G

Forces which oppose gravity interest me, such as magnetic forces found in floating magnets, and the drag forces of a falling object. Another force which can be thought of as opposing gravity is an object's buoyancy in fluid. I'm trying to remember a kids' gadget where a ping-pong ball floated in a stream of air. Drag force and buoyancy created by the air pushing up against the ball, oppose the gravitational forces trying to pull the ball down. More specifically, perhaps, drag force can be thought of as opposing the acceleration force, while buoyancy opposes gravity.

The idea of buoyancy was summed up by Archimedes, in what is known as The Archimedes Principle: any object, wholly or partly immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid displaced by the object. Our floating ping-pong ball has reached an equilibrium where the three forces of weight, drag, and buoyancy are in perfect balance. I think of floating magnets as buoyant, then I think of a ball out at sea, and then I think of the Earth, bobbing quite merrily, in the fluid that is the aether field.

Normally, the force of weight is always downward. The force of buoyancy is always upward, and is negligible if the object's density is much greater than the density of the medium. A bit like, I guess, dropping a cannon ball into the sea. The Earth seems pretty buoyant in its relationship with the rest of the solar system. If the Earth is a cannonball, then our aether emerges as a fluid like tar. Perhaps, we can also think of the Earth as a little styrofoam ball drifting out at sea. Though we cannot see it, it appears that the aether field is incredibly dense. Far denser than matter.

If Earth does float in a fluid you would imagine there would be a tell-tale sign of it. I think evidence of it is in the wobbles we see in Earth's orbit. There are a number of wobbles. The precession of the equinoxes is actually the movement of the Earth's axis. A complete circuit takes about 25,780 years. Another movement in the earth's axis is a varying in the tilt of the Earth's axis. The tilt changes in a cycle lasting 41,000 years. The Earth's eccentricity also wobbles in a cycle of 92,400 years. Then there is nutation, a tiny wave that repeats itself every 19 years. Cycles and waves, wobbles and nuances, of a ball-all-out-at-sea.

Of note, there is a slight wobble in the way the Earth's orbit changes in the movement of Earth's perihelion. Perihelion means the closest point in an orbit; aphelion means the furthest point in an orbit. The Earth's perihelion moves in a complete circle about the Sun in 21,310 years. Because of this the Earth's orbit can be visualized as a perpetual spiral, never quite visiting the same place twice in space. If you were able to look down upon the Earth, and you had the patience to sit around for 25,000 years or so, then you'd see a signature being drawn-out in the letter 'G'.

Many thanks:
http://www.gateway-to-the-universe.org/brent/tourist/earth0.htm
http://www.ancient-wisdom.co.uk/precession.htm

Energy Sucks

When I worked as a 'sparks' there was something that would intrigue me. If there was a fault on a circuit where a live conductor touched something which was 'earthed', then the fuse would blow. The reason being that, quite literally, the Earth would try to suck all the electricity out of the system, thereby the fuse overheats and cuts the circuit. You see this much more dramatically with wire-fuses rather than circuit breakers, because they often let-off a loud accompanying 'bang' and 'flash' (not that I was a particularly bad electrician where this happened a lot!). I was always intrigued to know what made the Earth so greedy for electricity.

Tesla once stated that "....the earth behaves like a perfectly smooth or polished conductor." The ionosphere 100 km above us is also thought of as a conductor. We are taught that the ionosphere is positively charged and the Earth is negatively charged; the difference is about 250, 000 volts. Squeezed between these two conductors is the atmosphere. Air is a poor conductor which makes it an insulator. When an insulator is sandwiched between two conductors, that insulator is known as a dielectric, and the result is a capacitor capable of storing energy as an electric field. Sometimes the atmosphere is referred to as the Schumann resonance cavity.

I'm sure there's more of a distinction between the Earth and ionosphere, than simply being negative and positive charged plates. We don't refer to the conductor in Foucault's wheel as being negatively charged, do we? I am of course referring to the Earth acting as the copper disc from his experiment. Also, some refer to the neutrality of the ionosphere. It's not simply acting as a positive charged plate. The ionosphere is known to be made up with just as many negative ions as positive ions; such a mixture is known as a plasma. Unlike air, plasma conducts electricity, and in-fact, the ionosphere in the polar regions carries large electric currents.

