A Sound Magnetic Base

1235742

Comments

  • edited August 2014
    Worth watching over



    Remember the plasma consists of 2 rotations, and the radial lines of" force" are only an artefact of the rotations that are occurring in " void" space. The dielectric field explanation explained by Dollard explains its best. Scientists just will not accept a rotational force?
  • edited August 2014
    Now David LaPoint's primer fields series, cut short by " mysterious" circumstances, can be understood and incorporated.
    Do not be naive to the fact that disinformation may be being manipulated in these " Hollywood" film series. Many commercial interests are jockeying to gain an advantage for the new emerging technologies.
  • For those who revere Newton as I do, and yet perceive him as flawed, as I also do, attend to this :-


  • edited November 2015
    I would like to bring attention one more time to Laithwaite's big wheel experiment which has recently been replicated by Veritasium:

    Anti-Gravity Wheel?
    Anti-Gravity Wheel Explained (not really).

    I have conjectured some hypotheses as of what takes place in Laithwaite's experiment earlier in this discussion thread. Here is a reiteration of the most plausible of those hypotheses.

    Hypothesis 1. Laithwaite has discovered a nearly reactionless mechanism for converting the energy of object's rotational motion into gravitational potential energy of that object. The key words here are nearly reactionless. Converting the energy of rotational motion to and from potential energy of gravitation is no big deal provided there is no shortage of gross matter to be used as reaction base. Indeed, that is exactly what Maxwell's Pendulum does - it converts back and forth the energy of rotational motion to and from potential energy. But it is entirely different story when there is no gross matter in abundance like the Earth to thrust from.

    If this hypothesis turns out to be true, then Laithwaite's mechanism could be used for converting the energy of rotational motion into the energy of translational motion in open space, i.e. it could become the basis for constructing a propulsion system where a relatively small amount of jet reaction is used as a trigger mechanism for converting the energy of fast rotational motion into the energy of translational motion of the rocket, while the rotational motion itself is sustained by mass-less, or nearly mass-less means like electricity or nuclear energy.

    I can't stress enough the importance of the underlined part of the previous sentence: the conversion of the energy of fast rotational motion into the energy of unidirectional translational motion is not possible in open space without using a relatively small amount of jet reaction as a trigger mechanism. Perhaps that is exactly what the large army of so-called inertioid inventors have failed to appreciate: all those wonderful "reactionless" devices always work in terrestrial conditions regardless how smooth the surface of contact might be, but they always fail when the contact with the Earth is removed altogether. That's why no inertioid will ever work in open space without the help of that tiny amount of jet reaction to be used as a trigger mechanism. In the terrestrial conditions the role of the trigger mechanism is played by the forces of friction, the tiny amounts of which are always present no matter how hard one tries to get rid of them by using lubricants, rollers, or any other means.

    The above statement requires an important clarification. I do not believe for a second that Newton's third law is violated in Laithwaite's experiment, or could be violated for that matter. That is to say, if we have a completely isolated system, then there is absolutely no way to convert the energy of rotational motion of the parts of the system into the energy of translational motion in a way that upsets the state of rest, or uniform and rectilinear motion of the barycenter of the system. But the fact is that there are no completely isolated systems anywhere in the universe. While speaking of isolated systems we usually think in terms of gross, i.e. ponderable, matter. Excluding aether from the picture is what makes apparent violation of Newton's third law possible.

