Thats putting your 2-D foot in your 2-D Mouth.Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Alton,Right then, so thoughts are nothing - thank you for clearing that up.That which doesn't have shape is called "nothing".
Show me a single something without shapejunglelord wrote:Thats putting your 2-D foot in your 2-D Mouth.Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Alton,Right then, so thoughts are nothing - thank you for clearing that up.That which doesn't have shape is called "nothing".
OMG thats so funny.
Alton just proved he does not exist in his own 2-D Theory.
Thats Hair-Brained.
LOLOLOLOL.
Way to go GreyCloud, showing the falsehood of such babble.
. If you can you win! If you can't you lose. Any format, ANSI, jpg, bmp, fax me, mail me a photograph, whatever you want.Oops, someone attacked a straw man! That's what happens when one is completely incapable of using even the most basic terminology consistently.Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Alton,Right then, so thoughts are nothing - thank you for clearing that up.That which doesn't have shape is called "nothing".
Why is it a strawman? You made a statement (see above) and I gave an example of something (thought) which does not appear to have shape yet does not appear to be 'nothing'.altonhare wrote:Oops, someone attacked a straw man! That's what happens when one is completely incapable of using even the most basic terminology consistently.Grey Cloud wrote:Hi Alton,Right then, so thoughts are nothing - thank you for clearing that up.That which doesn't have shape is called "nothing".
I do not have to show you anything without shape. The shape thing is part of your definition not mine. You have not addressed one point from my last post.altonhare wrote:GC:
Show me *something* without shape. Again I accept any format. If there is a statue of this shapeless something send me the address? I'll mapquest it and my family will take a trip.
The idea of using electric field gradient to simulate gravity is found in NASA's approach to simulate fluid dynamics in Earth-like gravity field. Go to Google and search for: spherical capacitor nasa or GFFC. Then you will get several documents about experiments with spherical capacitors simulating gravity field conditions for studying behavior of fluids. Note that a spherical capacitor is the perfect shape to generate a non linear electric field gradient between its centre electrode and its inner surface. NASA does not explicitly state that gravity is electric field gradient, but they use the effect to just simulate gravity force.
Everything is composed of atoms, which are themselves composed of electrical entities. After all, that all on the Earth is charged and attracted because of it, instead of mass attraction... It is usually forgoten that every atom is "composed" by electric "charges" moving. If there is something that we can call matter, that is electricity.
The geophysical fluid flow cell (GFFC) experiment simulates a wide variety of thermal convection phenomena in spherical geometry. By applying an electric field across a spherical capacitor filled with a dielectric liquid, a body force analogous to gravity is generated around the fluid. The force acts as a buoyant force in that its magnitude is proportional to the local temperature of the fluid and in the radial direction perpendicular to the spherical surface. In this manner, cooler fluid sinks toward the surface of the inner sphere while warmer fluid rises toward the outer sphere. The value of this artificial gravity is proportional to the square of the voltage applied across the sphere and can thus be imposed as desired. With practical voltages, its magnitude is only a fraction of earth's and so requires a microgravity environment to be significant. The advantage of using this apparatus is that it simulates atmospheric flows around stars and planets, i.e. the "artificial gravity" is directed toward the center of the sphere much like a self-gravitating body.
The GFFC experiment flew on Spacelab 3 in April/May and operated for more than 100 hours during the mission. The experiment verified that dielectric forces can be used to properly simulate a spherical gravitational field to drive thermal convection. By controlling the relative importance of thermally driven buoyancy an entire spectrum of convective motion was observed, from the initial onset of laminar convection to fully turbulent flow.
Despite the function of the GFFC as an artificial gravity demonstrator, NASA does not clearly go into the explanation of its function, other than giving the impression of being some weird electrostatic effect. However, such a device is easily understood if one applies the second law of thermodynamics (AKA entropy law) to this isolated system. This law states that in a closed isolated system, such as the GFFC, the system will seek the configuration that minimizes the total energy available. To comply to this principle, we see that elements within the electric field of the GFFC with electric permittivity greater than the surrounding fluid permittivity will move into the higher electric field region (core) so that the total system energy decreases. However, elements with permittivity less than the surrounding fluid permittivity will move into the lower electric field region (surface of sphere) so that the total system energy decreases as well. This mechanism in fact is what drives buoyancy, convection motion, and gravity itself. Refer to Experiment 1 for further information on this effect.
Quantized Gravity
Researchers have measured the quantum effects of gravity for the first time, a significant breakthrough in the understanding of an enigmatic force at tiny scales. The work is reported in the Jan. 17 issue of the journal 'Nature'.
Gravity is relatively easy to observe in the everyday world of orbiting planets and falling apples. Yet even the smartest physicists don't know where gravity actually comes from. And on very small scales, in the so-called quantum realm of subatomic particles, the effect of gravity is so weak that its effects have never been seen. Theory says gravity should be at work there, nonetheless.
Quantum mechanics lays out rules for how electrons and other particles inside atoms (the quantum world) must behave. For example, an electron can only move from one position to another -- changing quantum states -- by jumping; it cannot slide smoothly from one position to another.
