layer on it at all?? That's how I found its gravitation instead of EM; i.e., magnetic induction. You see EM occurs at the speed of light while gravitation is much slower...at least close up at the 100nm distance my GMR sensors was from the nano-pit, again in this case that 10um x10um x 51nm deep pit. See

http://www.calfree.com/ProofThatGravityIndependentMagnetism.pdf

Magnetic induction follows Maxwell's right hand rule which means if I change the direction of polarization of the magnetic media on my nano-features disk I can change the direction {polarity} of the magnetic induction's read back signal...but the gravitomagnetic induction doesn't change its polarity because it is something different; something whose polarity is dependent on the presence or absence of mass [matter] instead. PS check my Profile and you will see I have long background in the physics of matter.If gravity was related to E field as you speculate; for example; then it would require two pieces of metal to create the E field between the GMR sensor and the disk; how do you explain the gravitomagnetic induction signals from a bump on a glass disk??

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

@Michael : gravity is NOT electroMAGNETIC. Magnetics is a rotational movement in/of the aether and electomagnetics therefore does not describe the non-rotational movements in/of the aether properly, including dielectric longitudinal waves, which propagate at a speed of sqrt(3) times c. So, besides electromagnetic with a fundamental rotational component, we got something else, the "pure" electro"static" or dielectric (field). And according to Stowe, the gradient of that one, E, is what gravity is. And that connects nicely to the Biefeld Brown anti gravity effect, which requires high voltage *asymetric* capacitors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld–Brown_effect

" The most effective distance between electrodes occurs at an electric potential gradient of about 10 kV/cm, which is just below the nominal breakdown voltage of air between two sharp points, at a current density level usually referred to as the saturated corona current condition. This creates a high field *gradient* around the smaller, positively charged electrode."

Longitudinal dielectic waves do propagate inside any material emitting EM waves, such as in the infrared range, and do not require metal plates to be present at all. As with waves on a water/air boundary, you get transverse waves only at the boundary between two media with a different density, while further away from this boundary you get longitudinal dielectric waves "under water", which only involve an electro"static" force and no rotational magnetic component. In RF engineering, these true transverse waves are known as "the near field" while what is known as the "far field" consists of "photons", characterized by the existence of a number of vortexes creating a self-contained rotating structure, which in A particular case looks something like this:

So, because you get infrared radiation from the surface of any material, which is measured as being electromagnetic in nature in "the far field", we get an ensemble of transverse wave at the surface with wavelengths in the order of 8-15 um according to wikipedia and since these are at the surface of the material, longitudinal dielectric waves are present within the material. These are dielectric in nature and do NOT involve a magnetic, rotational component. These a clearly present within any object at room temperature and thus do not require any charged metal plates at all.

Michael Boyd

Physicist/Engineer

@Arend, You wrote "Magnetics is a rotational movement in/of the aether and electomagnetics therefore does not describe the non-rotational movements in/of the aether properly, including dielectric longitudinal waves, which propagate at a speed of sqrt(3) times c." How does the dielectric longitudinal waves, which propagate at a speed of sqrt(3) times c not violate Einstein's theory of Special Relativity? Why then do the gravitomagnetic signals have a propagation time delay of 2.1uSec?

See http://www.calfree.com/Non-renormalizabilityOfTime.pdf

That "electromagnetism is in spacetime A" let's call that space-time "[EM] space-time", and this is what Einstein's "Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper" [1] ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies") described which reconciles Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism with the laws of mechanics, by introducing major changes to mechanics close to the speed of light. This later became known as Einstein's special theory of relativity (SR) [2] [3] That "gravitation is in spacetime B" let's call that space-time "[G]space-time" and this is what Einstein's General relativity (GR) describes. According to general relativity [4] , the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the "warping of space and time by those masses".

[1] EINSTEIN, A. Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper. Annalen der Physik 17: 891-921, 1905

[2] EINSTEIN, A.; GROSSMANN, M. Entwurf einer verallgemeinerten Relativitatstheorie und einer Theorie der Gravitation. Zeitschrift fur Mathematik und Physik 62: 225-261, 1913.

[3] EINSTEIN, A. Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitatstheorie. Annalen der Physik, 49, 1916.

[4] HILBERT, D., Die Grundlagen der Physik. Mathematische Annalen, 92, 1924.

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

There is no difference between special and general relativity. 'Special' relativity is only such in so far as there are no significant gradients in its domain. Thus a 'special' case of GR wrt to this aspect. General relativity describes the behavior of an in vicious (perfect) fluid. If matter is some form of fluidic vortex structures (which, by definition contain circulation a.k.a rotational motion) S (Shear) transverse waves propagate through such a superfluid (or, perhaps, a supersolid) at 1/Sqrt(3) the speed of P (longitudinal) waves. The real question is what can material system interact, thus detect...

Michael Boyd

Physicist/Engineer

@Paul, What is difference between "vicious (perfect) fluid" AKA "superfluid" and a superconductor and quantum tunneling?

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

Inviscid a.k.a no viscosity... Superconductivity occurs when the vortices all settle into a 'quiet' lattice. But yes, those properties are uniquely aspects of a total lack of viscosity...

Michael Boyd

Physicist/Engineer

@Paul, OK viscosity that's what I thought you meant. That's why I asked.My approach is as an experimentalist not as a theoretical cosmologist. As an experimental physicist most of my theoretical approach is to use existing theory where ever I can; theories like QM, QED, GR, SR, insulator, semiconductor, conductor, and superconductor physics. I know about these theories based on my experience experimentally using these in my career as an engineer and scientist. For example SR applies to the medical linear accelerator used in my job at Accuray and QM, insulator, semiconductor, conductor, and superconductor physics applies to my job at Hughes. Please feel free to check my Profile to verify this. I found my invention while working in the Disk Drive Industry at Phase Metrics.

See http://www.calfree.com/ApplicationPCTUS1352501.pdf

In 2010 I read this article by Sir Penrose that explained the apparent presence of two perfectly concentric rings in the EM background radiation as due to some pre-Big Bang event. I had my own theory based on my invention that suggested the two perfectly concentric rings in the EM background radiation suggested the presence are the Einstein Rings of a super massive black hole at the center of our universe and that the universe was steady state instead; i.e., no Big Bang required. The article I recently published on that subject is titled "Theoretical Implications of Nano-scale Quantum Gravito-magnetism on the Nature of Our Steady State Universe"

See http://www.pluralidade.info/Pluralidade1_101_118.pdf

In Cartography of the Local Cosmos the authors' examine what is called "The Great Attractor" in the Centaurus A Cluster. The video can be found in standard and high definition here:

My hypothesis is that this video and the article Cartography of the Local Cosmos support the theory that there is a super massive black hole at the center of our universe; instead of the currently accepted theory that it is an expanding [emergent] hypersphere instead.

Enjoy and your thoughts are welcomed.

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

@Michael:

How does the dielectric longitudinal waves, which propagate at a speed of sqrt(3) times c not violate Einstein's theory of Special Relativity?

You are correct, these DO violate Einstein's theory, which is thus incorrect. As a matter of fact, lots of experimental proof exists that Einstein's relativity is indeed incorrect, one of them as early as 1834: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/WheatstoneExperimentsToMeasureTheVelocityOfElectricity

More recently, "fast light" phenomena have been experimentally eatableshed:

http://tuks.nl/Mirror/ScienceBlog/light.html

http://infoscience.epfl.ch/record/161515/files/04598375.pdfhttp://www.phy.duke.edu/research/photon/qelectron/pubs/StennerNatureFastLight.pdf

In the latter article, published in Nature, they manage to conclude that causality is violated when the group velocity of signals becomes negative:

“One consequence of the special theory of relativity is that no signal can cause an effect outside the source light cone, the space-time surface on which light rays emanate from the source. Violation of this principle of relativistic causality leads to paradoxes, such as that of an effect preceding its cause.