    As far as I know, it had never occurred to Laithwaite, or anyone else who repeated his big wheel experiment, to measure the spin rate of the wheel at the high point and compare it to that at the low point. If the rates are equal, that would refute my hypothesis, but if the spin of the wheel slows down as the wheel goes up and if, in addition, the spin rate difference at high and low points accounts for the gravitational energy gain, that would basically prove my conjecture.
  • Since I am positing plasma as the individual magnets in Eds description of magnetic behaviour, I thought it important to have a fundamental concept of plasma.
    Basically the concept must relate to fire, spark and radiation in a fluid state or medium.
    This article on the Probe developed by Langmuir for probing bulk properties of plasma space relies on the electron concept. Since this concept is fundamentally a plasma concept I will advise replacing the word electron by an individual plasma fluid element which sustains the ratio between the plasma deposited to the total initial quantity of matter JJ Thompson measured in his cathode ray plasma device.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langmuir_probe

    It is worth remembering that Thompson accelerated only a small surface area of the plasma ball produced around the cathode in hus experimental set up. His results therefore distend the concept of a plasma fluid element and thus the concept of a Newtonian motive force as Newton set out in his philosophy of quantity for absolute systems that are based on the Galilean principle.
  • edited August 2014
    @Barau_R_Tour

    My recent research into the Newtonian concept of Centripetal force has revised my understanding of the Newtonian concept of Vis or power/ force. In addition my research into the Galilean principle substantially altered my understanding of the Newtonian triumvirate of vis : absolute, accelerative and motive vis, that is force / power.

    Newtons principles or propositions stated as laws of motion are misunderstood.. They are neither universal or infallible. Their validity derives from his general philosophy of quantity and his reliance on the acceptance of metaphysical absolutes of space, time and Vis.

    While during his era this was hardly a contestable basis for developing a philosophical exposition, and indeed was the most preeminent basis for such a philosophy, today we question the absolute concepts vigorously and rightly. Many believe the hype that Einstein thought up relativity, but in fact it is clearly a Newtonian oncept, which he discusses in his philosophy the Astrological Principles of Natural Philosophhy and the Systems of Worlds, and rejects as the basis on which to build his philosophy. Instead he promotes the absolutes as the most " sensible" basis because as an educated person this reflects the opinion of the ancient philosophers who were revered as Wise.

    This affects every aspect of how you and I currently understand force in this Newtonian system!
  • edited January 2015
  • edited January 2015
    @ Jehovajah

    You may find reasonable what this fellow has to say:

    Pulling Energy from the Vacuum - Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden
  • edited January 2015
    @ Jehovajah
    Many believe the hype that Einstein thought up relativity, but in fact it is clearly a Newtonian concept
    This is a potentially misleading statement. Firstly, Newton has nothing to do with Einstein’s twisted version of relativity. Secondly, relativity did not start with Newton, so it is not clear what you mean by saying that relativity is a Newtonian concept.

    Einstein screwed up the notion of relativity big time, that's what gave it a bad taste in the eyes of many; not entirely unlike how his tribesmen inverted inside out the notion of racism and gave it a very bad taste indeed. To distance themselves from Einstein, the proponents of relativity, in the Machian sense of that word, came up with a new word “relational”. The proponents of racism, in the sense that race has profound and far reaching implications in the affairs of mankind (which is undeniably true), came up with a new word “racialism” in a futile (so far) attempts to shelter themselves from the terrifying power of being stigmatized as racists.
  • edited August 2014
    Counter space or the space inside a Metron represents that continuity which is beyond our ability or inclination o measure. No matter how small we say our Metron is it is finite. It cannot describe infinitesimal extension or even infinite extension, although it is better at processing the latter than the former!

    For quantum Mechanics to justify the name mechanics it must solve the issue of the means of constructing nano scale geometrical forms. We cannot construct them but nature produces them all the time! The best we can do at the momnt is smash things and then take a statistical sample of the results. How accurate our mechanisms are depends on the statistical result of how many geometrical forms we have" constructed" . Thus probability is the best we can do at describing the results of infinitesimal mechanics. We do not really know what mechanisms we are using, or what machines we are building. It is all probabilistic guess work!

    We fly by the seat of our pants, and hope and pray we do not crash and burn.

  • @Barau_R_Tour
    Yes it could be misleading, I agree. The concpt of relativity exists in Newtons Astrological principles, where Newton dismisses it in favour of absolute principles. Einstein, along with other ideas copied Newtons insight up to the point where the new physics clearly contradicted the recourse to absolutes.