In theory, this rule applies to all matter under the influence of nature's four fundamental forces: electromagnetism, the so-called strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity. But with gravity, it's hard to tell, because things at the subatomic level are in constant motion. It's a frenetic place, really, full of what scientists call kinetic energy -- not unlike a very, very small version of a typical first-grade class just before recess. So the researchers, led by Valery Nesvizhevsky at the Laue-Langevin Institute in Grenoble, France, isolated hundreds of neutrons from all major effects except gravity, then watched them in a special detector as gravity pulled them down. It was not a smooth fall. As expected, the neutrons fell in quantum jumps.
"The work of Nesvizhevsky and colleagues could provide physicists with a new probe of the fundamental properties of matter," writes Thomas Bowles of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in an accompanying analysis in Nature. Bowles said the new observational technique might allow scientists to figure out why quantum mechanics is at odds with Einstein's theory of general relativity, which describes how gravity treats large objects in the universe. It might even solve a most elusive goal in helping researchers understand out what actually creates gravity, he said.
The Casimir effect is demonstrated by the following experiment. First, you simply set up a Faraday cage, which will shield the setup from all conventional energy fields, and you introduce a complete vacuum inside. Then, inside that area you take two perfectly flat metallic plates and move them very, very close to each other. Under these circumstances, when the two plates are moved together, they will experience a terrific attraction that seems to pull them together with a tremendous amount of force! This is what is known as the "Casimir Force", named after physicist Hendrick Casimir in 1948. This experimental effect also revealed that if you actually allow the two plates to completely merge, the force that binds them together is so powerful that you literally have to destroy them to take them apart. At first glance, the two plates seem to be the source of the force attracting each other, but further analysis shows that this force is a pushing force acting on the outer sides of the plates.
This is perhaps one of the most simple and clear setup to show the existence of the energy of free space or zero point energy. So, two parallel uncharged conducting plates are the original Casimir setup. The Casimir force between the two metal plates, separated in vacuum is given by:
http://blazelabs.com/f-efield.asp
where S is the surface area of the plates, d is their separation, h-bar is Planck's constant over 2pi, and c is the speed of light.
If we charge up these two plates like a capacitor, then we will energise the space fabric with energy E=0.5CV2=hf, thus the Casimir effect will be extended to act on vacuum energies with frequencies up to f. Before powering up, the Casimir effect acts on frequencies up to those wavelengths which can pass through the metal atoms. Thus, when energised, the attraction between plates should increase, and we know that it does increase, but someone might say, hey, that's because of electrostatic attraction between the plates. But, do you know what does 'electrostatic attraction or repulsion' really mean? Did you know, you can still have both repulsion & attraction effects within an uncharged Casimir setup? Or you really blindly beleive your old faithful physics textbook when it says 'opposite charges attract, same charges repel', of course no textbook says why.
The full equation relating Casimir force, between two dielectric plates, having permittivity e1 and e2 separated by dielectric element having permittivity e3, is given by:
1 > e3 > e2, the so called Casimir force is repulsive. For those sceptics who find it difficult to contradict their physics textbooks, have a look at the electrostatic force equation between two charges in space:
F= Q1 Q2 / (4 pi e0 r2)
What is e0 (permittivity of free space) doing in this equation? e0 defines permittivity of the vacuum fabric. If the vacuum energy was zero, then vacuum would not have a defined permittivity, permeability and impedance, hence no speed of light, no EM radiations, no radiation pressures and no 'electrostatic attraction' ! Simply stated, electrosatic force is not a property of charges !!
Electro-Dynamics
The term "Electro-Dynamics" applies to all systems that utilize electrical charge, or potential, to create useful work. This term therefore includes standard electrical circuits and, due to the nature of electromagnetism, will include magnetic properties. However, what sets electro-dynamic systems apart is that they ignore the magnetic effects in the design of the system. As applied to propulsion, electro-dynamic systems are predominantly ion generators and Grad E electron/ion/dielectric accelerators. It was the physicist T.T. Brown who probably held the most patents pertaining to these types of concepts. The most interesting result of Brown's work is his controversial claim that such Grad E systems will continue to produce thrust in a hard vacuum, even though the thrust is significantly reduced by many orders of magnitude. He put the minimum required voltage for such vacuum systems at 250 KV, with practical operational requirements at greater than 500 KV. In the presence of a dielectric medium (such as air, oil, ..etc) this voltage could be reduced to the 100 KV range to produce practical measurable thrust. Specifically, he saw that a directionalised Grad E produces an acceleration field, similar in all respects to gravitational field, and that this field, when superimposed on a gravitational acceleration field, will either add up or reduce the observed gravitational effect on the masses contained therein. He never claimed that the electric gradient WAS gravitation, only that it could directly modify observed gravitational effects. However, the fact that these two field effects superimpose each other in the same direction is quite curious. Thus the term Electro-Gravitics was coined.
