1

New Theories / New Theory: is everything in the universe in motion???

« on: 23/02/2021 13:34:33 »

Motion is absolute.  Set two marbles with a zero relative velocity on your desk.  They are in constant motion.  The invisible entities that make matter are in constant motion.  That motion is the fastest motion possible.  You will never find a physical entity that is not in constant motion.  Whether that entity is mass or field.....it is in motion.

Motion is very different than velocity.  Velocity may be relative, but motion is absolute.

2

New Theories / Solar wind

« on: 14/01/2021 02:22:24 »

It's oblivious that this kind of tack would be an electrical tack.  The "keel" would be the current generated by the collector sail.  That current can be steered and orientated, giving you an electric keel.  Three currents give three axis.

Solar wind is an accelerating two pole DC current.  Could one possibly ask for a better corridor?

The sail is not pushed or pulled or blown against.  The sail(s) collect charge.  The current generated produces a field, that current field reacts with the solar wind field.  The wind is one current.  We produce another current to scissor with it.  The proper polarity and orientation of the produced current field, should allow acceleration in any direction.  And area might replace high current demand predictions.

The sail might be a large concentric circular structure, funneling charge to the proper polarity receptor.  Two polarity collectors.  These "sail" collectors will be new inventions. They also have to be switched into a shielding or repulsive mode.  Just one storm will kill all aboard.

3

New Theories / New Theory: Will we invent a new tool for perceiving a new reality?

« on: 01/01/2021 21:57:36 »

It depends on what you believe to be a "new" tool.  When we get faster switches, and can DSP light, we will realize that EM emission is intermittent.   It doesn't "wave", it strobes.  50% duty cycle with no relative velocity.  That will lead us to realize that emission is instant, it propagates a duration, but that emitted duration, happens in an instant.  AND that the absorption/detection of that duration.......takes 2 times that duration.

And this dynamic disproves local time.  And shows the apparent constant "c", is not constant after all.   But the greatest "NEW TOOL" will be the ability to measure the relative V of any emitter........and the relative V of any absorber.   Astronomers and Combat Fire Control will love this.

If we had an absorber/detector that did not react, bounce or reset from stimuli, we would have seen this long ago.  Or an absorber/detector that would reset in an instant.

Maybe with some luck, we might discover this with direct antenna modulation studies on the lower frequencies.   DSPing light will probably take a while.  Light is more than just high frequency, it's a flux of many emitters and intermittences, like current......flux is an average result measurement.  But a single sequence of photons, have relative velocity/positional information on them.

4

New Theories / Hayseed Electron

« on: 28/02/2020 04:42:02 »

An electron(and a proton) is a physical current spring.  Some call it a charge spring, but I prefer current spring, because the spring is spinning, or moving, and moving charge is current.

For every rotation of a charge particle, one gets one e of charge displacement.  So, charge RPM/60 gives you current.

An electron in a low energy configuration(state), is about 18-20 amps.  A proton is about 30,000 to 40,000 amps.  Both can be induced or compressed to much higher amperage.

These are physical mechanical structures, that like a spring, can and do change physical size, with compression.

Modern science does not recognize the prime mover of the universe.  All other forces and all other properties come from this prime force or prime mover.

This primordial force is the self-repulsiveness of charge.  This force is exploding the charge apart....like a super nova.  All of the itty bitty parts that make the charge, are being accelerated out from a common center direction......like a super nova.  As the bits accelerate, a magnetic field forms and causes the charge bit to roll and spiral to the left(electron) or right(proton).  Because the out direction is common to all bits, the spiral is common to all bits....and when the magnetic V is equal to the repulsiveness V......the bits of the charge form a closed, circular, rotating, helix of charge.  With a stable circumference. This is a variable pi device.  So, forget the math and understand the dynamic.  The only measurement needed, is the rotational frequency.  When we are able to rotationally "FFT" the particle, we will know all the dimensions for sure.

The exploding out.......is continuously turned.  Perpetual motion.  Another dynamic that modern science can not understand and therefore will not recognize.

This is a variable pi structure........ALLOWING a variable angular velocity(and a variable momentum)......with a constant tangential velocity.