The Earth is in a circuit with the Sun. We can think of the frequency of the EMR from the Sun as being roughly in the region of 0.002Hz. As a further point of interest, I wonder what impact every other star in the Universe has upon the aether? We are no longer dealing with energy that moves a few million miles - but billions. If that energy is able to travel instantaneously, just imagine its velocity, and the whalloping energy behind it! This explains, rather elegantly I think, how the "radiant energy" that is the aether is so imperceptible - it's travelling too damned fast. We are surrounded by a fluid moving at hyper speeds. The Universe is full of a fluid moving at hyper speeds. Well, what's going to slow that baby down? A cold energy sink that we call matter. A vortex in the middle of a stream. A cold energy sink which gravitates energy, and then radiates energy. An energy sink that loves to suck up electricity.

One would have to assume that the bottom of the cold energy sink will be at the centre of our planet. I imagine the Earth as a ball rolling around on a blanket of aether. Electricity, it appears, wants to throw itself back into the hyper-stream of the aether, as it gravitates to the bottom of the sink. The aether contracts at the source of the sink, and then expands back out into space. This much condensed magnetism is going to generate magnetic friction, which, as we have so far discovered, generates heat - enough heat to produce molten rock, perhaps?


Many thanks:
http://www.studio7designs.com/downloads/stock-photos/rabbithole.jpg
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18951558
http://www.phy6.org/Education/Ielect.html
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/tmt.htm
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119657299/abstract
http://amasci.com/tesla/tesceive.html

Sink

A body that absorbs energy is called an energy sink. It appears a prism is acting as a cold energy sink. Cold energy defines the latent magnetism of the aether. The optical density of the glass allows us to see the aether field being distorted, but surely it is the physical density of the prism which creates the distortion. Density is a physical property of matter - it is defined in a qualitive manner as the measure of the relative "heaviness" of objects with a constant volume. Here's a list of elements by density we can refer to :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_density

It's no surprise that the noble gases are the least dense. Those elements we class as nuclear fuels occupy the part of the list where the elements have the greatest physical density. The precious metals, gold and platinum, are also considered to have a high density.

As a rule of thumb, the index of refraction usually increases as the physical density of the material increases. If the prism, based on its physical density, is acting as a cold energy sink, then what are the similarities with those elements, or materials, that have a high physical density. Is a "heavy" element also acting as a cold energy sink?

The phenomenon of radioactivity is observed in heavy elements such as Uranium. Radioactivity is a process in which unstable nuclei release sub-atomic particles. I imagine radioactivity as the missing link between the vibration of EMR, and the vibration of matter. I've heard it said that the nuclear energy available in the Universe is very small. That nuclear energy is not a big thing. What is wanted is the potential energy behind it.


A very small amount of matter is equivalent to a vast amount of energy. For example, 1kg of matter converted completely into energy would be equivalent to the energy released by exploding 22 megatons of TNT. We've seen the illusion behind kinetic energy. Can the same understanding be applied to potential energy? If so, it would appear that matter does not store the energy as potential energy, but rather, matter gravitates and radiates all its energy from the aether.

Tesla believed atomic power was an illusion. A quantity of uranium or radium does not produce or generate the alpha /beta /gamma radiation, it simply acts as a transciever of a "...raw primordial form of electrical energy." Tesla said a great deal of wonderful, fascinating things. He once stated, "There is no energy in matter, other than that recieved from the enviroment." By enviroment, he is of course refering to the aether. Tesla said that the aether is acted upon by a life giving creative force, and that when the force subsides and motion ceases, matter reverts to the aether (a form of "atomic decay").

"Every particle of matter is composed of a primary substance--the ether--filling all space. The atom of any elementary body is differentiated from the rest of this tenuous substance merely by a spinning motion like a whirl in a calm lake. By being set in movement ether becomes palpable matter; the movement arrested, the primary substance reverts to its normal state and becomes imperceptible....To create and annihilate material substance, to cause at will its birth and death, would be man's most consequential deed--his greatest achievement, which would place him
beside his creator, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny. (Nikola Tesla, in a letter to the "Actors Fund Fair", May 13th, 1907.)

The action of the vortexes of integration and disintegration were again described by Tesla in 1930. "Long ago he [man] recognized that all perceptible matter comes from a primary substance, or tenuity beyond conception, filling all space, the Akasha or luminiferous ether, which is acted on by the life giving Prana, or creative force, calling into existence in never ending cycles all things and phenomena. The primary substance, thrown into infinitesimal whirls of prodigious velocity, becomes gross matter; the force subsiding, the motion ceases and matter disappears, reverting to the primary substance. (Nikola Tesla, "Man's Greatest Achievement")

If you've got the time, this article where I got the above from is well worth a visit.... It also makes mention of a guy named Walter Russell. http://www.textfiles.com/stories/thewave

"In May of 1921, Walter Russell, a sculptor, painter, and later aPresident of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, entered into a prolonged state of heightened awareness or samadhdi. His experience allowed him to see the manner in which the creator, or illumined one as he described it, gave manifestation to the elements of matter and the gravitational and electrical effects of nature."