Recent experiments on optical pulse propagation in so-called ‘fast-light’ media—which are characterized by a wave group velocity u g exceeding the vacuum speed of light c or taking on negative values—have led to renewed debate about the definition of the information velocity u_i. One view is that u_i = u_g (ref. 4), which would violate causality, while another is that u_i = c in all situations, which would preserve causality.

Here we find that the time to detect information propagating through a fast-light medium is slightly longer than the time required to detect the same information travelling through a vacuum, even though u_g in the medium vastly exceeds c. Our observations are therefore consistent with relativistic causality and help to resolve the controversies surrounding superluminal pulse propagation.”

[continued]

[continued from prev]

This image illustrates the principle of what a group velocity is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_velocity

Now this negative group velocity is the result of a number of signals which have to propagate all trough the medium *before* they can

cause* a "group" signal propagating in the other direction and

therefore there is no problem with causality at all. Yet they say that because the signal propagates in the other direction, it is first measured at the exit and then at the exit and thus violates causality.

This is just one example of the kind of Sesame street logic which is not being applied and thus leads to conclusions which are questionable to say the least. And all that to save the "sacred" dogma of Einstein's relativity theory, which is just plain wrong. Tesla said it like this:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity

"It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

"The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense.

The theory wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

And why is this theory wrong?

Becaused they mixed up something as simple as cause and effect in the Maxwell equations in their currently accepted form, which leads to the problem that these are not invariant to the Galilean coordinate transform. And because of that, recourse has been taken to the Lorentz transform, which *demands* a fixed speed of light:

http://www.etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

So, forget about Einstein's relativity theory. It's "a mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past and even to common sense." :)

"Why then do the gravitomagnetic signals have a propagation time delay of 2.1uSec? See http://www.calfree.com/Non-renormalizabilityOfTime.pdf "

Why do you conclude there is a propagation delay in time?

I see a signal which has all the characteristics of some spacial distributed phenomenon, whereby you get a peak above your pit and a bottom just outside the pit area. Since the thing is rotating as far as I understand, apparently the rotation of the disk causes a "high" aether pressure (high voltage) area above your pit, while it causes a "low" aether pressure area - some kind of drag - at one side of the pit, presumably being related to the rotation direction of the disk the pit is located in.

Charles Scurlock

Architect, Physicist, Writer, Thinker, Generalist problem-solver

Arend: I read your post with a high degree of agreement, since I have been proposing a related argument for the past several years. We may not agree in details, but do in the general approach. Recently in these discussions a post started as follows:

"There are three different electromagnetic gravitational fields (EMGF) in earth's atmosphere, we only use one, and that's earth's EMGF."

I responded in a comment as follows:

I think you will find that there is only one EM field. It is not gravitational and has nothing to do with Earth's atmosphere, Gravity and other attractive phenomena are simply emergent properties of distortions of that field. These distortions surround all of the high energy concentrations that we see as stars, galaxies, and clusters and can be shown to explain all of the supposed "quantum" and gravitational effects that are incorrectly attributed to multiple "fields," "forces," and all of the other phenomena on which the insanely complex and mystical theories of most modern physicists are based. These include "c", the constant velocity of light, the supposed curvature of "spacetime", the expansion of the universe, and the so-called "red shift".

The field extends throughout and beyond our universe which in all of its parts, including we as observers, is the product of its turbulence. These observable entities are the result of simple processes ranging from rules such as those that generate cellular automata, phase transitions, and the like, not from the magical, unsupportable "big bang" beloved of explosion enthusiasts.

The field itself is what astronomers have in their love of mystery dubbed "dark energy". The field distortions discernable around stars, galaxies, and clusters, even around our own small region of the universe, are what constitute "dark matter", a phenomenon indistinguishable from the distortion around a simple refrigerator magnet.

In this universe there are no "particles" of matter, only organized, coherent concentrations of energy out of which all so-called material objects have arisen. There is no need for concepts such as "wave-particle duality" since only energy phenomena exist. The mysteries, paradoxes, and contradictions of "quantum theory" magically disappear and we are free to pursue realistic, rational applications of physics once more after a hundred years of wandering in the wilderness. I think you will also find that much of your mathematics, which is in itself not part of reality, but only one of its descriptors, can be adapted to this new model of reality, and can abandon its current role of obscurantism and can again become the powerful tool for physics that it once promised to be.

Thes remarks are drawn from my own writings in my ebook "the picnic at the edge of the universe" and my blog at enquiriesnw.com.

Michael Boyd

Physicist/Engineer

Our universe is built on two different manifestations of energy; gravitational energy first; followed by electromagnetic energy, and the quantum of time between the two manifestations of energy that make us what we are and the universe what it is too.

Nikola Milovic

Independent Research Professional

Is nature so complicated, up to now there are hundreds of theories about what this electric charge, magnetism, gravity, heat, dark energy and dark matter, and that no nothing proved true. What does that say? That scientific research is not the right way, and to learn the many confusing terms. People want to rise above their creator, and every man his true some models and programs, experimenting with elements of matter and energy, and wants to enter into this spiritual entity of the universe. "A little morgen." That's what science is called "dark", the man will never be able to measure or even consider, because it do not belong to the material entity, it is a spiritual entity, which is not included with our position. This "dark" is the ether, from which everything in the universe is created under the command of the consciousness of the universe. Vain and Einstein's postulates and all the formulas and experiments, it can not be studied in this way. And quantum theory does not have a solid foundation on which to build any evidence, and agreed to be logical natural laws, which are also volatile matter from the beginning until its disappearance....

George Rajna

Theoretical Physics Researcher

The gravitational force attracting the matter, causing concentration of the matter in a small space and leaving much space with low matter concentration: dark matter and energy. There is an asymmetry between the mass of the electric charges, for example proton and electron, can understood by the asymmetrical Planck Distribution Law. This temperature dependent energy distribution is asymmetric around the maximum intensity, where the annihilation of matter and antimatter is a high probability event. The asymmetric sides are creating different frequencies of electromagnetic radiations being in the same intensity level and compensating each other. One of these compensating ratios is the electron – proton mass ratio. The lower energy side has no compensating intensity level, it is the dark energy and the corresponding matter is the dark matter.

http://www.academia.edu/4168202/Theory_of_Everything_-_4_Dimensional_String_Theory

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

Hi Michael,

Spinning a non-uniform masses can create field gradients which in turn produces forces. A simple example is lack of balance. I am curious, have you measured the overall effect of your device on a high precision scale? I will say that clever use of high speed centrifuge devices can result in gravitational anomalies. As for discussions on the theoretical side understanding each other's terminology is paramount. We all create mental pictures and assign terms to them. For example you use the term anti-gravity to ascribe a reverse effect to the pit. In my view anti-gravity would be a symmetrical field source with a force vector directed outward from the source. The mathematics of second order (squared) make such most likely impossible. As you may know gravity is defined by a tensor field of the second order, acceleration is a second order effect d^2v/dt^2...

Likewise I tend to adhere to Ockham's Razor (a.k.a the KIS principle) and one should not invent a completely separate entity (in this case a gravity medium) if the behavior can be accounted for from a single seamless source medium. I have just finished a follow-up paper (current in draft) to my 1993 Simple Beauty work which more clearly shows this linkage deriving the gravitational constant G in term of well known EM properties and a fundamental attenuation coefficient (s). I.e.

G = Qs^2

and

Q = a^2/2piu

where

a = the fine structure constant u = EM permeability s ~= 3.15E-06 m^2/kg

This, to me, is a strong indication that the second order effect of the electric potential (E), I(n the studies I've performed E is a net drift velocity (m/sec) thus Gad E) is acceleration. It would indicate that ALL forces stem from this and results in the equivalence principle.

As for cosmology, I think much of current beliefs are simply wrong. The whole Dark Energy conundrum is based on a discrepancy between the redshift-distance and luminosity-distance estimates of high Z 1A SN data. There are much more prosaic and mundane explanations adhering to Ocham's Razor than resorting to it.

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

Hi Arend,

you wrote:

"You are correct, these DO violate Einstein's theory, which is thus incorrect. As a matter of fact, lots of experimental proof exists that Einstein's relativity is indeed incorrect, one of them as early as 1834: ..."

I would say that relativity is not 'incorrect' it is incomplete. The Lorentz contraction is a physically real phenomena and affects all moving sources of all known granular media. The Lorentz group is a natural result of taking measurements within physically distorted systems. However, mathematically, in reverting to non-distorted systems of measure the Galilean group applies. The only quantifiable difference between Lorentz's 1904 paper and Einstein's 1905 is his concept of relative simultaneity. This is simply a description of how to keep the distortion factors consistent for local FOR's. It s one of an infinite set of methods, thus not strictly scientific thus falls into the category of 'not even wrong'.

socratus sadovnik

searcher

What is dark energy? According to QM and Dirac interpretation the bearer of dark energy must be quantum of virtual particle (s).

Israel Socratus

---

Michael Boyd

Physicist/Engineer

@Paul, You wrote "you use the term anti-gravity to ascribe a reverse effect to the pit. In my view anti-gravity would be a symmetrical field source with a force vector directed outward from the source. The mathematics of second order (squared) make such most likely impossible. As you may know gravity is defined by a tensor field of the second order, acceleration is a second order effect d^2v/dt^2... " Yes my experimental results are consistent with gravity being a second order tensor and antigravity being a third order repulsive hyperbolic tensor [like a balloon] instead.

See http://www.pluralidade.info/Pluralidade1_101_118.pdf at P.16.

"The fact that the gravity force has been measured to be as strong as the electromagnetic forces; below one millimeter distance, and gravity propagates at a slower speed than electromagnetism; implies, the universe is steady-state and the electromagnetic image of the cosmic background shown in Figure 1 suggests that fact. The observed rings are visible because there are two sides to the universe that are quantum entangled through the force of gravity; our normal 4-D universe with x, y, z, and time (Planck's Universe whichfollows the Standard Model); and another dimensional domain for gravity where gravity propagates in several additional spatial dimensions that are large compared to the Planck scale, i.e. the ADD Universe.

With a two sided universe our 4-D universe exists in a parabolic universe where depending on your position relative to the super massive black hole at the center of the universe (the focal point) you will be accelerating or decelerating; where at our position the relationship of mass to normal gravity is described by the relationship (additional mass) bump volume, in [um^3], is equal to:

Vbump = 6(-Gf )^2 -7(-Gf ) - 0:4 (2)

where Gf is the "negative" attractive force of Gravity which is a parabolic function which has two mathematically real factors (Figure 2). Assuming the Gravitational induction force (-Gf ) is variable x and the volume of additional mass is y. Solving for y = 0, by simplifying the equation gives two real factors x1 and x2; where x1 = 1.221255 and x2 = -0.054589.

In the anti-universe quantum entangled through the force of gravity as measured from our 4-D universe; where repulsive " + " anti-gravity exists in hyperbolic space with one real part and two imaginary factors, relative to us, described by the relationship (missing mass) pit volume, in [um^3], is equal to:

Vpit = -3000Gf^3 + 1000Gf^2 - 200Gf + 8 (3)

Assuming the anti-gravitational induction force (Gf ) is variable x and the volume of missing mass is y, then y = -3000x^3 + 1000x^2 - 200x + 8, assuming y = 0 the roots are : x1 = 0.0510251 x2 = 0.141154 + 0.179826i x3 = 0.141154 - 0.179826i.

Boris Lindblom

Independent Telecommunications Professional

@ Arend I think that my views on the matter resonates partly with yours. My main message at http://home.swipnet.se/sirobb/ is a balanced exchange of energy between matter and ether caused by gravitational dipole radiation. This results in a reduction of the speed of light c in the vicinity of matter.

A reduced value of c is synonymous with a cooler and denser ether. This in turn raises the values of the gravitating and gravitated masses (M, m).

The energy content of the gravitated mass E = mc^2 will be affected according to; E = m0 c0/c c^2 = m0*c0*c where index 0 referes to values at infinity.

The gravitating force beeing the local derivative of E becomes; F = m0*c0*dc/dr

P.S. A Google search for "explanation of gravitation" shows that my document is rated as number one out of (for the moment) 1 540 000 results. Boris Lindblom

---

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

Hi Arend,

Further thought on the current state of relativity theory. I think that it isn't so much the mathematical model of GR that is the problem it is the mindset of those that interpret it. For example, the idea that nothing physical can exceed light speed or that causality is violated if something does. The first is unjustified from the equation the second a silly extension of the relative simultaneity method.

First we know for a fact that material objects can and do exceed light speed and we detect this all the time. Its directly results in Cherenkov Radiation. Since the media densities in which we have observed this directly have always been greater than the normalized baseline of so-called empty space it has not been done in a lab setting there yet. However there is evidence of this with the observation of the hyper-luminal jets...

Second the idea that causality is violated by such has no scientific justification and the very fact that the "arrow of time" is unidirectional make such a physical impossibility.

So, the question is, is relativity incorrect or are the practitioner misinterpreting it?

larens imanyuel

Director at Genesis Project

"Dark Energy" is just the difference between the energy content of a flat universe and the energy content of "Matter", which may be calculated from number theory. "Dark Matter" is really an effect of the difference between conformal gravity and general relativity. See Philip Mannheim's papers on conformal gravity to better understand this.

socratus sadovnik

searcher

An alternative opinion.

The Universe is built on two different manifestations of substances:

electromagnetic energy first; and then gravitational field

from interaction between them everything were created.

Question:

Where an electromagnetic energy come from?

How was a gravitational field created?

socratus sadovnik

searcher

Alternative opinion. The Universe is built on two different manifestations of substances: electromagnetic energy first; and then gravitational field from interaction between them everything were created.

Question: Where an electromagnetic energy come from? How was a gravitational field created?

Michael Boyd

Physicist/Engineer

"Where an electromagnetic energy come from?" From photo electrons and bonding electrons in matter. "How was a gravitational field created?" From holes [protons] the presence or absence of which creates the gravitational induction or anti-gravitational induction fields respectively.

Yutao Jiang

RA at Genentech

Based on current experiment result, we can clearly conclude the basic component of the material in our world.

1) If A+A=B+C, B and C must be composed of A.

Based on pair production experiment, when gama-ray (electromagnetic field) meets the electromagnetic field near the nucleus, an electron and positron were generated. Both positron and electron must be composed of electromagnetic field.

2) Magnetic field can be generated from electric field. So electric field and magnetic field are the same material. We can conclude that electron and positron are made up of electric field.

3) The basic properties of electric field are it tends to be in the same direction and uniform density.

4) Only sphere structure can satisfy both properties of electric field.

5) Since the direction property of electric field, there are two possibilities of sphere structure. One is the field directs to the center of the sphere, the other one is opposite. They have the same size. But the electric field direction in both sphere are opposite. These are electron and positron. Other large particles are build up by these basic block.

6) Since the electric field tend to be in the same direction and uniform structure, when it is bend or in an uneven condition, it will try to get back to straight and even density. This tendency is called force. Because large size particle are made up with small single charged particles, the field direction on the surface is alternative. When two large particles meet, the fields align with each other, this is called gravity. That is why gravity is always attractive.

Yutao Jiang

RA at Genentech

continue

7) Because the sphere structure of field in electron and positron, it cannot align well with a parallel electric field. It will move. We called this kind particle charged.

8) When electron and positron attract each, because the sphere structure, they can align very well in some area, they also repel each other in other area. When the repulsion and attraction balance, their distance will not change. This is the gama-ray photon. But since the two balls cannot balance with each other, they will try to reach balance by rolling around each other. Because the same size, they will roll forward. That is why photon is moving all the time.

9) The field density at the center of electron and positron has maximum limitation. But Lower density sphere structure particle may exist. The lower density double balls are formed when there is not enough electric field. These are the photons in different wavelength.

10) The material in our world is made up electric field. The basic forms of electric field are electron, positron, photon and some lower density positive charged or negative charged particles which have the similar structure with electron and positron but have lower electric field density at the center of the sphere. Those charged particles may form large particle. The field from the particle extends until it meet with the field from other particle. Particle does not have an edge. All the particles in the world in connected by field.

11) Energy is the lower density electric field. It can merge with the field in body to make the inner structure change. But its original structure will disappear.

12) Existing: when we talk something exists, it means we can feel or detect this thing by some detector. All the detection is based on the interaction of material. The interaction is because the electric field’s property. Since there are no this kind rule between electric field and other material. They cannot interact with each other. We can not detect their existence.

13) Universe: Our universe is a bunch electric field. It exists in different forms. Because the sphere structure of the basic blocks , it cannot be balanced. It keeps moving. The universe should be a ball structure with many small sphere structured electric field in it. The field density will decrease from center to the outside until it dropped to zero. Other universe may exists. We always think there is space first then the material fill in the space. Actually, because the material exists, we defined space to describe the material. Space is endless, but universe has edge. Any kind form of material has starting and ending point. But the basic material does not. It cannot be created by other thing, it cannot creates other things. It just exists. This is the basic of mass conservation.

14) If we redefine mass as how much material a body has, we can clearly see that all the material, particle, field, photon have mass.

Yutao Jiang

RA at Genentech

15) Dark material: we can measure the spherical structure electric field or particle, like electron, positron or photon, but we cannot measure the paralleled form field, like gravity field or electric field. It is dark to our measurement. We called it dark material.

16) Anti-gravity: Since somebody mentioned this above, I can give a simple explanation. Because the basic blocks of our material world has the sphere structure, the alignment of the field between them has both attraction and repulsion exists at the same time (we call it force). When they are far away, the attraction is bigger than repulsion. We call it gravity. When the attraction and repulsion are equal, the moving will stop. This is why a falling ball stops on the ground. If the distance between the center of the ball and the center of the earth gets smaller than this balanced distance, the repulsion will be bigger than the attraction. You can call it anti-gravity. Actually, all kinds force is related to the distance between the bodies. The repulsion and attraction will switch at the balanced distance. Newton's gravity law gives a brief calculation when the distance between two bodies in a certain range, the attraction part. It did not give the repulsion part. All the equation about force should have both attraction and repulsion parts in it. These two parts should be canceled out at balance distance.

F=Fa(r)-Fr(r), Fa is the attraction part, Fr is the repulsion part At balance distance, Fa=Fr

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

"I would say that relativity is not 'incorrect' it is incomplete. The Lorentz contraction is a physically real phenomena and affects all moving sources of all known granular media. The Lorentz group is a natural result of taking measurements within physically distorted systems. However, mathematically, in reverting to non-distorted systems of measure the Galilean group applies. The only quantifiable difference between Lorentz's 1904 paper and Einstein's 1905 is his concept of relative simultaneity. This is simply a description of how to keep the distortion factors consistent for local FOR's. It s one of an infinite set of methods, thus not strictly scientific thus falls into the category of 'not even wrong'."

Dr. William H. Cantrell wrote the following on the matter of Lorentz contraction:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html

"The origins of length contraction started with G.F. FitzGerald. He was the first to suggest that Lorentz’s deformation model5 for a moving electron also applied to the "macro-world" in order to explain the Michelson-Morley null-result. It was this purely ad hoc idea that started the whole problem. During the first half of the twentieth century, physicists were eager to put length contraction to the test and see if the phenomenon really existed. Several experiments were performed,6-8 but no variation in length was observed. A modern space-based test has been proposed by Renshaw,9 but to date, nodirect experimental verification of relativistic length contraction has ever been measured."

So, according to Cantrell, no evidence exists that confirms that Lorentz contraction is a physically real phenomenon.

And according to Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill, it is the "freak" Lorentz transform which *demands* a Universally fixed speed of light:

http://etherphysics.net/CKT4.pdf

"It was the mistaken idea, that Maxwell’s equations and the standard waveequation should be invariant, which led, by a mathematical freak, to the Lorentz transform (which demands the non-ether concept and a universally constant wave-speed) and to special relativity. The mistake was further compounded by misinterpreting the differential equation for the wave hypercone through any point as the quadratic differential form of a Riemannian metric in imaginary space-time (x, y, z, ict). Further complications ensued when this imaginary space-time was generalised to encompass gravitation in general relativity."

So, if the speed of light is NOT Universally constant, which it isn't, then the Lorentz transform simply does not apply to the real, physical Universe we live in. So, IMHO, it is wrong to apply the Lorentz transform to real physics. And the reason science reverted to this transform is because of the introduction of a chicken-and-egg problem in the Maxwell equations, which has a/o led to the denial of the existence of "Tesla" longitudinal dielectric waves, as I wrote in my article about Einstein's relativity theory:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/Ruins96YearsEinsteinRelativity

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Hi Boris,

At your homepage, you wrote: "I have found that the gravitational force is a function of the gradient of the speed of light caused by a balanced exchange of energy between matter and ether."

Replace "gradient of the speed of light" with "gradient of the electric field" and you're just about there. I think the speed of light relates to the electric field, since it is essentially a measure of aether pressure and thus of it's density. I think you definitely want to read Paul's paper, which he recently published (in draft). IMHO, it is a groundbreaking piece of work, which DOES form the basis for the Unification of Physics even Einstein could not find. Well, Paul did:

http://vixra.org/abs/1310.0237

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

"Further thought on the current state of relativity theory. I think that it isn't so much the mathematical model of GR that is the problem it is the mindset of those that interpret it. For example, the idea that nothing physical can exceed light speed or that causality is violated if something does. The first is unjustified from the equation the second a silly extension of the relative simultaneity method."

I don't think so. It IS the mathematics of the Lorentz transform that is the root of the problem, because of it's *demand* for a fixed Universal speed of light. See my previous post and Dr. C.K. Thornhill.

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

The Lorentz transform is applicable to so-called flat space-time. Light speed is constant in those regions however, as Einstein himself realized and explicitly acknowledged light speed is NOT constant (a.k.a. varies with position) when space-time is 'curved' as is the case with gradients covered by the General Theory of Relativity. It is my opinion that many do not associate physical limitations and limit of domain when applying mathematical expressions.

david yarbrough

theoretical physicist

What sort of equation can not be used to find an unknown when all other variables are obvious.

If neither u nor v = c then where do these velocities come from. If you use a different reference frame, supposedly c remains constant but u and v will change. The resulting answer will change. How do their speeds relative to each other(velocity addition) change just because they are measured from different frames of relative motion?

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

Hi David,

you wrote:

Einstein's formula for velocity addition is S= v+u / 1 + (vu/c^2). When one of the speeds is the speed of light(v=c) then the formula can be reduced to 1+u / 1 + (1u/1) or 1+u / 1+u or u / u. The answer S is always 1. Well duh! However you can not work the formula backwards to determine u. What sort of equation can not be used to find an unknown when all other variables are obvious. If neither u nor v = c then where do these velocities come from. If you use a different reference frame, supposedly c remains constant but u and v will change. The resulting answer will change. How do their speeds relative to each other(velocity addition) change just because they are measured from different frames of relative motion?

You are right, if

D' = D/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)

and

t' = t/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)

then given, by definition,

c =D/t

no matter WHAT v is the value of c is invariant... However, with regards to the Lorentz contraction if it isn't physical then

D' = D/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) transverse to the direction of motion

and

D' = D/(1 - [v/c]^2) along the direction of motion

to get these both to have the very same ray path then

D' = D/[Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) Sqrt(1 - [v(Cos a)/c]^2)]

Where a is the angle measured relative to the direction of motion.

Of course, this is the core factor in all interferometer measurements. Therefore, it would appear to me that lack of fringe is direct, measurable evidence of the physical reality of the contraction. In reality, the OWS of light is ic +/- v and TWS is, actually, c[Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)]. However, since all ray paths follow the above rules and c = D/t the result will always factor speed out of the equation. Like you say, Duh!

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

"The Lorentz transform is applicable to so-called flat space-time. Light speed is constant in those regions however, as Einstein himself realized and explicitly acknowledged light speed is NOT constant (a.k.a. varies with position) when space-time is 'curved' as is the case with gradients covered by the General Theory of Relativity. It is my opinion that many do not associate physical limitations and limit of domain when applying mathematical expressions."

Your last statement is certainly true. For example, the law of conservation of energy is being applied to "open systems" all over the place, whereby "free energy" systems are laughed away by default, without even considering the possibility of energy exchange with some unrecognized energy source.

I think you do have a point that the Lorentz transform itself "isn't even wrong" when applied to flat space-time as long as one realizes that the curved space-time it defines is just a coordinate transform, essentially some abstract book keeping for calculating the position of something in space(-time).

It goes wrong, however, when one does not resolve the question of what force gives rise to the fictitious force being felt as gravity, because when you account that to "space itself being curved" you introduce a force which is enacted on matter by the nothingness of empty space itself and thus one introduces a violation of conservation of energy. Tesla said it like this:

http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/TeslaGivesViewOnPower#NoSpaceCurvature

Here is a pretty good explanation of what is going on:

http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Introduction_to_general_relativity

"Inertial frames of reference have flat coordinate systems. Flat coordinate systems lead to an absence of fictitious forces."

For the difference between flat spacetime coordinate systems and curved ones, they note:

"The noteworthy fact here is that the coefficients depend on time. They are not constants. The general principle is that:

A coordinate system is flat if its metric coefficients are constant."

So, they introduce a time dependent coordinate transform, without realizing that any time dependent variation requires a real force with real energy exchange between the two "things" exchanging the force, be it the aether or some piece of matter. Otherwise, you get a violation of conservation of energy, since that law fundamentally rises from "action equals -reaction".

So, they run into a problem:

"For ordinary fictitious forces, we can readily explain things by transforming away from the curved coordinate system to some flat coordinate system. For example, we can "transform away" the centrifugal force of a rotating amusement park ride by viewing the action from a stationary observer on the ground. For gravity, the equivalent transformation is to a coordinate system that is in free fall, such as that of the person falling down an elevator shaft. [...]The problem is that spacetime itself is curved."

And that's where the Rubicon is crossed. For gravity, we supposedly get a fictitious force, originating from the nothingness of empty space itself being curved, thus supposedly enacting a force for which it is totally acceptable to violate the law of conservation of energy.

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

"Of course, this is the core factor in all interferometer measurements. Therefore, it would appear to me that lack of fringe is direct, measurable evidence of the physical reality of the contraction. In reality, the OWS of light is ic +/- v and TWS is, actually, c[Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)]. However, since all ray paths follow the above rules and c = D/t the result will always factor speed out of the equation. Like you say, Duh!"

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/Lorentz%20Contraction.asp

"Lorentz contraction is not a change in the physical length of rods or meter sticks. Rather, it is an illusion introduced in special relativity by the lack of remote simultaneity.

[...]

The original motivation for length contraction was in the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In it, each half of a split light-beam travels along one of two equal-length, perpendicular arms of an interferometer and bounces off mirrors back to an observer. Surprisingly, both beams arrived back at the same time and produced no interference fringe shifts, even if the interferometer was turned to different orientations. Yet the Earth is moving at a speed of no less than 30 km/s in its orbit around the Sun, not to mention possible higher speeds in its Galactic orbit. So the round-trip travel time for a light beam through a light-carrying medium (aether) was expected to take longer when moving along the direction of observer motion than when moving perpendicular to that direction, for the same reason that a round-trip in a canoe takes longer when the stream is flowing than when the water is still. Yet observations show that the round-trip times for light beams in any direction were actually the same. This was explained in SR by length contraction along the direction of motion, making the interferometer arms shorter by just enough to compensate for the otherwise-longer travel time through the moving aether.

In LR, because there is no length contraction, it cannot be invoked to explain the lack of fringe shifts in the Michelson-Morley (M-M) experiment. But then the absence of fringe shifts implies that Earth has no motion relative to the aether."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

"Lorentz tried in 1899 and 1904 to expand his theory to all orders in v/c by introducing the Lorentz transformation. In addition, he assumed that also non-electromagnetic forces (if they exist) transform like electric forces. However, Lorentz's expression for charge density and current were incorrect, so his theory did not fully exclude the possibility of detecting the aether. Eventually, it was Henri Poincaré who in 1905 corrected the errors in Lorentz's paper and actually incorporated non-electromagnetic forces (including gravitation) within the theory, which he called "The New Mechanics". Many aspects of Lorentz's theory were incorporated into special relativity (SR) with the works of Albert Einstein and Hermann Minkowski."

The first question to ask is: from the wave-particle duality principle, we KNOW that all matter IS electro-magnetic in nature. So, how can there possibly be ANY other fundamental forces BUT the electromagnetic?

From your aether model, wherein you consider Gravity as the Gradient of Electric Field and wherein you construct a single simple model that encompasses all known physical processes, it becomes clear that gravity should not be considered to be separate from the other "fundamental interactions". Now if there would be a movement of the Earth relative to the aether, a resulting force would be present and an acceleration would result until, after time, the planet would be at rest with respect to the (local) aether.

In other words: It is to be totally expected that the Earth has no motion relative to the aether and therefore the lack of fringe is also totally expected (from your theory)...

George Rajna

Theoretical Physics Researcher

This paper explains the Special and General Relativity from the observed effects of the accelerating electrons, causing naturally the experienced changes of the electric field potential along the moving electric charges. The accelerating electrons explain not only the Maxwell Equations and the Special Relativity, but the Heisenberg Uncertainty Relation, the wave particle duality and the electron’s spin also, building the bridge between the Classical and Relativistic Quantum Theories. The changing acceleration of the electrons explains the created negative electric field of the magnetic induction, the electromagnetic inertia, the changing relativistic mass and the Gravitational Force, giving a Unified Theory of the physical forces. Taking into account the Planck Distribution Law of the electromagnetic oscillators also, we can explain the electron/proton mass rate and the Weak and Strong Interactions.

http://www.academia.edu/4215078/Accelerated_Relativity

Nikola Milovic

Independent Research Professional

The universe is much easier conceived than it sees science and analyzes . Where little is known about some phenomena , for it multiplies themes, Lemma and dilemmas. It is only because we are trying to develop a correct theory on the unknown facts and wrong settings . The universe is infinite space , motionless and " loaded " substance to be called ether. This energy as " Untreated substance " fills the tiniest elementary particles and all bodies and energy and everything in it moves . The movement of the body through the ether should imagine so he stopped and passes through the body in motion , and rest is in it. Another " prefabricated " vision ether is matter and its other supporting elements : magnetism , electrical charge, gravity , heat . This is derived from ether through high vibration produced by consciousness of the universe (that people will never be able to perform) . Such transformation of ether into the matter is conducted in places that we call white hole, a reverse cycle of black holes , when the matter " back in the homeland " . So, to be studied ether and forget the big bang and everything related to it, because it is all unnatural, illogical and detrimental to the development of our individual consciousness. Lorenz transformation , even Einstein 's theory of relativity and quantum theory to be replaced by what is perceived intuitively thinking about ourselves and our dual entity ( like the universe )

Yutao Jiang

RA at Genentech

The material in this world is simply made up of a single component, electric field. Its stable condition is radiation arrangement or structure. The whole radiation structure is called particle. The paralleled radiation part is called field. The gravity field is alternative electric field from the particle surface. Since this alternation structure, it has wave property. Because the vector property of electric field, it has two ways in the radiation structure, one is the vector towards the center, electron, the other one is the vector outwards the center, positron.