Did you get what I just said.  One can put a constant tangential V on the structure......and vary the angular V.  Hard to believe?.........look closely and study the structure.

Now, how can one relate to this?  Think of a very thin hula hoop with one circular stripe around it.  Like a barber's pole formed into a circle. The continuous one turn stripe is the charge structure.....and it is rotating or sliding around the hoop.  Imagine the diameter across the hoop. pushing the charge out........and then image the thin hoop, as being a completely enclosed magnetic dipole.......compressing and holding the charge helix in a constant circumference, against that expanding out force.

The only difference between an electron and a proton, is handedness.  This handedness give the two charges different states.  The electron is always trying to discharge...that means it's trying to stay at a one helical turn.   Giving the electron a large circumference.  The proton is always trying to stay in a multi-turn helical state, giving the proton a small circumference.

Why?    Because in the proton, the magnetic dipole is moving in the same direction as the charge.  This acts like a ratchet, and once the proton spring has been compressed, it acts like a expansion spring, and is very difficult to pull the spring apart.

In the electron, the magnetic dipole is moving in the opposite direction of the charge, and keeps the electron in the expanded discharged state.  The electron is the workhorse of the universe.

A turn can be added to the charge with acceleration, induction or absorption.  And a turn can be subtracted with induction or emission.

This structure has two electric fields and two magnetic fields.  There is an electric field across the hoop diameter.  This is the external electric field. There is also an internal electric field between the turns of the helix.   There is a complete internal enclose magnetic field(dipole) in the center of the helix.   There is an external magnetic dipole thru the center of the hoop.

When charges combine and form an atomic dipole......the dipole structure looks like a cone...with the proton at the tip, and the electron at the base.  The tip and base rotate in opposite directions.  This opposing rotation, causes a common external M dipole that both charges rotate on.  That's what fundamental handedness is.  If you set a proton and electron flat on your desktop, and both are rotating in the same direction, one will have the N M field on top and the other will have the S M field on top.   This allows opposite spinning charge to line up on common external M dipole field.  The tip and base oscillate, to form a beat frequency, between the high rotation rate of the tip(proton) and the low rotation rate of the base(electron).  They yo-yo in and out at a beat rate.  The electron does most of the movement, unless, the dipole configuration is in a nucleus.   This can become very confusing when first explained, because we have multiple magnetic and electric dipoles.  The charge internal M dipoles are symmetric but the external electric dipoles are asymmetric. (the asymmetric electric dipole produces an asymmetric field.......causing a weak attractive property amongst electric dipoles, called gravity)
 
These structures have been simulated, and give more accurate results that agree with the periodic table much more accurately than QED can.  The simulations also predicted new spectral lines and nuclei.........which were confirmed.  And explained older known atomic spectra.

The physical dynamic of induction, absorption and emission can be shown with this current spring structure.

All charge comes with the same equal, constant, absolute length.  Think of it as the same constant number of ELECTRIC field lines.  e   This absolute length should be the reference to length.  Because it is the ONLY physical length in the universe.  Charge is the ONLY physical entity in the universe.     We can shorten and vary this length with a curl or spiral.  When we shorten this length, the density of the electric field, increases.  Electric flux can not be added or subtracted from the charge. Only the density of the electric can be changed.  So, we have to increase the amount of magnetic flux to change the energy of the charge.   Inducing a charge with energy.....is adding M flux.   The only way to increase the M flux, is to add a turn to the structure.  When we add a turn, the M flux increases, compressing the spring to a smaller diameter, which results in an increase of the repulsive force.  This makes the charge structure smaller, denser and an increase in the rotational V.(RPM)  The RPM of the charge increases, but the tangential V remains the same. The tangential V of all particles is always c.  Always.   I realize that this is hard for someone who is not familiar with these concepts and dynamics.  One has to take some time to consider and study this.

The angular momentum of the E and M field, is the "mass" of the particle.  This is how we change the mass of a particle.  With turns.  The inertia of the particle is a little bit different.....the inertia is the interaction of those perpendicular momentums.  This is what causes the charge to react to any external force.  Inertia reacts with two accelerations.  The mass is the amount of force, the inertia is the bi-direction of the force.   Inertia.
 