    Newton on the other hand references the sources of many of his ideas/ forms and developments of others ideas. For example until recently I had not known that centrifugal force was an idea that Halley developed commendably. The history of ideas means one is always beholden to others in one way or another. Some have the grace to acknowledge this.
  • edited January 2015
    I think it is not out of place to reproduce here the comment I have made to Ken Wheeler's video mentioned above by Jehovajah (VIDEO 51):

    Ken, I am sorry to say this, but you sound like an arrogant kid. In your book you fire off with a statement: “In writing this very condensed article on magnetism after downloading and owning every book ever written on magnetism, every video ever made on magnetism … etc”, nevertheless, as far as I can tell there is no indication that you have ever heard of names like Edward Leedskalnin, Stefan Marinov, Gennady Nikolaev, or Konstantin Meyl.

    If you had some familiarity with these authors you would have known that the effect you are demonstrating here was discovered by Nikolaev; it became widely known as Siberian Coliu after Marinov coined that term to honor its discoverer.

    It was late Gennady Nikolaev who established by theoretical and experimental research the phenomenon of longitudinal magnetic interaction, i.e. the existence of a new type of magnetic field - scalar magnetic field.

    Wish you all the luck for you are a young man engaged in an important work, but take it from an old man: It is difficult, if not possible altogether, to acquire a trait of character which is not imbued by nature, but keep in mind that being modest and humble is one of the most general human traits of all true geniuses; that might help you a lot down the road in your endeavors.
  • edited September 2014
    @Barau_R_Tour

    Thankyou again for your contributions , research and insights. I perceive that information has been withheld or denigrated in the western European scientific communities.
    Americans have a strong tendency toward arrogance, which perhaps we may excuse due to the excessive control exerted by their society on certain forms of information and their history of striking out on their own against a conspiratorial establishment.

    Nevertheless the east is hardly a model of perfection either. That being said, traditions in both regions have discovered and preserved empirical data that supports common sense observations of physical behaviours in our immediate local reference frames.

    Why are you and I struggling to uphold the case for rotation? Because an overwhelming preponderance of those in authoritative positions not only do not rate this concept but also actively hinder research and development in these areas. You can perhaps understand why a little " arrogance" might be necessary to make headway!

    Nor, as the tide is clearly turning, should we assume that all will go in the direction of rotation free from this " human arrogance" and censorship and propaganda manipulation! After all, history shows that it was ever thus.

    For my own part, it suffices me to look into these things to clear away my own confusion, which I recognise as largely due to to these frail human tendencies to to lie and obscure for advantage. In fact there is a convincing argument that this is a successful evolutionary trait!. But loving what is true and invariant, constant and possibly eternal is wisdom. It is this wisdom that gives those who seek and adhere to it extraordinary power both of insight and action. Our technologies are built on such wisdom, but also destroyed by its misuse, or use for destruction.

    Skymions represent a case in point. Dirac was heavily criticised by Mach for his theoretical Mosel of Quantum mechanics, because of its symmetries and rotations. This arose from Dirac's use of the Grassmann algebras and the Grassmann method. One may also refer to these as Clifford Algebras if one admits that Clifford himself refers them back to Grassmann!

    The Academic pressure to write papers etc leads to much plagiarism. However Dirac in studying Grassmanns methods was among those few who bothered to go back to the source in German, the 1844 version and then the 1862 version and finally the 1877 reprint of the 1844 version with addendums and Annotations. This is clear from his use of the terms Bra and Ket! It is also clear from the response of the Machian school who spent several years combing Grassmanns work in order to find an obscure process to " normalise" Dirac's mathematical presentation! From that result physics became cursed with the creation and annihilation of " particles", and the denial of antimatter, which then became empirically existent!

    In my opinion, Dirac's original concept of a negative sign , which was barely understood mathematically let alone interpreted correctly physically, is resolved simply in the conception of rotation.

    Energy and negative Energy in Dirac's theory are best interpreted as contra rotations with varying radii or curvature descriptors.

    While I cannot here go into detail, my research into Grassmans works is gradually clearing my mind of many misconceptions, and revealing many academic shenanigans!
  • edited January 2015
    I perceive that information has been withheld or denigrated in the western European scientific communities.
    This is true. The ordeal Nikolaev went through in the Soviet Union in his efforts to bring attention to the fact that Maxwell’s theory by no means is perfect, or complete, was horrible. The fate of political and scientific dissident Marinov, who fled from communist Bulgaria to the “free” West only to find out that the West was not quite what he imagined it to be, is even more tragic – Lt. Col. Thomas Bearden believes, as Nikolaev did, that Marinov’s death was not suicide – he was killed. The 9 volumes of Marinov’s “The Thorny Way of Truth” reads like a fascinating detective story.
    You can perhaps understand why a little "arrogance" might be necessary to make headway!
    Good point again. That’s why I don’t mind too much that little bashing Ken gets himself involved with calling Einstein and Feynman names like “long haired crank”, “mental midget”, “fool”, illiterate person”, “dumb giant”, “Hollywood-scientist”, “academic fraud”, etc. These guys by no means were fools, but to strengthen out an over-bent bar, carrying out the bending of it in the opposite direction a bit more than necessary, can’t probably hurt too much.
    For my own part, it suffices me to look into these things to clear away my own confusion, which I recognize as largely due to these frail human tendencies to lie and obscure for advantage. In fact there is a convincing argument that this is a successful evolutionary trait!
    Speaking of “frail human tendencies to lie and obscure”, the late American dissident and former physics professor, Dr. William Pierce, in one of his famous “American Dissident Voices” broadcasts introduced the notion of a lemming, which is instrumental in understanding what human traits made it possible for the contemporary educational system to prevail, who the designers of that educational system are, and what their ultimate goals are: Dr. William Pierce On Lemmings
    … physics became cursed with the creation and annihilation of "particles", and the denial of antimatter, which then became empirically existent! In my opinion, Dirac's original concept of a negative sign, which was barely understood mathematically let alone interpreted correctly physically, is resolved simply in the conception of rotation. Energy and negative Energy in Dirac's thery are best interpreted as counter rotations with varying radii or curvature descriptors.
    This is a profound statement, which warrants a separate comment; I’ll do it in the next installment.
  • edited April 2015
    The choice of words for concepts and notions in general, and in physics in particular, are extremely important. Depending on that choice, grasping the essence of a physical concept can be made very easy, or, to the contrary, so difficult as to cause mental blocking.

    The word antimatter and the phrase negative energy are among the most unfortunate, most abortive ones in physics. Everyone understands empirically and practically what matter and energy mean. But what antimatter and negative energy mean for God’s sake?! Every human language has more or less certain logical rules. If we follow those rules, the word antimatter does not make much sense, and negative energy is utter nonsense. In trying to make sense of the word antimatter, one might think of field, or aether, because these are something that is, presumably, not matter (which is nonsense anyway), but that's not at all what is meant by antimatter. Negative energy is even worse. Trying to make sense of all this confusion, caused by nothing but a poor choice of words, can drive a perfectly normal person to a feeling of mental inadequacy, at best, or insanity - at worst.

    Meanwhile, common sense has no problem at all with words like rotation and antirotation, or velocity and negative velocity. We can easily imagine a gyroscope spinning in one direction, and just as easily another one spinning in the opposite (anti) direction; we can easily imagine an object moving in one direction, and another one moving with the same speed in the opposite (negative) direction, and when they collide and stick to each other the positive and the negative velocities kill each other, which is perfectly OK with common sense and our everyday experience. No mystery, no skulduggery, no scientific gibberish or gobbledygook – everything is simple and confirms with intuition and common sense.

    So what is antimatter? It is nothing but the same matter spinning in the opposite direction.

    To be continued.
Sign In or Register to comment.