So I followed Walter Russell here..... and I found this .... http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/mysteries/whatsthis/light.html

"All matter is simulated light. Water of the heavens still is water, and it still is light waves. No change whatsoever has taken place between the waters of earth and those of the heavens except a change of its condition from positive to negative preponderance. This change is due solely to a change of its direction in respect to its center of gravity. All dense cold matter, such as iron, stone, wood, and all growing or decaying things, are light. We do not think of them as light but all are waves of motion, and all waves of motion are light. Light is all there is in the spiritual universe of knowing, and simulation of that light in opposite extensions is all there is in the electric wave universe of sensing. The simulation of light in matter is not light. There is no light in matter."


Many thanks:
http://quanta-gaia.org/dobson/PhysicsOfIllusion.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-is-radioactivity.htm
http://everything2.com/e2node/index%2520of%2520refraction
http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2005-01/1105124199.Ph.r.html
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/120Adensity.html

Magnetic Current

If you have an interest (or even only a vague interest) in magnetism, or electricity, then I highly recommend this article. It's about magnetic current, and appears to have been written in 1945, by Edward Leedskalnin. A charming gem.

"Now I will tell you what magnetic current is. Magnetic current is the same as electric current is a wrong expression. Really it is not one current, they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets inconcentrated streams and the other is composed of South Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screwlike fashion, and with high speed. One current alone if it be North Pole magnet current or South Pole magnet current it cannot run alone. To run one current will have to run against the other....

You have been wondering why alternating currents can run so far away from their generators. One reason is between every time the currents start and stopthere is no pressure in the wire so the magnets from the air run in the wire and when the run starts there already are magnets in the wire which do nothave to come from the generator, so the power line itself is a small generator which assists the big generator to furnish the magnets for the currents to run with. I have a generator that generates currents on a small scale from the air without using any -magnets around it....

The reason I call the results of North and South Pole magnet's functions magnetic currents and not electric currents or electricity is the electricity is connected too much with those non-existing electrons. If it had been called magneticity then I would accept it. Magneticity would indicate that it has a magnetic base and so it would be all right."



http://keelynet.com/unclass/magcurnt.txt

Flick-Book

Time is an illusion. Time is something we use to measure motion. Motion is also an illusion.

I'm thinking of something like a flick-book. You know, a book where the pages are flicked by the thumb, to create the illusion of motion. A very simple book would be the image of a ball bouncing up and down. Obviously, the ball is not really bouncing up and down. The act of observation has created the illusion that the ball is moving. We think the ball is moving. Really though, it's the pages that are moving. Our bouncing ball exists only in the book. A bouncing ball in a flick-book is an illusion, but, is this really any different to how we observe a ball bouncing in the playground?

The speed at which the thumb flicks through the book is dictating our rate of perception. It's really defining the speeds at which the brain processes the motion of the world. If I was to double my rate of perception, then the speed with which the pages flick from one to the next shall slow down. The ball in the book would appear to bounce more slowly. The ball in the playground would appear to bounce more slowly. Time does not slow down, but rather, the motion of the Universe slows down.

Because we view the speed of light in a vacuum as a constant, we've become hooked to the idea that our rate of perception is the only real speed to process reality. But smaller animals with smaller brains, could be viewing the motion of the world more slowly, due to a faster rate of perception. Of some note, insects and small animals, such as rodents, can see into the UV range. This ability to see higher frequencies could be due to a faster rate of perception. A larger animal, perhaps with a larger brain, would see the motion of the world move more rapidly , because of a slower rate of perception.

Well, if we have our thumb dictating the rate of perception, then which part of the Universe fulfils the role of the book? Why, the Universe itself. It's matter and EMR which distracts us in its motion. All matter and EMR is represented by the motion of the bouncing ball. All matter and EMR are illusory. The only thing which is real are the pages of the book. The most important aspect of the Universe is blind to us. We are too distracted by the bouncing ball. The aether supports the Universe, in the same way pages of a flick-book support the images of a bouncing ball. Nothing could, or would, exist without the aether.

The book though is meaningless without an observer. The same as the Universe is meaningless without an observer. The simple act of observation defines all meaning in the Universe.


Many thanks:
http://www.flipbook.info/history.php

More Aether

I found this on the net. Very cool.