If we set the induction field V, to twice the angular V(not the tang V).......we can roll, or fold, another turn(loop) into the helix.

We can only add or subtract one full turn(loop in helix) at a time.  But this is only part of the "quantum" effect.  There is a ratio of the circumference(which is controlled by the number of turns)......and a ratio between the radius of the helix.....and the radius of the circular ring(whole hoop).

Therefore, only certain number of turns are stable.  One difference of energy level may only require one turn, other levels might require 2,3 or more turns.......before stability is achieved.
The mysterious quantum state is just a certain stable circumference(length).......set with a radii ratio.   It's geometric.

I am in poor health and will have to retire for now.  This model is based on Parson's Magneton, which has been updated, in the last 20 years to include the neutron.   But there is plenty to chew on and have questions about.  Later, I will introduce you to funnel theory, which will show how a make a neutron.  And show you why a neutron is physically necessary for heavier nuclei.

Don't let math replace your intellect.  100 years is too long to vegetate.

5

Science Experiments / Electric Field Density

« on: 24/01/2020 00:05:52 »

What would happen if........

We take an inflated balloon, and induced a strong uniform charge on the surface, hang it from the ceiling.....the balloon has a remotely controlled valve.  (long insulated rod)

Place an electroscope to indicate a half scale reading(45degrees).

Slowly release the air.

Does the electroscope, indicate a stronger, weaker or steady field?

6

Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution / New Model for Farming?

« on: 29/10/2019 02:46:07 »

I have been reading about these findings for several years now.  I wonder, if in the future, along with fertilizer, if a custom population of biomass will be added?

https://phys.org/news/2019-10-underground-fungal-relationships-key.html

7

New Theories / Do we need to alternate polarity, when we transmit RF?

« on: 28/10/2019 18:47:03 »

Equipment needed.

Two function generators.  Three resonant dipole antennas.   One scope.  And an amp for scope, if needed.

Attach antennas to generators and scope.  Separate generator antennas from scope antenna with appropriate distance.  Try to eliminate near field effects.  The frequency you select is a trade off, between antenna area and space needed(ROOM) and speed of measuring equipment needed(COST).  One might need a ham friend at a distance.

Feed a sine(360 degrees) repetitively, into one dipole and measure on scope at distance.  One should see a sine at scope from the antenna.

Now, with the other generator, feed a half sine(180 degrees) repetitively, and measure scope.  The same polarities are constantly fed into antenna.

Will I see anything at scope?   Will I see the same thing at scope?

Full function generators(30MHz) with 10 volt over 50 ohms can be had for about $70 now.

Working with GHz is easier in a lab, but the the generators and scope will cost you.  But one might use a sdr dongle for detector.  But generating a half sine in GHz is difficult.

What do you think this will show?

Edit:  Most of these function generators are 2 channel now.  So, only one generator is needed.

8

New Theories / New Theory: How electromagnetic radiation change from inverse cubic to inverse square

« on: 28/10/2019 15:40:36 »

Because, there is a BIG difference between a field, and a wave.  In a field, the electrical component, is linear, but in rotation.  All E fields are in rotation.  All.  The internal capacitor field is in rotation.  When the field is converted into a wave, the electric field remains linear.  E waves do NOT rotate.

In a field, the magnetic component is angular. When this field is converted into a wave, it is converted from an angular motion........into a linear motion.  This is different than the E conversion.  With the E conversion, only the direction of the E field is changed......But the M component, is cut....the poles are divided.......and only ONE M pole is sent with the E component....to make a wave.

Field induction always has 2 M poles.  Wave induction always has 1 M pole induction.

9

Just Chat! / Creation Theory

« on: 24/10/2019 20:39:25 »

We have always had to create things.  If you think about it, we come with no hide and no claws. We even have to create a tool, to dig a hole, to hide in.

Our lives are an experience of creating.  We make everything we have. And we have learned that things have a design and structure for function. So, it would be natural to ask who/what made us.  We seem to be important.

They say that it took mankind a long time to learn to create(farm) food.  I seriously doubt that.

Unlike other lifeforms, we are creators.

Where did we get the ability to create new and different solutions?  And why only us?