Space and time are math concepts to describe material. Space is endless, Material has edge. The universe has edge. Because of the basic black of the material has ball structure, they cannot form a stable structure. That is why the world is keeps changing.

Yutao Jiang

RA at Genentech

Because it is impossible to reach a balanced condition among the basic blocks, the balls keep adjust their position to try to gain the balance. We observed movement. Movement is not relative. It is a description of how unbalanced a body is. We wrongfully described it in a relative way.

light speed is not constant. There is no real vacuum in the universe. All the space in the universe is filled by field. Because of photon's structure, it cannot stop moving. Its speed does not rely on the light source. But its speed is affected by the environment. In a even media, its speed could be constant. But there is no even media in the universe. The field alway start from a star or planet. Its even density layer is in a round shape.

Einstein's space curvature idea is wrong too. When a planet move around a star, it moves around the same gravity field density layer. If space is curved, we do not need star. The planet should move in curve track by itself.

Yutao Jiang

RA at Genentech

Because with current equipment, we cannot detect the parallel field, like gravity field. we call it dark material or dark energy.

Energy is a low density field. We can get rid of particles, like molecule or atom, from a system. but we cannot get rid of field. That is why we observed vacuum energy.

Because both particle and field are made up the something, electric field, they can exchange among each other. We call it mass-energy conservative.

When a body changes, some field merged into the body, like photon absorption, we call this part field energy. Some still keep its original structure, such as electron transfer in chemical reaction, we call it mass.

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

Hi Arend,

You wrote

... In other words: It is to be totally expected that the Earth has no motion relative to the aether and therefore the lack of fringe is also totally expected (from your theory)...

Things are indeed both simple at the core concepts but get extremely complicated. Indeed all that holds matter together is EM forces (Van Der Waal, Electrostatic, ... etc). As I pointed out and sent you a scan of a reference that all moving sources propagating fields undergo the Lorentz contraction. It is simply not possible for this not to happen. As you noted aether drag is a very real phenomena as the Pioneer spacecraft illustrate. But as you also point out, in any closed path circuit the superfluidic nature of the medium quickly establishes a back action causing the medium to 'spin-up' and this drag all but disappears. But! currents still exist as is clearly evidenced by the CMB Doppler. Thus, if this current causes the phenomena of both the Magnetic Moment Anomaly and the hyperfine splitting then the concept of fully entrained aether seems to be contrary to this observational evidence. However, there is more, time dilation without the fringe shift is, to me, also clear evidence of the physical reality of even IF there wasn't an unavoidable contraction of field profiles of moving sources in any fluid medium.

Best Regards,

Paul

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

"As you noted aether drag is a very real phenomena as the Pioneer spacecraft illustrate. But as you also point out, in any closed path circuit the superfluidic nature of the medium quickly establishes a back action causing the medium to 'spin-up' and this drag all but disappears. But! currents still exist as is clearly evidenced by the CMB Doppler. Thus, if this current causes the phenomena of both the Magnetic Moment Anomaly and the hyperfine splitting then the concept of fully entrained aether seems to be contrary to this observational evidence. However, there is more, time dilation without the fringe shift is, to me, also clear evidence of the physical reality of even IF there wasn't an unavoidable contraction of field profiles of moving sources in any fluid medium."

The aether drag hypothesis pagen on WP says a/o the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis

"The aether drag hypothesis dealt with the question whether the luminiferous aether is dragged by or entrained within moving matter. According to the first variant no relative motion exists between Earth and aether; according to the second one, relative motion exists and thus the speed of light should depend on the speed of this motion ("aether wind"), which should be measurable by instruments at rest on Earth's surface.

[...]

For George Stokes (1845) the model of an aether which is totally unaffected or only partially affected by moving matter was unnatural and unconvincing, so he assumed that the aether is completely dragged within and in the vicinity of matter, partially dragged at larger distances, and stays at rest in free space. Also Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (1890) incorporated a complete aether drag model within his elaboration of Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism, to bring it into accord with the Galilean principle of relativity. That is, if it is assumed that the aether is at rest within matter in one reference frame, the Galilean transformation gives the result that matter and (entrained) aether travel with the same speed in another frame of reference."

This hypothesis is based on the idea that matter is something other than an electromagnetic phenomenon, which we now know not to be the case from the famous dual slit experiment and the resulting wave-particle duality principle, a founding principle in modern physics.

Now if particles ARE electromagntic in nature, and thus according to your theory incoporate a rotational movement of the aether, we can deduce that any particle includes at least one vortex. And thus the aether is NOT at rest within matter, it probably moves at the same speed as longitudinal dielectric waves, sqrt(3) times c. So, a simple particle most likely looks something like this:

So, the problem is that aether is considered NOT to be part of "particles", while in reality particles ARE nothing but aether moving in specific geometric patterns, patterns which we can find back from the nano to cosmic scale. See Dave Lapoint's primer field video's, wherein he shows how this patterns can be made visible in the laboratory:

http://m.youtube.com/user/davelapoint777?&desktop_uri=%2Fuser%2Fdavelapoint777

So, the fundamental misunderstanding is that it's the matter which supposedly causes the aether to move, the same mistake as has been made in the Maxwell equations. It's the other way around. It's the movement of the aether which causes matter to move, as in pushing gravity models.

In other words: the Earth moves in 3D spirals trough space, around the sun, because it is situated within a giant and extremely complex system of inter-dependent aether vortices, which determine the movement of the whole galaxy and everything that is in it.

Only when an object for one reason or the other starts moving with respect to the background aether movements, THEN you get aether drag, as with the Pioneer probes.

Boris Lindblom

Independent Telecommunications Professional

@ Arend

Further more how does he accounts for the fact that an E-field can be boath attactive and repulsive depending on the polarities involved? I would like to see the E-fields as circulary polarized where the sense of rotation (left or wright) determines the polarity. Boris Lindblom

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Hi Boris,

You wrote:

"I am really impressed over his treatment of the subject in "The Atomic Vortex Hypothesis, a Forgotten Path to Unification" I must say though that I object against his view of the gravitational force as beeing similar to the electric force."

Have any better idea how to explain the Biefeld Brown effect?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biefeld%E2%80%93Brown_effect

Note that the generally accepted explanation of "ionization creating trust" does not explain WHY the capacitors need to be ASYMMETRIC as in: "creating a gradient in the electric field", even though WP notes that the gradient is indeed created around the positive (small) plate....

"Further more how does he accounts for the fact that an E-field can be boath attactive and repulsive depending on the polarities involved?"

That is an intriguing question. Particles are EM waves and thus

always* are both electric and magnetic in nature. It appears that the

magnetic part, a vortex, either "sucks" up aether or "blows away" aether. Now since aether cannot be created nor destroyed, some ciculation / reuse of aether needs to be there. Thus, a portion of this circulation is present in a rotationa, magnetic, shape/flow and another portion in a non-rotational, thus non-magnetic, shape/flow, which would be the electro"static".

In other words: one is tempted to conclude there needs to be a situation whereby both a magnetic (rotational component) and a electrostatic component need to be present in order for a circulation of aether to result, such that you only "see" the electro-"static".

Boris Lindblom

Independent Telecommunications Professional

Hi Arend I must say that I fail to understand why this "Biefeld-Brown effect" has anything with gravitation to do.

Boris

Arend Lammertink

Advisor ICT & Innovation at Agentschap NL

Hi Boris,

The Biefeld-Brown effect allows one to make "lifters", anti-gravity devices:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/lifters/main.htm

NASA prepared a standard reply for inquiries about this stuff:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/nasarep.htm

"DESCRIPTION OF EFFECT: The "Biefeld-Brown" effect claims anomalous thrust from unusually shaped capacitors that are charged to high-voltage. The claims are often touted as "antigravity" devices or as the discovery of some other new physics, despite the fact that credible investigations have concluded that ion wind is being misinterpreted as the mysterious force. It is quite easy to get visible thrust from ion wind effects.

Most of the original documentation comes from Thomas Townsend Brown, over the period of 1950-1973. Some patent numbers for the Brown's "electrokinetics" include, 2,949,550, 3,022,430, 3,187,206, 2,949,550, & 3,018,394.

There are, however, still some unresolved issues. Specifically, during the Talley tests (ref. below), anomalous forces were observed during the on/off transients -- anomalies that were never resolved. Also, the "folk lore" on the topic suggests that the "real" effect will not appear unless the voltage is above 14 kV and when there is a slight current leakage across the capacitor.

For a credible assessment, study this report:

Talley, R .L., (Veritay Technology, Inc. East Amherst NY), Twenty First Century Propulsion Concept, PLTR-91-3009, Final Report for the period Feb 89 to July 90, on Contract FO4611-89-C-0023, Phillips Laboratory, Air Force Systems Command, Edwards AFB, CA 93523-5000, (1991).

In addition, this more recent conference paper demonstrated that the effects could be traced back to corona wind phenomena.

Tajmar, M., "Experimental Investigation of 5-D Divergent Currents as a Gravity-Electromagnetism Coupling Concept", in "Proceedings of the Space Technology and Applications International Forum, (STAIF-2000)," El-Genk editor, AIP Conference Proceedings 504, American Institute of Physics, New York, 2000, pp. 998-1003.

REQUIRED NEXT STEPS: There has not yet been RELIABLE, IMPARTIAL, and TESTABLE DATA published on such claims (Capitalization for emphasis) that resolves the remaining issues. A credible, objective, peer-reviewed publication about the unresolved experimental observations of this effect, written with sufficient detail for independent replication, is needed. To be reliable, such publications must also address the variety of conventional effects that might incur misinterpretations, such as ion wind, corona discharges, electrostatic interactions, etc.

In future calls for proposals or papers on this topic from the BPP Project, the judging criteria places a greater emphasis on the reliability of the results than on the viability of the effect. The first researcher who succeeds at producing a peer-reviewed article on this topic will have a noteworthy advantage in any future solicitations on this effect.

Until this is done, this Biefeld-Brown subject and its variants will still be considered as mostly non-credible research."

So, according to NASA, there are "unresolved issues".

So far, there are two hypothesis:

it is a simple case of "ion thrust".
it is a real ant-gravity effect, showing the intricate relation

between the electric field and gravity.

Paul's work suggest option 2 is the correct one.

Boris Lindblom

Independent Telecommunications Professional

Hi Arend

I go for alternative one; it is a simple case of "ion thrust". Boris

Paul Stowe

Engineer III Worksheet Specialist at BioRad

Hi Boris, you wrote,

I am really impressed over his treatment of the subject in "The Atomic Vortex Hypothesis, a Forgotten Path to Unification" I must say though that I object against his view of the gravitational force as beeing similar to the electric force. Further more how does he accounts for the fact that an E-field can be boath attactive and repulsive depending on the polarities involved? I would like to see the E-fields as circulary polarized where the sense of rotation (left or wright) determines the polarity

Let's look at the electric field (E) as it is expressed in that model.

Since charge q is a harmonic oscillation with dimensional units of kg/sec. And we know that qE is a force, therefore E must manifest as a velocity or flow. Well as you know this is a vector and two circulations can either cause an attractive or repulsive as two parallel rolling logs in water can easily demonstrate. This is the magnetic attraction/repulsion effect. Likewise colliding flow will repulse, diverging an apparent attraction. Now if E is a velocity then the Grad of E is what? The Grad is a second order effect add is directly related to velocity squared. Whereas v can be either positive or negative v squared is always positive. Therefore the force is always directed towards the source of the gradient. For example, it does not matter which direction the fluid flows through a nozzle the force remains directed towards the smaller diameter throat.

Now, to your later question about the Bifield-Brown it is NOT! mainly an ion wind. You can prove this to yourself by immersing an apparatus in a pure insulating fluid like oil. There cannot be a current but the device will lift itself completely out of the oil. Feynman explains this quite well in his lectures (Vol II Chapter 10, pg 10-8). But the Grad of E is a totally different animal the E. Acceleration is drastically different that simple velocity. No one was more surprised than I to find that gravity is a result of electromagnetism.

Regards,

Paul Stowe

New reaction under construction

Hi Paul,

You wrote:

"As I pointed out and sent you a scan of a reference that all moving sources propagating fields undergo the Lorentz contraction. It is simply not possible for this not to happen."

OK, forgot about that one. :) Uploaded it to my server:

http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Uno_Ingard_Acoustics-Handbook_of_Physics.pdf

What that describes, though, is a different concept than the current relativistic Lorentz contraction. Within the current relativistic paradigm, Lorentz contraction is considered to be a measurement or observation problem and no real, physical contraction takes place:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

"In physics, length contraction is the phenomenon of a decrease in length measured by an observer of objects which are traveling at any non-zero velocity relative to the observer. This contraction (more formally called Lorentz contraction or Lorentz�FitzGerald contraction after Hendrik Lorentz and George FitzGerald) is usually only noticeable at a substantial fraction of the speed of light. Length contraction is only in the direction parallel to the direction in which the observed body is travelling.

[...]

Thus the definition of simultaneity is crucial for measuring the length of moving objects. In Newtonian mechanics, simultaneity is absolute and therefore L and L_0 are always equal. Yet in relativity theory the constancy of light velocity in all inertial frames in connection with the relativity of simultaneity destroys this equality. So if an observer in one frame claims to have measured the object's endpoints simultaneously, the observers in all other inertial frames will argue that the object's endpoints were not measured simultaneously. The deviation between the measurements in all inertial frames is given by the Lorentz transformation. As the result of this transformation (see Derivation), the proper length remains unchanged and always denotes the greatest length of an object, yet the length of the same object as measured in another inertial frame is shorter than the proper length. This contraction only occurs in the line of motion, and can be represented by the following relation (where v is the relative velocity and c the speed of light)

    L=L_{0} / <gamma>.

[...]

Eventually, Albert Einstein (1905) was the first who completely removed the ad hoc character from the contraction hypothesis, by demonstrating that this contraction was not due to motion through a supposed aether, but was due to the change in the notions of space, time and simultaneity brought about by special relativity. Einstein's view was further elaborated by Hermann Minkowski and others, who demonstrated the geometrical meaning of all relativistic effects in spacetime."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

"The length of any object in a moving frame will appear foreshortened in the direction of motion, or contracted. The amount of contraction can be calculated from the Lorentz transformation. The length is maximum in the frame in which the object is at rest.

[...]

A clock in a moving frame will be seen to be running slow, or "dilated" according to the Lorentz transformation. The time will always be shortest as measured in its rest frame. The time measured in the frame in which the clock is at rest is called the "proper time"."