1908 - The Ether (Aether) of Space and auxiliary files by Lord Rayleigh and Sir Oliver Lodgecourtesy of Bruce L. Rosenberg

"I will make a brief quotation from your present Professor of Natural Philosophy (J. J. Thomson), where he summarises the conclusion which we all see looming before us, though it has not yet been completely attained, and would not by all be similarly expressed:

The whole mass of any body is just the mass of ether surrounding the body which is carried along by the Faraday tubes associated with the atoms of the body. In fact, all mass is mass of the ether; all momentum, momentum of the ether; and all kinetic energy, kinetic energy of the ether. This view, it should be said, requires the density of the ether to be immensely greater than that of any known substance.....

Yes, far denser-so dense that matter by comparison is like gossamer, or a filmy imperceptible mist, or a milky way. Not unreal or unimportant-a cobweb is not unreal, nor to certain creatures is it unimportant, but it cannot be said to be massive or dense; and matter, even platinum, is not dense when compared with the ether. Not till last year, however, did I realise what the density of the ether must really be, compared with that modification of it which appeals to our senses as matter, and which for that reason engrosses our attention. If I have time I will return to that before I have finished. Is there any other function possessed by the ether, which, though not yet discovered, may lie within the bounds of possibility for future discovery? "


http://keelynet.com/osborn/rey7.htm

Magma

Magma is molten rock and metal found beneath the surface of the Earth. It is thought that it may exist on other terrestial planets. People commonly think of lava and magma as a liquid, but geologists find that magma is usually a mush - a liquid carrying a load of mineral crystals. We've seen in previous posts how comets, whom also carry mineral crystals, may use electrolysis to generate those huge ionic plasma tails. A comet's tail can be tens of millions of kilometers in length when seen in the reflected sunlight. Comets are very small in size relative to planets. Their average diameters usually range from 750 meters or less to about 20 km. The Earth has a diameter of 12, 800km at its equator. If we were able to look under the bonnet of the planet, so to speak, would we find the same ionic reaction taking place beneath the mantle on a far grander scale?

Scientists know a lot about lava. Lava is the stuff which erupts onto the surface. Magma remains a bit of a mystery to scientists because it is always found beneath the crust, making it difficult to observe. Drillers accidentally hit a pocket of molten rock underneath a working geothermal energy field in Hawaii, a lucky break for geologists that could allow them to map the geological plumbing that created everything we know as land. Geologists had expected to hit dark molten basalt, because basalt is abundant on the island. Tests of the glass samples found that the material was dacite, an unusual type of magma that is granitic in nature and contains 67 percent of silica. The samples of the magma were found to be "clear and glassy".


Basalt flows cover nearly 70 percent of the earth's surface. Basalt contains around 50 percent silica. Silica is a chemical compound also known as silicon dioxide (SiO2). Silica is most commonly found in nature as sand or quartz, as well as in the cell walls of diatoms. Soda-lime glass accounts for 90 percent of manufactured glass. Soda-lime glass contains about 70 to 74 percent silica. Many glasses contain silica as their main component and glass former. Silica is also the most abundant mineral in the Earth's crust. Although there are few exceptions, the primary constituent of magma is silica. The guy on this site relishes the similarities of glass and magma, and has fun recreating lava flows in the microwave - known affectionately as "the ol' nuker". The reactions are possible due to ions being trapped in the glass.
http://www.ionizationx.com/amasci.com/weird/microwave/voltage2.html


Glass optical fibers are almost always made from silica. An optical fiber is a glass or plastic fiber that carries light along its length. Light is kept in the core of the optical fibre by total internal reflection. Now this is probably a poor comparison to make, but I think of the Earth's crust as acting like the core of the optical fibre. I picture streams of ions bouncing off the walls down there. One very direct result of this would be a vibration. I think that's the reason no gas bubbles were found in that Hawaiian magma sample. The vibrations would dissolve the gas.




Many thanks:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-glass.htm
http://geology.about.com/cs/basics_roxmin/a/aa011804a.htm
http://explorevolcanoes.com/rocksandfeatures.html
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17424425
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/first-contact-with-inner-earth-5385.html
http://www.cerritos.edu/earth-science/tutor/On-Line_lecture_notes/Volcanoes/Unit_11_Lecture_Magma.htm
http://www.geotimes.org/july04/NN_Marsironcore.html
http://amonline.net.au/geoscience/earth/magmatism.htm
http://wsx.lanl.gov/Publications/wurden-comet-ieee.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_fiber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass

Life's A Drag

The remarkable observation that all free falling objects fall at the same rate was first proposed by Galileo, nearly 400 years ago. For all falling objects gravitational acceleration is 9.8 metres per square second. In a vacuum, a falling object is subjected to only one external force, the gravitational force, expressed as the weight of the object. If the object falls through the atmosphere, there is an additional drag force acting on the object.