And since we have, why has not the human civility improved?  Or do you think we have?

10

Just Chat! / Pumpkins

« on: 22/10/2019 05:04:44 »

Check this out.

https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Carve-a-Realistic-Face-on-a-Pumpkin/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email

11

Just Chat! / Why do Athenians avoid daybreak?

« on: 18/10/2019 22:47:39 »

Because DAWN is hard on Grease.

12

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What motion will weights released from a spinning spacecraft describe?

« on: 17/10/2019 21:49:47 »

As we tether out weights to slow the spin of a spacecraft,  and then release the weights, does the path of the weights have the spacecraft's axial velocity component?  Or only the radial component?

If we had one hundreds weights spinning and cut them,  Would they spread out in a plane or would they spread out in a cone?

13

The Environment / What keeps our oceans cold?

« on: 17/10/2019 04:39:49 »

The cold ocean basins are a great mystery.  It's a huge capacity heat sink, for our climate to work with.  Almost all the water is consistently just above freezing.  It's energy state is minimal. This is much cooler than the soil and crust temperature of the cradles that hold them.  According to our understanding of heat flow, the oceans are probably being heated more from the cradles that hold them, thru conduction, than the sun that baths them with radiation.  And deep ocean currents are very slow.  I would think that the water needs to be constantly cooled.  I don't believe melt run off could do it.

What is the refrigerator?  Evaporation?

14

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Question of Astronomy

« on: 16/10/2019 15:46:56 »

Over the last 2 decades or so, I have read about observations being done into the dark areas of the cosmos.
Over the same period, mechanical upgrades as well as some amazing software and detection upgrades have been made.

They take a very small peek area of the dark area, and look at it closely.   I assume they use long exposure times for this.  I am not an astronomer.

It seems to me that the farther we look, the denser it gets, with no direction to it.

If we came from something smaller, shouldn't the backwards time density be directional?  I can understand, looking back in time, and seeing and increase in density......But not the fact that the density is in every direction.  Or are we at the center area of that expansion?  And we are in the least density area?

Am I mistaken of the dark area observations?......increase density with distance has no merit?  Consider the distance, direction, and vast number of stars there.

Is space-time used to explain star observations?

Does space get denser back in time too?

15

New Theories / Shooting out of a moving pickup truck.

« on: 14/10/2019 20:21:13 »

Most are familiar with the shooting from moving vehicle problem.  Requiring a leading or lagging aiming strategy.

What if the bullet did not need to be accelerated?  What if the bullet was already at muzzle velocity........and pointed in the right direction?  And all we had to do, is let it go in that direction.

Imagine a spinning hub on top the truck.  With 360 thin wire spokes.  And a ball of a bullet at the ends of the spokes.

Spin it up to muzzle velocity.  Strobe the spin.  We now have a 360 degree aiming gun.

As the pickup moves down the road......will I need to lead or lag a target?

16

That CAN'T be true! / New Theory: why a lot of people confuse between interference and diffraction?

« on: 14/10/2019 16:40:26 »

Because intuition is not allowed.   About 100 years ago, science could not explain the "constant" velocity of light that they measured.  ( and they still can't)

So, they surrendered their intellect to mathematics.  And the only way that the equations made any sense, was to make the time term variable.

So, that's what they did, they profess that time is local, and therefore is relative to velocity.

The math proves this.   And gave us 100 years of ignorance.  And the ban on intuition.

In all my experience and all my study, it's the silliest thing I have found.  And the whole world follows this.

These are the real facts of modern science.   No. 1......light moves.  No. 2.....when we measure it, we get the same result.

This is ALL that modern science knows of light.  That's it.

AND NOW, ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE IS BASED ON THIS SILLY DOGMA.

EM does not have the property of frequency, it has the property of duty cycle.  Light does not transverse during propagation, like a media wave.

EM is intermittent duration, not frequency.  That duration is mirrored and doubled, when absorbed.  And that duration, depends, on the absorber's relative velocity.

The duration and velocity of propagation, relative to the emitter, is constant.   This is due to the fact that the dynamic of emission is instant.  And that instant has the property of a static point source in space.  No matter the velocity of emitter.      But, But...the duration of absorption can vary, depending on the absorber's relative velocity to emitter.  Absorption takes time.  Emission takes no time.

And of course, that absorption duration is measured as frequency.  They do not recognize that the change in duration, is due, the relative velocity.  Some actually believe that change in frequency, proves that time changes.

Only the duration of absorption changes, not time.  Time and length are constant and omnipresent thru-out the cosmos.

Emission and absorption are asymmetrical with time.

We we fire a gun, it takes time for the bullet to leave the barrel.  An emission time.  When the bullet hits the target, it is instant.

But if we fire light, the emission is instant, but the target, takes time to be hit.  The impact takes duration.

We will have this silly SR and GR until science learns the difference.

17

New Theories / New Theory: Is light an independent entity, or is it an effect of a larger mechanism ?

« on: 13/10/2019 02:32:43 »

An electric field, a magnetic field and EM emission has but one source.  Charge.  An electric field, magnetic field and an EM emission can only effect one entity.  Charge.

An electric and magnetic field have density.  And a charge field moves, it rotates, so now the density has momentum.

Field density momentum...........is mass.  That's what mass is.   Mass is field density.  We refer to the mass as the density, because the amount of electric field, e, and the tangential velocity of the charge is constant.  The density is what changes, and this is done thru contraction and expansion of the charge rotation.  That changes the mass.

One can also scale "mass" to the RPM or frequency of rotation of the charge.  So the "mass" of an object is not only the number of particles, it's how fast they are spinning.

Particles can only spin at certain RPMs.  This is the mysterious "quantum effect".

There are two physical reasons for the set of spins.  The first one is geometrical.  This will allow the spin to change only at certain structural steps.  If this were the only condition, the levels could be changed in discreet equal amounts.  Still discreet, but in the same amount of step.

The other condition....is the balance in field density. This gives the odd steps.  Sorry to get into the weeds, but you seem to question the purpose of emission.  And to understand why we have emission, you need to understand that a charge will only absorb energy in certain amounts.   AND......if you put more into that charge, than it can except.......it will excrete, or cast off, that extra field momentum.  EM emission is an energy excrement.  A super quick excrement. So emission is the result of the quantum condition.

Physically, EM is the field trimmings of a stable charge.  There is another method of emission.  And that is the physical dislocation of the charge alignment.  And that is another weed story.

All emission is a loss of energy and angular momentum.  EM is dissolving energy into space.  An EM emission has field density.......so a EM emission has mass, temporarily.  It dissolves.

When EM is adsorbed by a charge, it empresses a torque on the charge.  That torque is not dependent on the intensity of the EM.  It's only the rate of torque(frequency) of energy to a single charge.  The intensity sets how many charges get torqued.

Therefore, the mass of a wave, is different than a mass of a photon.  An EM wave is the largest structure in the universe, a photon is the small part of it, that hits a charge.

There has been a constant mass and energy loss since the beginning...slow and cold now, but in the past it was a raging furnace.

18

New Theories / New Theory of: Why is this plasma so hot?

« on: 11/10/2019 17:36:01 »

I think that the heat is caused by wobble.  The rotation of a charge electric field has frequency.  I believe that field is modulated.  But unlike any modulation that you have studied.  This mode.....imprints a higher frequency onto a lower frequency.  The modulating frequency is many times the charge field rotational frequency.

This causes the electric field rotation to jitter at a higher rate than rotation.  Much higher.

Under hard acceleration, a large portion of acceleration energy goes into spin and increased mass, instead of propulsion.

With the correctly tuned acceleration taps applied, mass gain and the wobble might be eliminated.  A cold acceleration.

19

The Environment / Can we make shipping more efficient by generating a bubble between the boat and water?

« on: 03/10/2019 14:21:44 »

What if we could permanently place an air blanket on the hull?  The smooth surface of a bubble should have little drag.  Maybe a continuous disposable bubble.

Would graphene drag?  Perhaps a graphene balloon for a blanket.

20

Geek Speak / What is this function on Windows 10 Calculator?

« on: 01/10/2019 12:41:47 »

There is a key between the C clear all function key and the divide symbol function key.

It has an x inside a left pointing box.

What is that key called, and what does it do?