Let's try by visualizing an electrical gradient. The best analogy is fluid flow. If the same amount of fluid flows through two different cross sectional areas, the velocity is inversely proportional to the cross sectional area size. Using this analogy, we conclude that the electric field magnitude |E| is proportional to the DENSITY OF THE FLUX LINES. Consider a typical convergent nozzle, example a rocket nozzle, with flow going from the small end to the large end. In this case, the fluid velocity is greater at the inlet that at the outlet, resulting in the deceleration from inlet to outlet. This decelerative action in the fluid results in an observed thrust on the nozzle (and rocket).
The direction of thrust in the above case is towards the small (convergent) end of the nozzle (typical rocket effect). Mathematically, we can state this as:
F = m(Vo2 - Vi2)/2L
Where F is the thrust, m is the mass of the mechanism generating the convergent field, Vi inlet velocity, Vo outlet velocity, and L is the length of the nozzle.
However, if one reverses the flow, both Vi & Vo will change sign, and the resulting acceleration on the nozzle does not reverse, but remains in the same direction. This is a key aspect of a flow field gradient, which is: "The resulting reactive acceleration (thrust) is always directed towards the convergent (smaller area) end of a nozzle.
Applying this directly to electric lines of force, we can clearly visualize the resulting force, which results in a force on a dielectric which tends towards the highest electric field gradient, independently of the polarity. If we take a capacitor with unequal surface areas, and thus unequal surface charge capacities on its plates, and apply a voltage across its terminals, we have a direct analogy to the nozzle discussed above. If the analogy holds, there should be a reactive force on the capacitor in the direction of the smaller plate due strictly to the convergence of the electrical lines of force - with no necessity of any charged ions floating within the dielectric, but just uncharged dielectric. But why should the analogy hold? First of all, we know it holds because experiment shows that a charged comb can attract small pieces of uncharged paper. This simple experiment is in most cases wrongly interpreted and usually given as a simple introductory demonstrator for electrostatics, but actually it might be better if it is used as a dielectrophoretic force demonstator.
So, why should a charged object have any effect on an isolated neutral dielectric. The formula F=q1q2/(4piEr*r2) gives F=0 if either q1 or q2 is zero, so NO electrostatic force should be present between a charged and an uncharged dielectric, and according to the electrostatic force law, the paper should not be attracted by the charged comb. The answer has to do with the polarization of a dielectric when it is placed in an electric field. In a neutral dielectric, there are equal charges of both signs, which under the influence of a linear electric field result in a net zero charge, and a net zero force. Hence if an uncharged dielectric is placed between two oppositely charged parallel plates, no net force will result acting on the dielectric. However, when placed in a non linear, localised charge or asymmetric E-field, there will be a net force towards the highest gradient.
As illustrated above, a dielectric in space is always drawn from the weaker to the stronger field, and the force is proportional to the gradient of the square of the electric field. The constant of proportionality involves the dielectric constant of the object, size and shape. Because each atom is of the order of 10-8 meters, the induced dipole moments on each atom experience slightly different magnitudes of electrical intensity and thus experiences a slight attraction towards the shaping (small end) electrode, resulting in a net non zero dipole moment. This will result in a flow of the dielectric medium (if a fluid) or directional stress (if a solid) directed towards the sharpest electrode. Along with this, if the electrodes are not insulated from the dielectric, the aforementioned dielectric flow can also carry ions/electrons along with it. Thus if the shaping electrode is positively charged, electron flow is enhanced creating an ion wind effect.
This force on a neutral particle equates to the so called dielectrophoretic force, F, which is given by the following general expression:
where alpha is the effective polarisability of the particle, E is the electric field, is the del vector operator, v is the particle volume, N is refractivity= n-1, where n is the refractive index and e its permittivity.
This equation confirms that the force is zero except in areas where the field is non-uniform.
http://blazelabs.com/f-efield.asp
Levitation or Gravity ControlText: "Gravity is nothing more than an attractive, sympathetic stream, flowing towards the neutral center of the earth, emanating from molecular centers of neutrality; concordant with the earth's center of neutrality, and seeking its medium of affinity with a power corresponding to the character of the molecular mass. Gravity, he defines as transmittive inter-etheric force under immense etheric vibration. He continues: - The action of the mind itself is a vibratory etheric evolution, controlling the physical, its negative power being depreciatory in its effects, and its positive influence elevating." [Chapter 5 of Keely and His Discoveries]
Keely’s Molecular MorphologyFeynman was not happy with the conventional view of orbiting electrons around a centralized nucleus. Just prior to his passing he conceived and published this "new" idea of what he thought was a better representation of the truth.
“The fact that the proton and neutron are made of charged particles going around inside them gives clues as to why the supposedly neutral neutron has no magnetic moment at all.” - Richard Feynman
Keely developed this idea in the 1880s - years before the electron was officially accepted in 1893. His concept bears near identical resemblance to Feynman's idea. Unlike Feynman, Keely went on to develop an entire science and applied technology using this paradigm
Do we understand the Neutral Center better. lolUsers browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests