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/mmedia/specrel/lc.cfm

"One of the peculiar aspects of Einstein's theory of special relativity is that the length of objects moving at relativistic speeds undergoes a contraction along the dimension of motion. An observer at rest (relative to the moving object) would observe the moving object to be shorter in length. That is to say, that an object at rest might be measured to be 200 feet long; yet the same object when moving at relativistic speeds relative to the observer/measurer would have a measured length which is less than 200 ft. This phenomenon is not due to actual errors in measurement or faulty observations. The object is actually contracted in length as seen from the stationary reference frame. The amount of contraction of the object is dependent upon the object's speed relative to the observer."

So, within the relativistic paradigm, length contraction is considered to be an illusion, caused by time being relative between the observer and the object being observed. No consideration is being given about the medium in which the wave phenomena are propagating. Also, no consideration whatsoever is given about the interaction between the moving object and the aether, while it is clear that since any object IS some kind of highly complex electro-magnetic phenomenon, it is clear that a moving "object", which itself consists of aether rotating in specific geometric patterns, will be influenced by it's interaction with the surrounding aether in increasing amount when it's speed with respect to the aether increases.

The contraction you describe is a result of wave interaction within the medium, the aether, and is considered to be a real physical contraction of the wave phenomena propagating within the medium. And you write in your article:

"Since all fields are equally affected including those that constitute the structure of material objects this change in length cannot be directly measurable just like an ellipse can appear to be a perfect circle on a computer screen where the aspect ratio matches the inverse of the distortion ratio."

 although it still does not take

When we really want to understand this phenomenon

However, when a radiating "object" moves relatively to the aether and thus radiates

[to be continued]

Dr. Cantrell says the following about time dilation:

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html

"There is absolutely no argument that time-keeping mechanisms do slow down when moving at high speed, and that in most instances, they obey the time dilation formula of Lorentz and Poincar�. (There are violations, as Jefimenko10 has pointed out.) The dissident argument here is really more of a metaphysical one. A distinction should be made between Universal absolute invariant time and gravitational effects acting on time-keeping mechanisms such as water clocks, grandfather clocks, digital watches, radioactive decay rates, and cesium clocks (cesium atoms), to name just a few.

All sources of oscillation in nature are influenced by a change in gravitational potential. To build a clock, we have no choice but to exploit oscillator sources. Unfortunately we cannot construct an ideal clock even if we use cesium atoms by definition. This was aptly demonstrated by the famous H�fele-Keating experiment11,12 in which cesium clocks were flown around the world. The atomic clock transported eastward lost 59 ns, while the atomic clock transported westward gained 273 ns, compared to the stationary laboratory standard.

All physical devices used for time keeping are subject to error when accelerated, decelerated, or constrained to move linearly through a variation in gravitational potential. The H�fele-Keating experiment is not a failure for relativity theory, but the question should be asked: Is time itself dilated, or are internal processes merely altered by moving through a gravitational field? Metaphysically speaking, we do not consider this to be a distinction without a difference."

An interesting result that d

west - against rotation- lower speed as earth and thus local aether, thus lower pressure, lower frequency, clock

east - along with earth rotation - faster as local aether - clocks ticks slower (!) - loses time

http://www.energeticforum.com/186031-post1213.html

Eric Dollard wrote:

"There are four distinct forms of energy stored in a winding, Magnetic Pair:

L, Leakage Inductance, Henry M, Mutual Inductance, per Henry

Dielectric Pair:

C, Leakage Capacitance, Farad K, Mutual Capacitance, per Farad"

I wrote:

"This describes the energy storage in a coil winding, which give rise to a very interesting concept. You see, you have the internal "storage" capacitance, K, which represents the electric energy stored internally in the coil and you have the "leakage" capacitance, which represents the electric energy stored in the environment of the coil. And the same story holds for the magnetic energy, represented by the inductance.

There is one very peculiar detail in Eric's descriptions and that is the "per Henry" and "per Farad" he uses to describe the internally stored energies in a winding. Eric also relates this not to "space" but to "counter space", which is somewhat strange terminology, but it is an important principle.

What he actually says is that for both internally stored energies, the amount of energy that can be stored increases the smaller the distances between the coil wires. In other words: the more you *contract* your coil, the *more* energy you can store inside the volume of your coil.

WOW!

What this means is that you can store an infinit amount of energy in an infinitely small coil, *BOTH* in the electrical as well as in the magnetic domain.

Now this only describes "a coil" and does so in one dimension. However, when we consider a particle as being some kind of rotating vortex-like structure in the aether, then it is clear that such an "object" can also be described as a very small coil that can be characterized by these 4 electrical elements.

And if we can do that, we can also describe such a coil as being made out of even smaller coils. And we can continue to make our coils smaller and smaller and smaller, mathematically. All the way down to the infinitely small...

In other words: there is no fundamental "God" particle or anything else you could say the aether is made of.

What we are thus looking at is a fundamental "Goddess" of physical reality, which is in essence an energy pit that potentially *contracts* all the way down to the infinitly small. Yep, our Goddess is infinite, she's infinitely small. The more energy you throw at her, the less space she needs to contain that energy. She grows inwards towards infinity... :D

All right. We have thus established that the "mutual" capacitance and inductance of an object, or our Goddess, essentially describe a contracting energy pit that can store an infinit amount of energy.

But we also have the "leakage" capacitance and inductance. This represents the external storage of energy, the energy that *expands* into space. And that energy store can also store an infinite amount of energy. In an infinite amount of space. And if you would take all that energy together, then you would have all that is, which would be God. And he is also infinite, but in the other direction: he grows outwards towards infinity... :D"

Erik Verlinde wrote an interesting paper a while ago:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.0785

"Starting from first principles and general assumptions Newton's law of gravitation is shown to arise naturally and unavoidably in a theory in which space is emergent through a holographic scenario. Gravity is explained as an entropic force caused by changes in the information associated with the positions of material bodies. A relativistic generalization of the presented arguments directly leads to the Einstein equations. When space is emergent even Newton's law of inertia needs to be explained. The equivalence principle leads us to conclude that it is actually this law of inertia whose origin is entropic.

[...]

Our starting point was that space has one emergent holographic direction. The additional ingredients were that (i) there is a change of entropy in the emergent direction (ii) the number of degrees of freedom are proportional to the area of the screen, and (iii) the energy is evenly distributed over these degrees of freedom. After that it is unavoidable that the resulting force takes the form of Newton�s law."

Very interesting detail is that Planck's constant drops out of the Newtonian equations:

"Why does the entropy precisely change like this when one shifts by one Compton wave length? In fact, one may wonder why we needed to introduce Planck�s constant in the first place, since the only aim was to derive the classical laws of Newton. Indeed, eventually drops out of the most important formulas. So, in principle one could multiply it with any constant and still obtain the same result. Hence, just serves as an auxiliary variable that is needed for dimensional reasons. It can therefore be chosen at will, and defined so that (3.5) is exactly valid. The main content of this equation is therefore simply that there is an entropy change perpendicular to the screen proportional to the mass m and the displacement ∆x. That is all there is to it."

However, for the derivation of General Relativity, he first needs to introduce the relativistic generalization of Newton's potential, before he can derive Einsteins equations:

"In general relativity the natural generalization of Newton�s potential is,

φ = 1/2 log(−ξ^a ξ_a )

Its exponent eφ represents the redshift factor that relates the local time coordinate to that at a reference point with φ = 0, which we will take to be at infinity.

[...]

The local temperature T on the screen is now in analogy with the non relativistic situation defined by

T = h/2π e^φ N^b <delta>_b φ.

Here we inserted a redshift factor eφ , because the temperature T is measured with respect to the reference point at infinity.

[...]

Note that again h drops out, as expected. The equation (5.34) is indeed known to be the natural generalization of Gauss�s law to General Relativity. Namely, the right hand side is precisely Komar�s definition of the mass contained inside an arbitrary volume inside any static curved space time. It can be derived by assuming the Einstein equations."