Drag is a mechanical force. It is generated by the interaction and contact of a solid body with a fluid (liquid or gas). We can think of drag as aerodynamic friction, and one of the sources of drag is the skin friction between the molecules of the air, and the solid surface of our falling object. Drag opposes the motion of the object. When the drag is equal to weight , acceleration is zero.

A falling body stops accelerating when it achieves terminal velocity. When the force of gravity which attracts the object, and the drag which slows it down are equal, terminal velocity is achieved. Interestingly, all objects falling on Earth have different terminal velocities due to density, mass, air friction, and other factors.

Drag interests me, because, in its own funny way, it opposes 'gravity' (or perhaps more directly the aether) by imposing a limitation to an object's speed. I can't help but make the comparison to the way the Earth imposes a restriction on the speed of light. Further still, it coincides with the manner in which optical density (and physical density?) appear to slow down the speed of light.

If there is no fluid, there is no drag. Drag is generated by the difference in velocity between the solid object and the fluid. There must be motion between the object and the fluid. If there is no motion, there is no drag. It makes no difference whether the object moves through a static fluid, or whether the fluid moves past a static solid object. In the same way, perhaps, we could say that if there is no changing magnetic field, then there is no electric field (and vice versa).

We are taught that air resistance is a friction force, and the energy taken out of the falling object will appear in the form of heat in the air immediately surrounding the object. Except the energy taken to produce heat is not taken from the object - it is taken from the aether. Some of this heat will cause a rise in the temperature of the object itself. The aether is warming up the object.

Previously, I have discussed heat as being part of magnetic friction. Foucault's copper disc generated heat when in motion through an electromagnet's magnetic field. It must be remembered that Foucault was using a battery to power the electromagnet; a DC supply. If the disc is stationary then a steady flux passes through the disc, but if no movement occurs then no force is developed. When the disc rotates , it moves through this damping flux, and those special eddy currents known as 'Foucault currents' are set up. The EMF induced is proportional to speed, and so are the current strengths. The currents interact with the damping flux itself, and thus produce a drag or damping torque proportional to speed.


I think of the magnetic flux as fluid, but when generated by a DC supply, the lines of force appear stagnant; a stagnant pool whose vibrations are imperceptible. On the copper disc we can imagine atomic-sized pegs, or bollards, which stand erect on the surface of the disc. As the copper disc is turned (by hand on Foucault's machine), the pegs move through the fluid, and each one creates a drag force. This force could appear in much the same way as a rock in the middle of a stream is affected by the flow of water, or a falling rock is affected by the air resistance.

I doubt though, we are really looking at upright pegs on the conductor. Judging by the shape of electromagnetic sine waves, and assuming matter is the high end of EMR, then maybe what we are actually looking at are vortices, or parabolas. Molecular vortices were once suggested by Maxwell. A parabola shape would help explain how the aether is sucked-in, or induced, to flow with more force if the disk is made to spin faster. The aether no longer flows smoothly across a plain, but now flows across the conductor, rotating from one vortex to another; whirlpool after whirlpool. If you picture it all, it goes some way to explain how these currents derived the name 'eddies' from their counterparts in water.

It is supposed that eddy currents create an opposing magnetic field to the applied magnetic field. Is Foucault's wheel condensing the aether field into two opposing forces? In doing so we create friction and heat. A falling body's terminal velocity succumbs to the exact same thing - friction and heat. Heat appears to be a cut-off point for inducing the aether efficiently. Terminal velocity stops any further aether from being sucked-in, so that the object continues to fall without further acceleration. It's almost as if the aether is stretched to a point where it folds in on itself to produce heat. This has a parallel with Foucault's wheel, in that the greater the velocity of the disk, then the greater the amount of heat generated.

What's interesting is that if the applied magnetic field is induced by an AC supply, and it is strong enough, then the electromagnet can be rotated to move a stationary disc. The electromagnet sticks to the wheel. The next comparison, I guess, would be my feet being stuck to the floor.

Many thanks:

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/6685/4/bad0220.0001.001.txt

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae572.cfm
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/etext05/8041710h.htm
http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Electricity/Foucaults_Disk/Foucaults_Disk.html
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DojwZzKAvN8C&pg=PA309&lpg=PA309&dq=electromagnet+turns+the+disk&source=web&ots=P8QgW-qtD4&sig=MWb1cCJGRymU2jUXgbvAYyD2RNk&hl=en&ei=s6mNScPvC8yp-gashKGuCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result
http://www.thecore.nus.edu.sg/landow/victorian/science/maxwell1.html
Dame Edna Everage Photo: CHANNEL 4